Issue: Nick's Cove Master Plan

Letter from Gordon Bennett on June 14, 2001
Nick's Cove Working Group c/o Gordon Bennett
E:GBatMuirB@aol.com
June 14, 2001

Johanna Patri
Marin County Community Development Agency
Civic Center, Room 308, 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903

RE: 3 Sons LLC (Nick's Cove) Master Plan, Coastal Permit, Precise Development Plan and Tidelands Permit

Dear Ms. Patri,

I am writing on behalf of the 7,000 Marin County members of the Sierra Club to express our concerns on the above project.  These concerns echo those of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin concerning this project. In our opinion, the application is still incomplete on a number of points in addition to those the applicants have acknowledged.  Also, we continue to have serious reservations about the merits of the project, which we will address in a subsequent letter.

The Master Plan Waiver is our chief concern with respect to completeness.  The applicant is proposing development on the Zimmerman property.  Any development on land zoned C-APZ requires a Master Plan or a Master Plan Waiver.  Accordingly, there should be a separate application for the Zimmerman property Master Plan.  So far, there is no such application, merely a Water, Well, Spring, and Septic/Leachfield Agreement between Mr. Zimmerman and the applicant.  This Agreement does not constitute the "written documentation verifying agreement with the application for a Master Plan Waiver" as required by the County, nor does this Agreement constitute the direct application we believe is required.  We believe that this project's proposed off-site septic and water developments on Ag zoned property for the purpose of enlarging a commercial operation would constitute a major change in county land use policies with far-reaching implications.  We believe that until the Board of Supervisors has had a chance to decide on this issue through its consideration of the Master Plan documents, the rest of this application is extremely premature.

Nevertheless, other completeness issues in this application are:

  1. The Plot Map showing the off-site septic and water systems is inadequate.  It is on a much smaller scale than all the other maps and detail is lacking.
  2. There is insufficient information about the water supply from the Poncia Ranch.  If that contract is not renewed, where will the water for irrigation, fire protection, and the four other houses come from?
  3. There is insufficient information about the water supply from the Zimmerman Ranch.  What percentage of the total water needs of the proposed project could the Zimmerman water supply?
  4. The Structural Analysis of the Piers is inadequate.  The engineer's report still seems to be based on a visual inspection only.  In addition, it does not include the required weight-load calculations and was not prepared by a licensed structural engineer.
  5. The Water Analysis is inadequate.  It does not provide information about potential pollutants, including MTBE.
  6. The Traffic and Parking survey is inadequate.  Among the questions it raises are: Has any government agency ranked Highway 1 as a Class I or Class II highway?
  7. Does the Trip Generation analysis (in which the 130 seat restaurant is assumed to generate 365 trips on a peak weekend day) take into account all-day meal and bar service or just a single meal?
  8. What evidence is there that boaters using the pier will not require parking at the site?  Is it assumed that only boats already berthed in Tomales Bay will come to Nick's Cove?
  9. What will be the impact of the added traffic entering and leaving Nick's Cove on that curving stretch of Highway 1, as opposed to the overall Highway 1 traffic?
  10. What are the safety implications of having the restaurant on one side of Highway 1 and almost all the parking on the other side?
  11. What parking is provided for users of the retail oyster operation?
  12. The Staff parking requirements are unclear.   Manager of similar-sized  establishments indicate that at peak periods a restaurant kitchen would require 8 or 9 staffers, from cooks, to prep chefs to dishwashers, rather than the three the applicant proposes.  This will have implications for parking.
  13. The Wastewater Disposal Systems Documentation is inadequate.   Among other things, it does not state the total expected daily flow or the minimum required septic capacity for guest and residential bedrooms and for the restaurant.
 Notwithstanding our having raised these questions, we firmly believe-as we have said in earlier letters--that this application should not even be considered until the County decides the larger issue of whether the proposed off-site septic and water developments can even be undertaken.  This requires Master Plan documents both for the Nick's Cove property and for the Zimmerman property.  Until this matter is addressed and resolved, it would be premature to spend more time on-or invest more money in-this application.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the completeness of this application.  We will follow up this letter with another to comment on the merits of the above proposal.

Sincerely,
 

Gordon Bennett, Conservation Co-Chair
 


Letter from Gordon Bennett on February 5, 2001
Nick’s Cove Working Group c/o Gordon Bennett
Email: GBatMuirB@aol.com
February 5, 2001

Johanna Patri, Community Development Agency

3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903
Re:3 Sons LLC (Nick's Cove) Master Plan (01-7), Coastal Permit 

(01-26), Precise Development Plan (01-8), and Tidelands Permit (01-5)

Dear Ms. Patri:

On behalf of the 7,000 Marin County members of the Sierra Club, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the above applications and believe them to be incomplete on several important points.

Overview: The Sierra Club believes that this proposal goes far beyond historic renovation to create a substantially new use that is much too large for the property.If the proposal were to go forward, it would require exemptions from County regulations regarding septic, parking, streamside protection, and bayfill, among others. The Sierra Club believes that appropriate renovations of this historic property can and should be accomplished within the framework of existing regulations.

Septic: The applicants propose that wastewater disposal systems for much of the project will be located off-site in order to bring existing structures up to current public health standards.However, the Sierra Club believes that this condition has only come about for existing structures because the applicant has used up existing on-site capacity for proposed new structures.The Sierra Club requests that the County confirm that the existing septic capacity of this property must first be used to provide septic for existing structures; that no new or expanded structures would be allowed to have off-site disposal; and under what circumstances C-APZ zoning could be violated to serve commercial "existing uses.”

“Existing”: The Sierra Club questions the application’s designation of several existing uses.We believe there are only three “existing” uses that qualify for septic renovation: the restaurant (at historic capacity) and two houses where the former owner and her son lived (labeled C7 and C8).It is our understanding that structure C6 and the bayside cabins have not been inhabited for decades and should not be considered existing uses as far as septic is concerned.Furthermore, page 2 of the application notes that the size of the existing restaurant is 6544 square feet, yet the letter from Johanna Patri to William Kirsch date August 18, 2000 states the size as 2316 square feet.Likewise, it is not clear whether the "new" restaurant includes the 1450 square foot deck at the rear of the restaurant.We request that the County determine which uses on this property qualify as "existing uses," as opposed to zoned or permitted uses and clarify the sizes of the existing and new uses.

Bayfill: The applicants propose to enlarge the existing restaurant deck, build a new "work deck" by the pier, and add new decks to the bayside cabins. The Sierra Club believes these non-historic decks in Tomales Bay constitute additional fill, which we vigorously oppose.We request that the County confirm that any rebuilding of decks over Tomales Bay should be strictly limited to the existing dimensions.The applicants also propose to rebuild the pier based on its contribution to local mariculture from the ability to buy fish direct from local fishers, but it is our understanding that California State law prohibits such direct fisher-to-restaurant sales. Furthermore, the Sierra Club questions the applicants’ designation of “historic” uses at the pier. We believe that there never has been a "smokehouse" at the end of the pier and we request the County to confirm the evidence for such.We further request that the County confirm that should there be any rebuilding of the pier, it should be strictly limited to the existing dimensions and existing pier footings.The application also refers to repairing an existing “breakwater,” yet the Sierra Club does not know of any such structure on the property, nor have we have been unable to locate any breakwater on the applicants’ maps.The Sierra Club is opposed to any additional fill in Tomales Bay and requests that the County require the applicants to provide more information about the breakwater, including any evidence of its historic basis, and details of any repair plans.

Creek and Streamside Conservation Area (SCA): The applicants propose to create a "freshwater wetland" as mitigation for the planned bayfill.The Sierra Club is opposed to additional fill in Tomales Bay and thus finds any offsetting mitigation unnecessary.However, applicants have recently created significant damage to the existing creek and adjacent wetlands that should be mitigated.Therefore, as an offset to the current riparian damage, and not to the proposed bayfill, we wish to raise several concerns about the applicants’ wetland restoration plans.First of all, the mitigation appears to be a pond, which would simply pull water from the already stressed creek.Second, the landscaping plan is confusing in that the list of "Riparian plants (typical)" on Sheet 19 includes several that are actually of saltwater plants.Likewise confusing is the one example given of a "Riparian tree (typical)", Salix babylonica, which is not native to California.Third, the "Creek enhancement detail" calls for the placement of "indigenous boulders" in the creek to simulate "a mountain stream," an unlikely geological formation in the mélange east of the fault.Lastly, several uses appear to infringe on the SCA zone.The Sierra Club believes that if the creek and adjacent wetlands are restored, then they should be restored in relation to their place in the coastal zone, re-vegetated with natives, and ensured the full protection of the streamside conservation area, as called for in the Countywide Plan and the Local Coastal Program. 

Parking: Applicants propose that some parking for this project be located off site and some located within the SCA.The Sierra Club believes that parking for Nick's Cove should be accommodated on the Nick's Cove property, and no parking should be permitted in the streamside conservation area.

Recreational boating facilities:  The application (p. 5) refers to "boat slips and a pier that will be available for public recreation."Both Point Reyes National Seashore and the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary have documented numerous problems in Tomales Bay with recreational boaters disturbing roosting and foraging birds and resting seals.The recent tainting of Tomales Bay oysters with Norwalk virus was likely caused by a recreational boater.The two-stroke motors common on recreational motorboats dump as much as 30% of their fuel into the Bay.The Sierra Club is opposed to any program that will increase recreational boating on pristine Tomales Bay.The Sierra Club requests that the County obtain from the applicant information relating to the level of recreational boating these facilities are proposed to support, where the parking for these facilities is proposed and any the impact on Tomales Bay of an increase in recreational boating in this vicinity.

Manager's residence: The application is confusing as to whether the manager will be housed on-site and there do not appear to be any parking and septic considerations for the manager's unit.Without an on-site manager’s unit, the project will to add to the affordable housing deficit in West Marin by converting to guest cottages the two houses where the former owner and her son lived as the previous on-site managers

Oyster beds:The application’s proposed oyster beds violate the LCP wherever they are located. On Page 8, the oyster beds are said to be "below the low-tide line," while on p. 4 of Appendix A, they are said to be "within the tidelands located on the property." The Sierra Club believes that the LCP should not be violated, but in the unlikely event that the proposal goes forward with this use, then we request that the County require from the applicants clarification as to the location of the beds and justification as to why the LCP should be violated.

Staffing: The applicants indicate on page 2 that the restaurant staff will not include a manager, host, or busboys, yet a lifeguard is listed.The Sierra Club questions whether this is a reasonable staffing level and requests clarification of the function of a lifeguard. 

Summary: the Sierra Club believes that this proposal goes far beyond any reasonable historic renovation to create a substantially new use that is much too large for the property.If the applicants’ proposal were to go forward, it would require exemptions from County regulations regarding wastewater disposal, parking, streamside conservation area protection, and bayfill, among others.The Sierra Club believes that appropriate historic renovations can and should be accomplished within the framework of existing regulations.In particular, the Sierra Club wishes to underscore our request that before proceeding further, the County clarify what exactly constitutes an "existing use" and how "existing uses" affect C-APZ zoning.

Though we have raised other issues in addition to the question of completeness, we have not raised all our detailed concerns and reserve the right to raise such when we have more information from the applicants.Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Gordon Bennett, Conservation Committee Co-Chair