Last week a county judge placed a third party “receiver” in control of the Last Resort, an elaborate Lagunitas hillside property belonging to pioneering tea importer David Lee Hoffman.
In a strongly worded preliminary order issued before last Friday’s hearing, Judge Paul Haakenson wrote that Mr. Hoffman had “defiantly ignored the County’s efforts to have him bring his properties within the law, all while engaging in additional unpermitted building.”
Under the court order, receiver Eric Beatty, a San Bernadino County-based lawyer, will evaluate the property and determine the best course of action for abating its “deficiencies and violations,” whether through rehabilitation, demolition, or other methods. Mr. Beatty also has the power to temporarily or permanently relocate Mr. Hoffman, though at the hearing he expressed his intention to retain shared control.
Marin County first took Mr. Hoffman to court three years ago over the numerous unpermitted structures he has built over the last four decades. The property features a host of Asian-inspired buildings, tea aging caves and systems that recycle stormwater, kitchen greywater and so-called “blackwater.” The last system, which Mr. Hoffman has named Le Grand Pissoir, is an outdoor toilet that delivers human waste to earthworms, which turn it into nitrogen-rich compost. Mr. Hoffman—who is widely credited for bringing artisanal Chinese tea to the United States—has called the water systems he has devised his life’s work. A petition circulating online to save the site has garnered over 1,500 signatures.
But the county has said that the buildings and water systems, all constructed without permits, violate a host of state and county rules regarding the environment, land use and public health and safety. The county also said it is illegal for Mr. Hoffman to cave-age the pu-erh tea for his business, the Phoenix Collection, out of a residence.
At last week’s hearing, Mr. Hoffman’s attorney, Paul Smith, implored the judge to forego appointing the receiver, who charges $325 an hour and also receives a fee of eight percent of the cost of the construction work—costs for which Mr. Hoffman is ultimately responsible. The appointment of a receiver would amount to a “fait accompli” because the financial hardship would likely cause Mr. Hoffman to lose the property, Mr. Smith said.
Mr. Hoffman’s property tax bill alone is over $300,000, including a $226,000 fine from a 2012 court order. According to state law, if a property owner fails to pay property taxes for five years, local governments can place the property on the public auction block.
Prior to the order, Mr. Smith made several requests that were ultimately rejected. He called for mediation, pointing to a recently completed hydrological study of the property as evidence that his client was working in good faith to assess the issues with the property. If a receiver must be appointed, he claimed that act should trigger an environmental review process under state law.
Mr. Smith also objected to the appointment of Mr. Beatty in particular, as he has “limited Northern California experience” and his office is near that of Charisse Smith, the lawyer hired by the county to handle the case.
Ms. Smith countered that the code violations with the county has been “going on so long” that the receiver was necessary to bring the situation to a conclusion. In a follow up email this week, she said that Mr. Beatty was one of many receivers she has worked with in her career.
The judge also determined that no environmental review is necessary, in part because no demolition can take place without further court approval. “If construction/demolition activity under any of those permits can arguably be said to have a significant effect on the environment…only then will CEQA review potentially be triggered,” the final order says.
Despite last-minute revisions to the order that made it slightly less stringent, Mr. Smith voiced fears about what the receiver may do. As to whether the receiver would work with Mr. Hoffman and his team, Mr. Smith said after the hearing, “The county and the receiver say that, but the order doesn’t say that.”
Mr. Hoffman, who is 71, has expressed hope that, should he lose the property, a nonprofit will acquire it as an educational center for sustainable living systems. But he fears that little will remain by the time the process is done—and that no organization would be able to take it on due to the high fines attached to the property.
“There’s an old Tibetan saying,” he said after the hearing. “Pain is what we measure pleasure by.”