Half Moon Bay planning panel renews goat-grazing permits, adopts residual-dry-matter monitoring and five-year review

The Half Moon Bay Planning Commission on May 13 approved amendments to two coastal development permits to continue goat- and sheep-grazed vegetation management on city-owned properties and on a SAM (sewer authority) parcel, adopting a residual dry matter (RDM) monitoring method, a five-year review requirement and a request that staff seek confirmation from the local fire marshal that a monitoring program for ungrazed areas is in place.

The changes replace a condition that previously required “a minimum average vegetation height of no less than 6 inches” with an RDM protocol measured in pounds per acre and add a directive that staff report back if the fire marshal does not respond to requests for confirmation of monitoring; the commission also asked biologists to flag instances of overgrazing (identified during the meeting as an RDM below about 350 pounds per acre) and to adjust management as needed.

Project planners said the two permits cover properties on both the east and west sides of Highway 1, including the familiar Beechwood/Glen Creek areas and lands near Pilacitos Creek and a Caltrans mitigation pond. Doug Garrison, project planner, told the commission this is primarily a five-year program check-in required by the permits and not a permit “sunset”: “to make it clear, this is not a sunset date that says the permit expires,” Garrison said, and added the commission could direct staff to continue, alter the review interval or delegate future reviews to the planning director.

Biologist Jessie Brenton McBean explained why staff recommended residual dry matter monitoring instead of the 6-inch stubble standard: “RDM measures the amount of dry grasses, forbs, and also the leaves that are left on the, shrubs that are out there on a plot of land, and it measures this in pounds per acre,” she said. She described the field technique — clipping vegetation inside a small hoop, drying and weighing the clippings, and extrapolating pounds per acre — and said the RDM method better captures mixed vegetation conditions on the sites and supports adaptive management. McBean described a working target range of roughly 500 to 1,500 pounds per acre as an operational goal, and said a handful of clip plots tied to a photo library would let monitors make ocular estimates across larger areas.

Staff described operational details now in place: annual site assessments by retained biologists, GPS mapping of no-graze areas, staking and temporary fencing, and the common use of “paddocks” so goats are moved in stages to avoid overgrazing. Planners also said operators sometimes use a mix of sheep and goats because the two graze different plants, and that limited use of a weed whacker has been allowed under biologist supervision to clear paths for fences when sites were initially overgrown.

The city and SAM permits initially included a 50-foot buffer from mapped riparian vegetation in some areas. Staff recommended removing a blanket 50-foot buffer from the permit text while retaining biologist authority to establish or expand protected areas on a site-specific basis. Garrison said the strict buffer had been developed when mechanical equipment was anticipated, and that grazing poses a different set of effects: “Most of these protocols were specifically to protect those two species,” he said, referring to the California red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake, “and again, with the switch to grazing, there's minimal potential for harm to wildlife.” He added that in some places withholding grazing can allow invasive weeds to spread and reduce fuel-reduction effectiveness, and that biologists retain discretion to protect sensitive patches.

Public comment included a long statement from resident and former appellant Michael (Mike) Ferreira, who said he had appealed the original permit years ago and urged continued caution: “that's a notorious property on Beechwood … that's basically what I was appealing. It's the worst settlement decision I've ever heard of environmentally in the state of California,” he said, and urged strict adherence to delineated wetland boundaries and tight control of grazing operations. Staff noted they had received email comments from biologist Dr. Mark Jennings; staff said Jennings told them “there are numerous examples of well-managed grazing programs coexisting with California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes,” though he did not recommend grazing in wetlands or riparian areas.

Commissioners discussed frequency of checks and fire-safety oversight. Staff and a member of the commission said the Coastal-area fire district issued a correction notice in May 2019 and had not followed up with a new correction since, which staff offered as evidence that current management had reduced immediate concerns. Commissioners asked staff to seek an affirmative confirmation from the fire marshal that a monitoring program exists for ungrazed parcels and to report back if the fire district does not respond.

On separate motions the commission approved amended permit actions for both items. Commissioner Hernandez moved the amendments — which added a five-year review period, direction to seek confirmation from the fire marshal regarding monitoring of ungrazed areas, and attention to overgrazing (with staff to treat RDM readings below about 350 pounds per acre as an indicator that the program should be adjusted) — and the commission approved both actions on 4-0 votes. The roll calls recorded Commissioners Gossett, Hernandez and Rems and Chair Reddick voting yes on both items.

Staff identified the practical elements that will guide implementation: annual biologist reports tied to the RDM metric, GPS staking and temporary fencing to protect no-graze areas, and the biologist’s authority to expand protective buffers when field conditions warrant. Staff also noted logistical constraints — livestock availability, paddock setup needs and the seasonal timing of grazing — will shape the precise calendar for operations.

The commission’s action keeps the grazing program in place with a more ecology-focused metric and explicit follow-up steps on fire oversight and overgrazing, while preserving biologist discretion to protect defined wetlands and other sensitive habitat. The commission also instructed staff to return in five years (or sooner if circumstances require) to review monitoring results and program performance.