Tomales Bay Oyster Company has withdrawn an application to legalize its booming retail operations and develop a parking area in Marshall, after county staffers recommended that the Planning Commission deny it. But a revised proposal is forthcoming that will likely include, among other things, a reduction in the number of picnic tables, four new worker housing units and a new hatchery, according to a letter that the company sent to supervisor Steve Kinsey on Monday.
Though the commission will no longer hold a hearing on the application today as scheduled, they still plan to discuss the complex issues involved with legalizing the oyster farm’s current operations at its 1 p.m. meeting today.
In recent years, the oyster company has transformed from a wholesaler to a busy retail operation, operating seven days a week with over 80 picnic tables on the shore of Tomales Bay. These and other aspects of current operations were never authorized in its use permit, last updated in 1987. Safety concerns have also been raised, as throngs of customers regularly park and walk along Highway 1.
The oyster farm’s withdrawn application, submitted in 2013 in response to a code enforcement case, sought to legalize current operations. It also proposed a new septic system, additional parking on a recently purchased 26-acre parcel across the highway from the farm, and reactivating an unused well.
But county planners objected to the proposal in a staff report released late last week. The report asserted that, in the context of the application, a parking lot should not be permitted on the new parcel, which is zoned for agricultural production, and that the application did not fully address traffic hazards. Staff also said that the current parcel’s zoning allows for retail but not onsite consumption. That’s a serious issue since the bulk of customers come to crack and grill their bivalves right next to the bay where the oysters are harvested.
Zoning for the newly purchased eastern parcel does allow for those kinds of uses, and planners suggest that the entire retail operation might be relocated, using the bayside parcel for processing. In a scenario where the eastern land is used for picnicking and worker housing, planner Curtis Havel said a parking area might be permissible, as there would be “a variety of uses—including a parking lot—which are all supportive of the primary agricultural operation, which is a production facility located on the west side of the road.
Peter Prows, a lawyer for T.B.O.C. majority owner Tod Friend, questioned whether the tables truly need permits. But, he added, “We’re open to moving tables across the street. He’s not being dogmatic here.”
The new hatchery and processing facility proposed by T.B.O.C. would be run by Kevin Lunny, former owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Farm, which was closed down last December.
While T.B.O.C. develops a new proposal, the oyster farm has no active application. Theoretically, the county could attempt to enforce the current code, restricting the operation to those uses described in the 1987 permit—an option mentioned in the staff report.
“I hope they don’t take that step,” Mr. Prows said. “We’re supposed to encourage public access to the coast, not shut down a successful farm that attracts a lot of people.”
Mr. Havel said that the county is still discussing “next steps” regarding code enforcement, though he doesn’t foresee an overnight rehaul of operations.