RE: Moritz Coastal Permit, Design Review, and Use Permit, APN 188-090-13

Dear Ms. Patri,

The Sierra Club – Marin Group and its 7,000 members remain concerned about the newly revised proposal.   The Planning Commission (PC-00-019) denied without prejudice the previously submitted project based on: 1) lack of clustering; 2) too large size; 3) exceeding the minimum size necessary to support agriculture, 4) poor relationship to, support of and compatibility with agricultural uses, 5) lack of minimal new road construction; and 6) lack of the least visually prominent location. Specifically, we ask that you again reject this application on the grounds that the revised project continues not to satisfy any of the above six concerns, nor the Sierra Club’s continuing concern about water:

1) Clustering

The revised proposal still retains two distinct development sites, with 10,096 square feet of new construction on the proposed knoll site and a 1,200 square feet residence remaining at the original site that is designated as a “life-estate for the prior owner”.  Regardless of what the applicants now choose to title their buildings, the physical locations lack the clustered development required in C-APZ zoning.

2) Size

The buildings existing when the applicant purchased the property totaled 6,796 square feet.This revised plan calls for a 66% increase to 11,296 square feet.Although the square footage designated as “single-family residence” has been reduced, it appears that this result has been achieved by outsourcing family uses to adjacent buildings designated as “agricultural.” The net result appears to be a trophy home compound of over 10,000 square feet, an excessive size that will impact adjacent lands.

3) Minimum Size Necessary for Agricultural Use

This proposal continues provide a damaging precedent for the redevelopment of ranch land into hilltop estates with a minor accent on agriculture.  The revised proposal constitutes an unnecessary burden on the Williamson Act in that it transfers tax advantages intended for working agricultural operations to instead subsidize residential estate owners.The overriding principal for parcels under Williamson Act and in Marin’s C-APZ zoning is that development shall be the minimum necessary, accessory to, and supportive of the agricultural use of the land.The buildings formerly used for agriculture totaled 6,796 square feet.This revised plan calls for a 66% increase to 11,296 total square feet, and thus cannot be considered the minimum necessary for agricultural operations.A handful of range cattle and a hobby orchard do not justify such a grand scale of construction on a small parcel of agricultural land. 

4) Compatibility with Agricultural Uses

Even assuming that the scale and location of the proposed development were significantly mitigated so as to conform to the Williamson Act and Marin’s C-APZ zoning, the applicants appear to be designing a site plan that would make it convenient to cease agricultural operations within a few years by removing the cattle and leaving the orchard as landscaping only. The County should examine the applicants’ current actions for indications that they are serious about keeping their land in agriculture.Specifically, the staff report of May 11, 2000 indicated, “in December 1999, the County issued a Building Permit for the barn, which is currently under construction.”However, after objections to the applicants’ clustering proposed development in two separate locations, the May 18, 2001 Transmittal notes the “barn, which had collapsed and was demolished within this [lower] complex, will not be rebuilt at this site as previously permitted by the County, but it is proposed to be constructed at the proposed new uphill development site.”Thus it would appear that the applicants' caused one of the few remaining old dairy barns in Bolinas to be deliberately destroyed in order to reconstruct the structure in a new location more suitable for family uses.Likewise, the existing residence at the lower agricultural site, newly proposed as a “life-estate for the prior owner”, is much more likely to be used short-term as the farmworker residence, while the newly constructed “farmworker” residence proposed in the midst of the family compound is much more likely to be used long-term for guests.This arrangement makes much more likely the eventual “collapse” of the remaining original agricultural building and operations, leaving only the newly constructed family compound standing on the visually prominent knoll. 

5) Minimal New Road Construction

This revised proposal contemplates using most all of the same road as the previous proposal.The Planning Commission had already noted that this road does not qualify as an “existing” road and would be considered new construction.The revised project proposes 2,200 feet of new road construction, which continues not to qualify as “minimal new road construction.”

6) Least Prominent Visual Location

In rejecting the original application in 2000, the Planning Commission indicated its preference for a less visible and lower-elevation building site, such as the site of the original ranch compound.  While the former proposal contemplated 8082 square feet of construction on the property’s visually prominent knoll, the revised proposal contemplates an even grander complex of 10,096 square feet of buildings, an increase of 25% more square footage on the same visually prominent site.This revised compound would become the highest elevation hilltop development in the Bolinas area and perhaps in the whole Olema Valley.   Although a “visual screen” of fruit trees is now proposed to surround the revised compound, such a visual screen, if effective, would eliminate the views both of the compound and from the compound.Since the presumed point in locating the compound at such a visually prominent elevation is to provide for views from the compound, the Sierra Club concludes that the proposed surrounding fruit trees are not truly intended to nor would they be able to provide an effective visual screen of the compound.Furthermore, the effectiveness of any visual screen during the day is significantly diminished during the night, when the proposed compound would be as visible as a lighthouse on a promontory.In summary, the revised proposed development would result in increased impacts to the viewsheds of the Point Reyes National Seashore, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Mount Tamalpais State Park, Marin County Open Space District, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, Audubon Canyon Ranch, and the towns of Stinson Beach and Bolinas.

7) The proposal threatens Pine Gulch Creek

As previously noted, the Park Service, Marin County, and local crop farmers have been working on a water conservation plan which provides enough water for endangered salmonids while sustaining the farms.  The Vierra ranch has operated decades utilizing spring water, but the proposed hobby orchard would use considerably more water.Furthermore, the timing of the peak need for orchard water coincides with the timing of the peak need for salmonid water, a coincidence that could further stress an endangered species.Throughout Marin County, water districts are engaged in long-standing campaigns to educate water users to landscape with drought-resistant natives.In that context, it seems particularly inappropriate for the revised proposal to suggest a fruit orchard as a landscaped visual screen.While acknowledging, “The Moritz family is sensitive to the issue of intensive water usage in an area known for water shortages,” the revised proposal suggests nothing that would protect Pine Gulch Creek or its endangered species. In the opinion of the Sierra Club, endangered species habitat must be protected by limiting both riparian rights and well withdrawals to avoid adverse effects on the surface flow or underflow of Pine Gulch Creek and its tributaries.

The Sierra Club- Marin Group feels strongly that the Moritz proposal is a critical case for agriculture in Marin.We understand the Moritz family’s desire to construct their dream compound, however, this must be accomplished on residentially zoned land.We urge Planning Department staff to recommend to the Planning Commission that it fulfill its responsibility to uphold the values of Marin's agricultural land by rejecting the revised Moritz application.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

Gordon Bennett, Conservation Committee Co-Chair