At the May 26, 2009 Mariposa County Board of Supervisors Meeting under Public Presentation, Mariposa County Sheriff Brian Mueller, walked up to the podium and spoke into the microphone “I am Angry.” Mr. Mueller went on to say that he was angry but cautious on what he had to say about his department being dragged into the middle of the Coyote Springs concerns. That other departments could better serve the problems with Coyote Springs. He said that it was under his request that Sheriff Joel Bibby do an investigation on what was taking place at Coyote Springs during the evening hours.
Sheriff Joel Bibby was out taking photographs (without his patrol car or being in uniform) of Coyote Springs during the later evening hours of Saturday May 23, 2009. Theresa Castaldi, one of the Coyote Springs owners, observed and approached Mr Bibby as he was standing on the road. She says that he said he was out for a walk. Mr Bibby lives miles away from Coyote Springs. On discussing this with Mr. Mueller he said to the SST that they had discussed the situation earlier on Saturday and Brian suggested to Joel Bibby that he keep it casual as far as not rolling up in a patrol vehicle. He also stated that it was a complaint that began this planning episode of taking photographs but declined to say who made the complaint against Coyote Springs. Mr. Mueller also said that the photographs did not show anything but the reflection of some vehicles taillights reflection in the flash.
Mr. Mueller stated before the Board of Supervisors that no law was violated and that no department violation had occurred. He went on to say that in the future that it is his desire that his department not be used in issues with Coyote Springs. He also stated that he felt used and the department should not have been used and that it will not happen in the future unless it is a criminal complaint.
Coyote Springs Consultant Ken Baker next approached the podium and said that that he was hoping that the incident would have remained private. He requested that the departments all meet and discuss Coyote Springs and to just back off on Coyote Springs. He said that the County is instilling fear in folks if they speak up about Coyote Springs. Mr. Baker said that they are allowed to be open for business, that Coyote Springs is trying to bring a good image to the County, that they need the help of the County and not to let a few people destroy Coyote Springs.
Under Board Information Supervisor Janet Bibby (Sheriff Joel Bibby’s wife) said that she had received complaints against Coyote Springs without mentioning who complained to her. She said that a tour bus was parked behind the barn. She said that she has received lots of calls saying that Line Dancing was being held out at Coyote Springs during the evening hours along with music. Also that people said that the barn was open and people were walking around the grounds. She said that the Building Department had sent a status report to her. Other Board members have not received any calls on Coyote Springs. Supervisor Bibby also stated that citizens are wondering why they have to be the ones to enforce the County rules and regulations, not the department heads.
Supervisor Bibby also mentioned that in a letter dated May 21, 2009 from the Building Department that none of the building code violations had been resolved at Coyote Springs. She also said that people were observed in the red tagged barn at 10:30P.M. The letter also stated that no certification was completed on any of the buildings and that they all are unsafe for public safety. Janet went on to say that this has been an ongoing problem and that the citizens are right, that it is the Counties responsibility to take care of Coyote Springs. She said that she would like to give Coyote Springs her blessing and that the Board is bound by the rules of serial meetings on discussions about Coyote Springs. Again she read over the letter by Building Department Director Fred Lustenberger that stated “All unsafe for public assemblage.”
The SST asked Ken Baker about the events at Coyote Springs and he stated that Line Dancing was taking place but not in the red tagged barn, that folks were on the porch of the red tagged barn looking at merchandise for sale, such as shirts, as the porch was not red tagged. Also that tour buses were stopping at Coyote Springs. Mr Baker also said that is was really strange that Mr. Bibby should be out in the dark taking photos, out of uniform and not using his patrol vehicle.
On talking with Building Department Director Fred Lustenberger he said public Line Dancing cannot be held in any building without going through the permit process as this protects the public from getting hurt. He said that you could have a private family members birthday party in a barn and that would be okay, but when you invite the public all facilities have to meet code for fire exits, ADA and other requirements.
The following is the final actions that the BOS took on Coyote Springs Appeal back on January 27, 2009
(The transfer from a .PDF file to text did not occur perfectly but all the text is in place.)Actions numbers 6 & 7 are relevant and also under ‘Effects’ numbers 8 & 9 and the last paragraph about future developments.
MARIPOSA PLANNING
COUNTY OF MARIPOSA
5100 BUlliON STREET’ POST OFFICE BOX 2039
MARIPOSA, CALIFORNIA 95338-2039
209.742. 1215′ FAX 209.742.5024
Kris Schenk, Director
kschenk@moriposacDunly.erg
Sarah Williams, Deputy Director
sWilliams@moriposocQunty.erg
February 3, 2009
Theresa Castaldi
2100 Old Highway
Catheys Valley CA 95306
RE: Board of Supervisors Final Action on Appeal No. 2008-193
Dear Ms. Castaldi,
At their meeting on January 27, 2009, the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors adoptedResolution No. 09-42, including the following actions:
1) Denying Appeal No. 2008-193;
2) Upholding the Planning Commission’s action denying Appeal 2008-155 and
upholding t he Planning Director’s Determination dated August 6, 2008, including
the denial of Building Permit No. 27681, all determinations in the correspondence,
and all f’indingH;
3) Directing the Building Director to establish a maximum occupancy (combined) for
the six (6) rental cabins as they have been s ubmitted and plan checked for BuildingPermits 26937, 26938
, 26939, 26940, 26941, and 26942; 4) Finding that an “eating facility”, defined as containing a kitchen and a dining area
and restroom facilities, is consistent with zoning for the Coyote Springs Ranch, as
long as the maximum occupancy for the “eating facility” does not exceed the
maximum occupancy (combined) of the six rental cabins as described in item 3
above as defined by the Building Director pursuant to the 2007 Uniform Building
Code;
5) Directing that the issuance of a Building Permit for the “eating facility” as defined
in item 4 above is contingent upon the issuance of Building Permits for all six (6) ofthe cabins
as well as the Health Department clearance for the proposed “eating
facility”;
Theresa Castaldi’ BOllrd of Supervisors Final Action on Appelll No, 2008-193
Februnry 3, 2009 . Page 2 of 3
6) Finding that Chapter 17.40. Mariposa County Code does not contain sufficient
regulations and standards to allow a determination of permitted uses in
Agritourism; and
7) Directing that, until regulations and standards are established, property owners are
governed by existing rules, regulations and standards regarding the conduct of
events and activities on their land,
Attached is a copy of the adopted resolution,This is the final county action
on this matter, Please note that the time within which
judicial review of this final decision of the Board of Supervisors must be sought is ninety
(90) days from the date of the decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section lO94,6, As you requested in your voice mail to me, I am including information fmm the Appeal
Staff Report in this correspondence as follow s,
The effect of this final action by the Board of Supervisors is that:
1. The design of the permanent “eating facility” for Coyote Springs Ranch will be tied
to the design of the six (6) cabins. which have been previously authorized by the
Board of’ Supervisors,
2, You, as the applicant, are given surety and a firm occupancy number to which to
design the permanent “eating facility”, 3, The maximum occupancy for the permanent “eating facility” will be determined by
the Mariposa County Building Director, based upon the UnifOl’m Building Code,
‘I. YOUI’ design professional will work directly with the Building Director on the
permanent “eating facility“, YOUI’ design professional will be required to submit aproposal
(design) to the Building Director,
5, There is no specific location on the ranch defined or required for the permanent
“eating facility”, The “eating facility” could not be located on Williamson Act land,
6, You can continue using mobile food facilities or temporary food booths for food
service for the large day events (approved as temporary events through the Public
Assemblage Permit process) which is appropriate for a temporary event.
(Please make sure that all Health Permits are obtained or CUlTent fo1′ any food
se1′vice, If you have any questions regarding this issue. please contact the Health
iJepartment directly,)
7, Previous facts and operational provIs IOns of the Planning Director and Board of
Supervisors are incorporated into the action (to address concerns regarding multiple
parcels and multiple owners involved at CSR, to ensure that agricultural production
Theresa Castaldi’ Board of Supervisors Finnl Action on Appeal No. 2008-193
February 3, 2009· Page 3 of3
uses are maintained at the ranch , and to ensme that Transient Occupancy permit issues are addressed, etc.)
8. No fmther discretionary Planning Director determinations will occur on
agritourism uses until the amendments to the Title 17, Chapter 17.40 are completed, to add specific regulations and standards for agritourism (clarity for
permitted, conditional and prohibited uses) in the AE zone. No additional
agritomism development may occur, unless it is permitted by another section of
County Code.
9. Limited temporary events may occur through the Public Assemblage Permit process
while the Title 17 amendment process is underway. A distinction is made between
a temporary event (which is short term, not permanent and not regulated by zoning)
and an on’going permanent land use (which is regulated by zoning).
Relative to other future development permits, if you desire a larger permanent “eating
facility” or other building permits for a guest ranch or for any agritourism development or
use, you have options:
1. You may apply for a Conditional Use Permit.
2. You may apply for a General Plan/Zoning Amendment and ClIVI Plan.
3. You may await the outcome of the Board’s directed amendments to the code
provisiollH for l\gritourism .
If you have any questions regarding this action or information, please let me know. lVIy
number is (209) 71\2′1215. My e’mail address is swilliams@mariposacounty.org
Sarah Williams
Deputy Director
Cc: Fred Lustenberger, Building Director
Dave Conway, Health Department
IV’is Schenk, Planning Director
Attachment - Resolution 09,,12
The Resolution
Resolution
No. 09-42
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIPOSA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A resolution denying Appeal No. 2008-193, upholding the Planning
Commission’s denial of Appeal No. 2008-155, giving direction to staff, and
upholding the Planning Director’s Determination and Findings regarding
Building Permit No. 27681 and Agritourism Uses Occurring on APN 016-220-
008; a 21.47 acre parcel located at 2100 Old Highway in Catheys Valley; part
of Coyote Springs Ranch.
WHEREAS the Planning Director wrote a determination denying Building Pemtit No. 27681 with
Findings on August 6, 200S for Theresa Castaldi for property located at 2100 Old Highway in
Catheys Valley, also lmown as Assessor Parcel Nnmber 016-220-008 and hereinafter referred to as
“subject property“; andWHEREAS
the authority for the Planning Director‘s detemlination is established in Section 17.04.050.G
of County Code and Section 17.0S.120.A of County Code; andWHEREAS
the subject property is part of the Coyote Springs Ranch; and
WHEREAS an appeal of the Planning Director’s action was received from Theresa Castaldi and thatappeal was complete for processing on
the Slh day of September, 2008; and
WHEREAS that appeal is known as Appeal No. 2008- I 55; andWHEREAS Appeal
No. 2008-155 was made to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS processing of Appeal No. 2008-155 was conducted pursuant to Mariposa County Resolution
No. 02-525; and
WHEREAS a duly noticed Planning Commission pnblic hearing to consider Appeal No. 2008- I 55was
scheduled for the 17th day of October 2008; andWHEREAS a
Staff Report addressing the Notice of Appeal was prepared pursuant to local administrative
procedures; and
WHEREAS the Planning Conunission did hold a public hearing on Appeal No. 2008-155 on October 17,
2008 and considered all of the infom13tion in tbe public record, including the Staff Report packet,
testimony presented by the public concerning the Planning Director Detemlination and Findings,
the Notice of Appeal, and tbe comments of the appellant; and
WHEREAS at the public hearing on October 17, 200S, the Planning Commission adopted PI aiming
Commission Resolution No. OS-32, denying Appeal No. 2008-155 and upbolding the Pl anning
Director’s determination dated August 6, 2008, including the denial of Building Peffi1it No. 27681
Page 2 of 5 pages
Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 09·42 for Appeal No. 2008·193
Theresa Castaldi, appellnnt; January 27th 2009
and infonnation regarding the appropriate permitting process for uses at Coyote Springs Ranch, and
all detenninations and findings; and
WHEREAS an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action was received from Theresa Castaldi and that
appeal was complete for processing on the 6th day of November, 2008; and
WHEREAS that appeal is known as Appeal No. 2008-193; and
WHEREAS Appeal No. 2008-193 was made to the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS processing of Appeal No. 2008-193 was conducted pursuant to Mariposa County Resolution
No. 02-525; and
WHEREAS a duly noticed Board of Supervisors public hearing was scheduled to consider Appeal No.
2008-193 for the 13th day of January 2009; andWHEREAS
a Staff Report addressing the Notice of Appeal was prepared pursuant to local administrative
procedures; andWHEREAS
on the 13th day of January 2009, the Board of Supen‘ isors continued the public hearing to the27th day ofJanuary 2009 as requested by the appellant; and
WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors did hold a public hearing on Appeal No. 2008-193 on the 27′h day
of January 2009 and considered all of the information in the puhlic record, including the StaffReport packet, infomlation and testimony presented hy the public
at the public hearing on the 27th
day of January 2009, the Notice of Appeal, and the comments ofthe appellant.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mariposa does hereby deny Appeal No. 2008-193.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mariposa does hereby:
1) Deny Appeal No. 2008-193;
2) Uphold the Planning Commission’s action denying Appeal 2008-155 and uphold the
Planning Director’s Determination dated August 6, 2008, including the denial of
Building Permit No. 27681, all determinations in the correspondence, and all
findings;
3) Direct the Building Director to establish a maximum occupancy (comhined) for the
six (6) rental cabins as they have been submitted and plan checked for BuildingPermits
26937, 26938, 26939, 26940, 26941, and 26942;
4) Find that an “eating facility”, defined as containing a kitchen and a dining area andrestroom facilities, is
consistent with zoning for the Coyote Springs Ranch, as long
as the maximum occupancy for the “eating facility” does not exceed the maximum
occupancy (combined) of the six rental cabins as described in item 3 above as defined
by the Building Director pursuant to the 2007 Uniform Building Code;
Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 09·42 for Appeal No. 2008·193
Theresa Castaldi, appellant; January 27th 2009
Page 3 of 5 pages
5) Direct that the issuance of a Building Permit for the “eating facility” as defined in
item 4 above is contingent upon the issuance of Building Permits for all six (6) of the
cabins as well as the Health Department clearance for the proposed “eating facility”;
6) Find that Chapter 17040, Mariposa County Code does not contain sufficient
regulations and standards to allow a determination of permitted uses in
Agritourism; and 7) Direct that, until regulations and standards are established, property owners are
governed by existing rules, regulations and standards regarding the conduct of
events and activities on their land.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mariposa does hereby
incorporate the factual basis and operating provisions from the 11 /30107 Pemlit Authorization ascontained in
Exhibit A of this Resolution as these were not appealed or modified.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the denial of Appeal No. 2008-193 is based upon the discussion of
Appeal Issues as contained in the Staff Report to the Board of Supervisors and the Staff Report to
the Planning Commission and is also hereby incorporated into this resolution by reference.
ON MOTION BY Supervisor Bibby, seconded by Supervisor Allen, this resolution is duly passed and
adopted this 27′h·day of January, 2009 by the following vote:
AYES: Abom, Bibby, Cann, and Allen
NOES: Turpin
EXCUSED: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
~~~~
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED A2Z.
~, :t:cunty Counsel
Brad Abom, ChaIrman
Mariposa County Board of Supervisors
Page 4 of 5 pages
Factual Basis:
Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 09-42 for Appeal No. 2008-193
Theresa Castaldi, appellant; January 27th 2009
Exhibit A
\. The six (6) cabins reguested under Permits 26937, 26038, 26939, 26940,26941,26942, and the septic facilities for the cabins requested under Permit No. 26819, are proposed to be located on
APN 016-220-008. This parcel is a 21.74 acre parcel in the AE zone. The authorization for these
pernlits is pursuant to prior Mariposa County Board of Supervisors’ action.
2. The authorization for the cabin permits is based upon the map submitted to the Planning
Department on August 13, 2007 entitled “Coyote Springs Guest Ranch“, which shows a total of JO
parcels “checked” as part of the ranch. These 10 parcels include:
APN 016-220-008; 21 .74 acres; ownership is Theresa Castaldi.
APN 016-160-082; 129.20 acres; ownership is Larry and Panicia Oakander.
APN 016-160-023; IDS acres; ownership is Pam cia Oakander. APN 016-160-071 ; 103.8 acres; LCA Contract; ownership is Larry and Pamcia Oakander.
APN 016-170-091; 52.6 acres; LCA Contract; ownership is Larry and Pamcia Oakander.
APN 016-170-093 ; 39.4 acres; LCA Contract; ownership is Larry and Pamcia Oakander.
APN 016-170-094; 137.8 acres; LCA, Contract; ownership is Theresa Castaldi.
APN 016-160-074; 160 acres; LCA Contract; ownership is Larry and Patricia Oakander.
APN 016-180-008; J 60 acres; LCA Contract; ownership is Larry and Patricia Oakander.
APN 016-180-009; 31.4 acres; LCA Contract; ownership is Larry and Patricia Oakander.
The total ra11ch acreage, as shown all this map, is 940.94 acres.
3. The pern1it authorization is based upon tbe “Livestock and Agricultural Information” submitted onAugust 7,
2007 to tbe Planning Department wbich indicates that the 940.94-acre rancb is used for a
year-round, fall-calving, cow-calf operation (approximately 120 pair). Tbe ranch maintains its ownbulls as
well. This agricultural production use was also described at the Agricultural Advisory
Committee meeting on August 2, 2007. This production use (”food and fiber“) is what qualifies the
Coyote Springs Ranch for the Agritourism permits.
4. The permit authorization takes into account that during 2007, the Coyote Springs Ranch grew several acres of oat hay to supplement purchased bay for stock. This crop is considered to be part
of the ranch’s agricultural production.
5. The permit authorization considers and incorporates tbe Board of Supervisors’ discussion and
general direction regarding the scope of permitted uses under the new General Plan at their meeting
on October 2,2007.
6. Relative to the California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Application for a Permit, the Coyote
Springs Ranch is authorized to prepare, sell and serve food and alcoholic beverages to Agrilourismguests, in conjunction with an authorized Agritourism
use. However, as an Agritourism facility,
the ranch is not approved as a restaurant or a bar which can be open to the generaJ public.
Page 5 of 5 pages
Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 09′42 for Appeal No. 2008′193
Theresa Castaldi, appellant; January 27th 2009
Operating Provisions
Provision 1. The ranch operations occurring as described above must continue as the pri/llal)! use
of the ranch property. If at any tillle the ranch ceases to conduct a cOlIZmercial cattle
operation on the 940.94-acre ranch and there is no longer a viable agricultural production
use occurring on the 940.94-acre Coyote Springs Ranch, the rental cabins approved as an
Agritourislll Use for the ranch shall not be permitted and the re1!lal use and all occupancy
becomes void alld lIIuSt cease. This provision is based upon the definition of Agritourism as
contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
Provision 2. This authorization is written specifically for the Coyote Springs Guest Ranch and onlyapplies to the Coyote Springs Guest Ranch. It
is IlOt a precedent for any other Agritourislll
uses or other agricultural properties inlvlariposa County.
Provision 3. This Agritourislll use is authorized pendillg the Board of Supendsors’ adoption ofdefinitive Agritourislll standards ill the County zOllillg regulations. The Boord of Supervisors
has directed that Countywide standards are to be developed for Agritourism and related
visitor activities. Once the zOlling standards have beell defined alld adopted, the Coyote
Springs visitor activities and any jillure Agritourism uses will be subject to the updated
standards. Having clear, objective standards makes the processing of obtaining permits
easierfor the business andfor all those involved ill Agritourism operatiolls.Provision
4. Unless the standards for an Agritourism use change, the ranch will not be able tohave more thall a IOta I of six (6) rental units on the Coyote Springs Ranch. If the ranch
wishes to have more than six rentals, the ranch should submit a discretionalJl use permit
application to operate as a guest ranch or a General Plan/Zoning Amendment and CIM Plan.Provision
j. The operations that constitute the primO/)! agriculture production usage of the Coyote
Springs Ranch are conducted, linked to and may occur on all of the ten (IO) ranch parcels.
Some of these parcels are under Williamson Act contract. The illformation submitted to the
County by Coyote Springs Ranch owners indicates that the Agritourism and visitor activities
are carried out as a jOint program involving all parcels and all owners of the Coyote Springs
Guest Ranch, including Theresa Castaldi and Patricia and Lan)! Oakander. If ownership,
management or operational control of portions of the ranch become separated in the jiltllre,
such thaI the primO/)! agriculture use of the ranch and the Agritourism uses are no longer
conducted jOintly, thell the cabin relltal and visitor facilities shall become an invalid
Agritourism use and must cease,
Provision 6. As an Agritourism facility, the sale alld service of food and alcoholic beverages must
be ollly to Agritourism guests who are visiting the facility in conjunction with all authorizedAgritollrislIl use. The facility is not approved as
a restaurant or a bar which lIlay be open to
the general public.
Provision 7. When the building inspection process is nearing the “final” (final inspection) for the
cabin facilities, the owners will need to obtain a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) CertificateFom
the Planning Department for the cabins. There is an application for these certificates.
These certificates must be posted in each cabill prior to renting tl/em to the guests of YOllr
ranch.