Tonight, Jan. 17, the County is holding the last of two community outreach meetings for the draft Green Building Permit Program.  It will be held at the El Granada School from 7 to 9 p.m.

Proposed by Supervisor Mark Church the program is designed to encourage conservation of natural resources & energy, reduce waste in landfills from construction projects, reduce operation and maintenance costs for buildings, and to promote healthier indoor environments. 

Although many of these goals are implemented in our current planning and building standards, the goal of the County of to have new projects exceed the Title 24 standards by at least 15%.  The ordinance says: "Approval of any new building permit for new construction or a 75% remodel of a single-family dwelling, a two-family dwelling, or a multi-family residential project will require that the project receives 50 Green Points or higher on the appropriate GreenPoint Rated checklist or LEED certification.  Applicants will be required to post a bond…of $2,000, or $1.50 per square foot,... which ever is higher."  The bond will be released when the project achieves verification of a score of 50 GreenPoints or higher.  If residential builders choose to participate at the GreenPoint rating level of 75 points they will be given expedited building permit processing.

The committee to create this program included a wide variety of members:  April Vargas, homeowner; Lennie Roberts; Jessica and Paulo Resmini, homeowners who have recently remodeled; Drew Maran, builder; Dave Edwards, builder; Randy Ralston, builder; Ann Edminster, architect & LEED Evaluator; Gladwyn d’Souza, Sustainable San Mateo County Committee member; Bill Nack, Building Trades Council.  The program will be evaluated over the next year and may possibly expanded to less than remodels of less than 75%.

You can download a copy of the draft from Coastsider.

If you cannot attend you may email your comments to
Lisa Grote at [email protected]   or
Mike OConnell at [email protected]. 

Written comments can be mailed to :

San Mateo County Planning and Building Division
455 County Ctr., 2nd Floor
Redwood city, CA 94063

The editorial in today’s Chronicle blames slow-growth policies for the Yamagiwa decision, leading with "The taxpayers of Half Moon Bay may find out that slow-growth policies can come with a cost."

Somehow the Chronicle missed the facts of the case, as reported by the, um, San Francisco Chronicle:

Walker ruled that the city had created the wetlands - and damaged the property - by botching a storm drain project and by allowing dirt to be removed for a nearby housing development. Its wetlands status meant the plot could not be developed under state coastal regulation.

The simple fable that environmentalists are responsible for the Yamagiwa decision is very appealing. It allows the assignment of blame, it sounds like poetic justice, and fits with a popular theme in right-wing radio: that property owners have lost their rights to busybodies. And you, sir, are no longer safe in your own home, author of your own fate, or master of your domain.

At Tuesday night’s meeting, the Half Moon Bay City Council voted unanimously to appeal the Yamagiwa decision and introduced its new attorneys for the appeal: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe of San Francisco.  While the decision itself was not terribly surprising, the County Times reported that the decision received "mixed support from the audience". Coastsider was there and will have gavel-to-gavel video of the meeting online as soon as possible.

"We believe the judge’s decision is erroneous and contains many grounds for appeal ... and we are confident in our position," added John Knox, a partner with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.

Knox would not say what those grounds of appeal might be. He did say that, typically, an appeals case will proceed differently from the case Walker heard, which was filled with technical evidence and expert testimony concerning the presence of wetlands on the Beachwood site and the city’s role in dealing with them. Heard by a three-judge panel, this case will look at whether Walker correctly applied the law or consider errors made by the judge — legal, procedural or otherwise, according to Knox.

Walker has yet to issue a final document in the case, also called a judgment, which will outline pre- and post-judgment interest Keenan’s law firm is hoping Half Moon Bay will pay. A separate document, due in to Walker by Dec. 28, will enumerate the legal fees the city will have to pay if it does not appeal.

It’s still unclear whether the city will have to post a bond to appeal or how much money the city will have to borrow to fund the effort. The council voted to hired investment banker Piper Jaffray to assist with financing.

A lot of Coastsiders are confused by the $37 million Yamagiwa decision. That’s not surprising. They’re being fed misinformation by people who know better. If you listen to Coastside property rightists, you’d think that this decision was a repudiation of the environmentalists.

That is nonsense.

Yamagiwa is not about whether the city of Half Moon Bay has the right to define wetlands, whether Beachwood contains wetlands, or whether the declaration of wetlands at Beachwood was a taking of property. That was settled in the city’s favor years ago.

Yamagiwa is not about property owners having their rights taken away by environmentalists.  The "taking" outlined by judge Walker was the creation of wetlands as the accidental consequence of actions by pro-development, pre-environmentalist Half Moon Bay city councils in the 1980s and 90s.

Coastside property rightists claim to have read the decision, but you wouldn’t know it from their analysis. The issue in the Yamagiwa case was the origin of the wetlands.  Ironically, the court says that the wetlands were created in the 1980s when the city was trying to make Beachwood and nearby property more developable.

It would be easy for for Coastside environmentalists to point fingers at sloppy city governments ready to grease the skids for poorly planned development. Instead, they’re calling for calm and solidarity, while the property rightists see this as an opportunity to flog their usual solutions.

Judge Walker handed Chop Keenan an arbitrary and capricious victory that should lose if the City appeals. The case revolved around a simple argument, that the city created wetlands in 1984 where none existed before. The City provided witnesses and testimony to the contrary, but the judge’s summary findings of "fact" only cited the witnesses’ for the plaintiff, none from the City.

There is lots of blame and a host of irrelevancies spewed by many who, while acting doleful, are actually gleeful about this loony decision. Well known operators like Terry Gossett (Californians for Property Rights), George Muteff (past candidate for HMB City Council) and CCWD’s Directors Chris Mickelsen and Jim Larimer are wildly pointing fingers at Mike Ferreira and other League for Coastside Protection-backed council members of the late 90’s and post-2000 years for standing up to Developer Keenan’s blustering legal assault. Remember that Keenan had twice lost in State court claiming there were no wetlands at Beachwood. Blaming the officials forced to defend the city against this wealthy and determined individual is merely politics as usual here on the Coastside.

Having moved onto the east end of Terrace in 1976, and living just 120 feet across from the southeast edge of Beachwood, I grasped that this area was a wetland biome in my first encounter. Why? Maybe it was the two mature Arroyo Willows on my property (photos and description of where they’re found: http://www.calflora.net/bloomingplants/arroyowillow.html , or the patchwork of willows extending north and northwest into the fields that constitute Beachwood.

Leaving aside the hydrology the case turned on for a moment, the inhabiting birds were wetland species. Lincoln sparrows and Rough legged hawks in the winter, breeding Yellowthoats and Swainson thrushes in the summer. There was an intermittent creek that flowed from a ravine near the high school southeast past my property and north out into Beachwood. By mid summer, some stagnant pools usually remained with aquatic garter snakes and Rough skinned newts, dragonfly nymphs and water striders. There were other wetland plant species like grasses, mint, sedges, a whole community that did not just magically appear the year I arrived. However much of this disappeared after 1984 because of the engineering effort to alter the drainage of the overall area.

In an experiment, we’re embedding a copy of the Yamagiwa (a.k.a Beachwood) decision in our home page. It may take a few seconds to load, but you should be able to use the site in the meantime, and it’s a lot faster than downloading all 167 pages.  The copy you see here can be zoomed or you can go to any page almost instantly. Take a moment to give it a try.

This would be a good place to put comments (with page references) regarding the decision itself. For example, visit page 101 for the calculation of damages.

Now that the rainy season has begun, many of us have flooding on our minds.

The San Mateo County Midcoast Storm Drainage Committee is looking for some public input.  In particular, they want to learn about specific flooding problems that people are having in Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada, Princeton and Miramar.  If you need to use sandbags to protect your property from flooding in the winter, or if you have a neighbor with this problem, please contact committee member Steve Lowens [email protected].

Friday morning the California Coastal Commission unanimously found No Substantial Issue on George Muteff’s appeal of the Carnoustie subdivision—as recommended by the Commission staff report. The development was supported by citizens from across the Coastside political spectrum.

Mr. Muteff spoke first, in support of his case.

Speaking against were Bruce Russell of Kenmark (the project’s developer), and Half Moon Bay City Council members Bonnie McClung and John Muller.

Letters supporting Muteff’s appeal were filed by Dale Dunham, Terry Gossett, Jerry Steinberg, Lucy Lopez, and Ron Sturgeon.

Letters supporting No Substantial Issue were filed by John Lynch, Mike Ferreira, Hal Bogner, Sofia Freer, Kathryn Slater-Carter, Kenneth King, James Henderson, Dana Kimsey & Scott Boyd (League for Coastside Protection), Stephan Freer, Lennie Roberts (Committee for Green Foothills), Edie Cook, Bob Cook, Terence Ainscow, John and Marcia Traversaro, Alan Alifano (Ocean Colony Homeowners Association), and Charise McHugh (Chamber of Commerce).

NOTE: The County Times has a really good article on this property and its acquisition.

Today the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) announced that it has acquired Mindego Hill, a stunning 1,047-acre property near the town of La Honda on the San Francisco Peninsula.

This distinct natural landmark and historic ranch visually dominates the western flank of Skyline Ridge just off Alpine Road. With its top-of-the-world views, rich wildlife habitat and excellent trail connections to adjacent Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve, the land is perfectly situated to become a major addition to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and a spectacular public recreation resource for Silicon Valley and beyond.

"The protection of Mindego Hill is a dream come true," said Audrey Rust, POST president. "Looking west from Russian Ridge, you can see Mindego Hill rising up in front of you, just out of arm’s reach. It’s so enticing, and the hill beckons you to hike and explore it, but as private property, it’s always been off-limits. Now that’s about to change, as POST works to transfer the land as soon as possible to a public agency for trail development and permanent protection."

Currently a working cattle ranch, Mindego Hill lies close to Silicon Valley near the intersection of Skyline Boulevard and Alpine Road. Breathtaking panoramic vistas unfurl from its 2,143-foot summit, including views of MROSD’s Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve, San Gregorio Creek Valley, Pomponio Creek Valley and, on the far western horizon, the Pacific Ocean.