Spurred by close scrutiny and virulent opposition to almost 9,000 square feet of proposed new development on the site of a dilapidated monastery in Inverness Park, Tim Westergren, the owner of the music streaming service Pandora, is pursuing further studies to submit to county planners to prove his project’s merit. 

Locals packed the Inverness Yacht Club last Wednesday to air their fears to the Inverness Association and representatives of Mr. Westergren and his wife, Smita Singh, who bought 135 Balboa in 2008 and recently completed their formal application to the county for a coastal development permit and design review. Comments on Wednesday evening centered on four topics: the proposed removal of 46 trees, the size of the planned second unit, the possible effects of the property’s water well on neighboring wells and the size of the overall project, which includes 14 bathrooms. 

Around 10 or so people spoke publicly at the meeting. Nick Whitney, the president of the Inverness Association, which hosted the event, asked the crowd to signal their agreement with comments voiced by attendees on the four core concerns. Each time he asked, close to every hand in the room shot up. 

Chris Stanton, who is managing the project with his East Marin-based Inverness Construction Management, responded to some complaints, but said he and a partner were there to listen so they could respond more fully at a future meeting. The owners themselves announced they would not attend because they were not prepared to make a formal presentation to the community without the additional studies and data that should be ready in early January.

Once all the materials are received, the county will schedule a hearing with the Planning Commission. A ruling could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors; if that panel also approves it, the project could also be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. (However, Wade Holland, the planning commissioner for West Marin, said on Wednesday that it was highly unlikely that the commission would hear an appeal of a home.)

The proposal

Hidden Dragon, L.L.C. has proposed a 5,494-square foot home; a 335-square foot garage; a 750-square foot second unit; a 1,316-square foot art studio; a 294-square foot meditation hut and pool house; a 673-square foot garage for the second unit; a 16,000-gallon swimming pool and two 5,000-gallon water storage tanks, totaling 8,927 square feet of new structures. (According to planner Heidi Scoble, that number is the “building area.” The “floor area” is 8,254 square feet because county code allows the applicant to omit the garage for the second unit in that tally.)

There are eight designated bedrooms in the application, but opponents argue there are 17 potential or “functional” bedrooms if a study, exercise rooms, meditation rooms and rooms in the art studio are included. 

The sleek, modern two-story home sports flying roofs and a mixture of glass and wooden walls; a deck off the master bedroom hangs in the air above the descending knoll. The house is built into a hill, which obscures the lower level from the south view, according to the plans. The caretaker’s house is on the northern edge of the property, near Balboa.

In recent weeks, concern over the project’s ramifications—including that it could set precedents regarding tree removal and size and that its numerous bedrooms and bathrooms would make it attractive for use as a retreat center—have sparked reams of letters to Ms. Scoble. An online petition opposing the development has garnered 128 signatures since Dec. 3. A representative said on Wednesday that the site had been vandalized and that the story poles had been ripped out. 

The 16.9-acre parcel lies in a planned zoning district, where there are virtually no hard-and-fast parameters on homes sizes. The only physical limitation is the height of the main house (25 feet) and accessory structures (15 feet). Beyond this, the design review process stipulates that the project be evaluated on how it fits into the scale and character of a neighborhood. 

Design review guidelines on “neighborhood compatibility” state that “Generally speaking, the floor area of the proposed development should not substantially exceed the median home size in the surrounding neighborhood, taking into consideration site-specific factors, such as lot size, bulk and mass, topography, vegetation, and the visibility of the proposed development.”

In her staff report on the completed application, Ms. Scoble will make a finding on whether the applicant has met design review guidelines. 

Mr. Westergren also needs a coastal permit, but that approval rests mostly on required plans or information about water availability, septic systems, grading and excavation, archaeological resources, coastal access, dunes, stream and wetland impacts, wildlife habitat and potential geologic hazards, although community character is also listed. (Some issues, like coastal access, are moot points in Hidden Dragon’s case.)

The owners have proved that they have enough water to meet county guidelines and that construction will avoid nesting bird season.

Trees

Forty-six trees, mostly Douglas firs, would be removed prior to construction. Of those, 14 are heritage trees, with trunks over 30 inches in diameter. Twenty-eight new trees would be planted in their stead. 

According to a fact sheet assembled by Mr. Stanton, the felled trees represent a small portion of the estimated 1,000 on the property. An arborist’s report submitted to the county said almost all the trees planned for removal are not in top shape. Many of the firs, the report said, display signs of fungal infection and “butt rot,” and there is “a history on the site of windthrow (uprooting and collapse) of the Douglas fir.” The report estimated that “10% to 15% of the mature Douglas fir on the site have collapsed.”

But one public commenter noted that it will take time for new trees to mature, and meanwhile the absent trees could create dangerous wind tunnels. Another worried about the project setting a precedent of cutting down trees that are not in perfect health.

“Whether your arborist has decided that some of the trees are unhealthy seems important, but there’s also an entire ridge of similar trees. It does kind of set a precedent—if you can say these trees aren’t healthy and therefore it’s fine to cut them down—for the rest of the ridge,” said Nancy Stein, who lives above the property, on Drakes Summit. 

Mr. Whitney, who is also a co-owner of Pacific Slope Tree Company, described the arborist’s report as focusing more on individual trees “instead of a forest view” that considered the impacts of removal. 

A county ordinance requires a separate permit for removing heritage trees and certain protected trees (those over 10 inches in diameter), but it is not applicable in the coastal zone, since it hasn’t been approved by the Coastal Commission. Bridger Mitchell, the vice president of the association, said the Local Coastal Program requires an analysis of the impacts of vegetation removal. 

Water

Despite assertions to the contrary by Mr. Westergren and his team, neighbors on Balboa and Drakes Summit believe the new development could strain groundwater resources and affect their own wells’ output. (Amy Trainer, the executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, said the number of toilets “strikes some of us, honestly, as somewhat obscene.”)

Residents have said that many local wells yield little water and that they have no recourse to municipal water because North Marin Water District cannot serve the three-dozen properties above 135 Balboa. (Chris DeGabriele, the general manager for N.M.W.D., told the Light this week that there are no current facilities to serve those residents. It is theoretically possible to serve about half of them, but they would need to be annexed into the improvement district—subject to approval by the board of directors—and they would have to pay annexation fees, connection fees and back taxes and fund a water storage tank.)

The county requires new homes to prove they have adequate water for their own plans. County Environmental Health Services says two gallons a minute suffices for the main house and a second unit, a bar Mr. Westergren’s own well has met. A measurement from Aug. 13 yielded 2.1 gallons per minute.

But there is no provision for assessing the impact on neighbors; as far as Marin is concerned, that’s a civil issue between property owners. 

The owners say they intend to use the property as a vacation and weekend place until they retire, and that their extended family might spend time with them a few weeks out of the year. “Again, the reason for the additional bedrooms and bathrooms is so we can gather both our extended families on occasion on this beautiful property,” they wrote in a letter to neighbors. “While there will occasionally be high use on the property… we believe our annual domestic water use will be modest,” Mr. Westergren and Ms. Singh wrote.

The fact sheet presented on Wednesday said the well’s range of influence on other wells is less than 100 feet; the closest neighbor’s well, 228 feet away, is beyond that range. Mr. Stanton reiterated in an email to the Light that “all the water experts we have spoken with to date state that what aquifers there are on the Balboa/Drakes Summit hillside are very small and discreet to specific locations.”

But in an attempt to assuage concerns, Mr. Stanton hired a geo-hydrologist to “conduct an evaluation of the draw-down interference on neighboring wells,” according to a Nov. 20 letter to Ms. Scoble. The well will be pumped for roughly three days.

Ms. Trainer said the tests should be conducted in the dry season, not after the recent winter storms. She also urged concerned residents do separate tests. “I think that everyone in the community needs to hire their own hydrologist,” she said. 

But Mr. Westergren’s other representative at Wednesday’s meeting, Sean Kennings, a land use consultant, argued that the time of year was immaterial because the test sought to assess relative influence—if drawing down the Westergren’s well affected others—not how productive the well is. 

Mr. Stanton added that there were once groups of monks and nuns living on the property year round, without apparently impacting other wells. (The Russian Orthodox community left after their own attempts to expand were stymied.)

Second unit

The second unit, near the northern edge near Balboa Avenue, is 750 square feet, the maximum allowed by county code. But it is only accessible through the art studio, a multi-room structure over 1,300 square feet. The studio is technically detached from the second unit, but the two are connected by a short, 10-inch breezeway. 

That has led to assertions that the application is circumventing the cap on second units, creating a second home exceeding 2,000 square feet.

From a November letter Mr. Stanton sent to the county concerning a re-design of the two structures, it appears those concerns might soon be addressed. (He confirmed this week that “we continue to be listening to the concerns being expressed by some in the community and examining possible options.”)

The owners plan to rent the second unit to a local family with a child who will care for the property, but critics said they want assurance—such as in the form of a deed restriction—that it would remain affordable housing in perpetuity. Mr. Stanton said the couple was willing to implement a restriction on the second unit (adding that the adjacent studio would be used by the owners). 

Scope

The heart of the outcry over the Hidden Dragon project is the proposed square footage: 8,927 square feet of building area. According to the Inverness Association, the project would be almost twice as large as the biggest development in the neighborhood. Critics of the current size, including the E.A.C. and the Marin Conservation League, call for scaling it down.

Ms. Scoble told the Light that she is working to determine how the size compares with neighbors, though she can only rely on assessor’s records that do not include illegal additions. 

The size has led to questions of whether approval could spur more large homes. “I don’t mean to put you on the spot, but as long as you’re here, what’s the story about the precedent?” resident Michael Greenberg asked Ms. Scoble at the meeting.

She responded that one project on its own doesn’t set a precedent—“But,” she added, “if, as the development progressively gets bigger in the future, then that neighborhood is establishing that pattern. So again, neighborhood compatibility is a big finding,” she said. 

The size has also led to accusations that it could be used as a retreat center.  

In a letter to neighbors, the owners said they have no intention of turning their home into a for-profit getaway, and that they plan to retire there. “We have absolutely no intention of renting the property to anyone besides our designated caretakers, ever,” they wrote. In the same letter they said they felt the size of the residence was not too large for a 17-acre parcel of land.

But opponents push back that there are no guarantees that the couple won’t decide to sell it someday.

“Since the property could change hands at any time, future possible uses must be calculated for full occupancy and year-round use of 17 bedrooms. The proposed compound would make an excellent venue for fully-booked large rotating group functions. Even if future commercial use is restricted, the property could be used for corporate retreats or non-profit activities,” the online petition states.

A few Balboa and Drakes Summit homeowners support their future neighbor’s home plans as they stand.

Winston Black, who lives on Drakes Summit, said he has met with Mr. Westergren and Ms. Sing four times. They have “gone to great lengths to meet the county’s applicable zoning statutes and relevant regulations,” he wrote in a letter to Ms. Scoble.

Another couple on the road, Ivan and Sarah Diamond, had initial concerns, but changed their minds after discussing the plans with the couple. Now they feel the design is elegant and sited strategically to minimize neighborhood impacts.

In the end, they believe the outcry boils down to philosophical differences about “the kinds of homes we should have in our neighborhood.” But what right, they ask, does everyone have to “dictate the size of a home or the income of a family when there are established county codes, rules and regulations to approve or disapprove a new home”?