1B MARIPOSA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 17, 2008 Regular Meeting

Meeting Called to order at 9:00 a.m. Commissioners Present: Gary Francisco, Norm Ross, Bob Rudzik, Skip Skyrud, Paul DeSantis

1. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1A. Pledge of Allegiance 1B. Approval of Minutes of October 03, 2008

Corrections: None

On motion of Commissioner Ross, seconded by Commissioner Francisco, the Planning Commission approved the Minutes of October 03, 2008.

Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 5 (Francisco, Ross, Rudzik, Skyrud, DeSantis) NOES: 0

1C. Persons wishing to speak on any item of interest within the subject matter or jurisdiction of the Commission that is not on the agenda. None.

2. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Commissioner Skyrud explained the Planning Commission’s public hearing procedures.

2 A. Land Division Application No. 2007-135, Stephen P. Allison, applicant.

Prior to presenting Land Division No. 2007-135, Skip Strathearn noted the following changes to the staff report: Circle page 2 reference to be removed.

Strathearn then presented Land Division No. 2007-135, Strathearn explained that this Land Division is a proposed division of a 206.30 acre parcel into12 parcels of 5.00 and 35.00 acres each. The property is located at 5260 Carleton Road and is known as APN 014-140-078.

Strathearn concluded that it was staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Land Division No. 2007-135 with the recommend findings and amended conditions.

Clarifications: Francisco questioned Strathearn as to which of the lots involve the cultural resources that were found and the location of the dam that was mentioned in the report.

Strathearn pointed out the location of the dam on the map.

Francisco asked Strathearn if there is any evidence of riparian activity.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 1

Strathearn replied that yes there is riparian activity and the mitigation measure addresses that issue on circle page 20, condition of approval number 34. Strathearn went on to say that the cultural resources surveys are confidential and he can only give very general information not specific, but went on to say that the cultural resources are located within the proposed setbacks.

Skyrud asked if the County has a stream alteration agreement on Carleton Road.

Strathearn stated that the County did not have steam alteration agreements when Carleton Road was created.

A discussion regarding sub standard roads and the requirement of bringing Silva Road up to standard road condition with Skyrud asking if any traffic counts had been done on the sub standard portion of Silva Road.

Strathearn stated that the latest traffic counts in that area do not show much activity. He said that if Public Works deems that the project will have an impact on the road they can require improvements. Strathearn informed the Commission that this subdivision will not have an impact to the sub standard portion of Silva Road and that Public Works has recommended that the road frontage requirement be waived.

Skyrud then asked if that portion of Silva Road could be abandoned by the County.

Sarah Williams explained that when a project is submitted to the Planning Department staff evaluates what is submitted and what the project is. The proposed project does not have access onto Silva Road. Williams remarked that at this time it is not appropriate to talk about abandoning Silva Road because it provides a potential through connection. The applicant is providing a dedication of this portion of Silva Road, which is a public benefit. Williams said that she spoke to Dana Hertfelder, Public Works Director, to confirm that he supports the recommendation to waive the frontage improvements for this project and he said that he did.

Strathearn reminded The Commission that the new General Plan standards require County Roads to meet minimum standards with the respect of new development. Strathearn stated that if someone came in with even a parcel map on lot 12 they would have to improve Silva Road to the adequate standards.

Francisco asked Strathearn about the traffic impact on Cole Road and upper Silva Road. Francisco wanted to know if Cole Road is up to County standards and have there been any traffic counts for Cole Road?

Strathearn took a moment to review the staff report.

Skyrud announced that the Public Hearing scheduled for 9:30am will take place as soon as the discussion for this project is completed.

After reviewing the staff report, Strathearn stated that Public Works has Cole Road scheduled for improvements from Darrah Road to Silva Road.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 2

Public Portion of the Hearing: Opened.

Dick Seaman, agent for the applicants, addressed questions The Commission had regarding the 4 to 1 length to width ratio on lot 2. Seaman feels that lot 2 has the appropriate width that was needed for the usable length of the property.

Rudzik asked Seaman if there is a suitable building site on this lot?

Seaman said there is definitely a building site on lot 2. Seaman stated that all the lots have had full perc tests, wells dug and septic disposal conditions met. He also stated that the Public Works improvement of Cole Road will be started in the spring of 2009 and that this subdivision will not be completed until mid 2009.

Seaman thanked Strathearn for his hard work on this project.

Francisco questioned Seaman about the report from the Fish and Game Department, circle page 67, where they recommended that on site soils should be analyzed. Francisco asked Seaman his opinion of that recommendation.

Strathearn answered Francisco’s question by stating that the waving of the preliminary soils report issue was addressed in detail in the initial study and referred Francisco to circle page 45. Strathearn stated that the soils issue is also addressed on circle page 49 in the water quality section of the staff report.

Seaman stated that the soils report is a non issue at this point.

Skyrud informed everyone that there is a US Department of Agriculture Mariposa County Area Soils Survey available at the Resource Conservation District Office for review and it includes a soil map of the entire County. Skyrud wanted it noted that there is soils information available to the public.

John Walters, who lives across the street where the pond area is at Silva Road and Carleton Road, spoke to his concern about the water way during the heavy rains when the ponds fill and spill over Carleton Road into the proposed project.

Cathy Boze, Agricultural Commissioner, stated that she had not seen the staff report but did question if controlling invasive species had been addressed in the report as she is in the process of doing a survey of noxious weeds.

Strathearn stated that the environmental report did not include noxious species and there is no condition for approval for that issue.

Boze stated that other projects such as the Taylor project and Silver Tip did contain conditions for this issue so she felt that there was precedence set.

Williams answered that the Taylor project was a 160 acre project with a significant existing problem and the potential of spreading the noxious weeds as additional grading was going to be done for

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 3

the project and by four different owners. The project also bordered Federal Land and there was grazing and potential for impacts on surrounding agricultural lands.

Skyrud asked staff to add the Agricultural Commissioner to the Send Out for Comments List for all subdivisions. A discussion ensued as to the proper protocol for adding an agency to the Send Out for Comments list with a determination that the Board of Supervisors could make that decision and would see the request when the Minutes for this meeting are presented to them.

Public Portion of the Hearing: Closed. Deliberations:

Rudzik commented that he recommends the staff recommendation that the Commission grant the waiver on the 4 to 1 ratio. Rudzik also recommends the staff condition of approval that a declaration be recorded that access to Silva Road will be denied to lots 9-12 until Silva Road comes up to County standards. Rudzik also recommended the staff changes on circle page 12; condition No. 2 be removed.

On motion of Commissioner Rudzik, seconded by Commissioner Ross the Planning Commission adopted a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration approving Land Division No. 2007-135 with the recommended amended findings, amended conditions and mitigation measures.

Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 5 ( Francisco, Ross, Rudzik, Skyrud, DeSantis) NOES: 0

Skyrud announced that the Public Hearing for the Land Conservation Act Cancellation Application scheduled for 9:30am would be presented directly after a short recess.

Break: 10.06am Reconvened: 10:16am

Skyrud announced that the Appeal for Castaldi scheduled for 10:30am would be held directly after the Land Conservation Act Cancellation Application is heard.

2 B. Land Conservation Act Cancellation Application No. 2008-89; Mariposa Revival Center/Frank Long, applicants; Frank and Francis Long, property owners.

Sarah Williams presented Land Conservation Act Cancellation Application No. 2008- 89, Williams explained that this Land Conservation Act Cancellation is a proposed cancellation of a 6.97 acre portion of Mariposa County Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) Contract No. 17, a 3,280+- acre contract. The property is located off Highway 140 in Mariposa, just West of Spring Hill High School, and known as APN 012-180-032.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 4

Skyrud asked Williams that if the cancellation is granted and the applicant decided not to do anything else with the property, would there be a requirement for him to do a zoning amendment putting the property into Mountain Home zoning? Skyrud questioned if there is a County requirement to change the zoning or would Long just have a non conforming AE piece of property.

Williams answered that it depends on how far along the applicant was in the application process. Williams explained that the Applicant had an approval for a cancellation in 1990s, before the State Law changed relative to how cancellations can be completed, but the application was not completed. Williams went on to say that if the cancellation petition is tentatively approved by the Board of Supervisors, the applicant has one year to pay the cancellation fees. All the other procedures listed in the staff report are necessary to ultimately entitle the church and in order for a gift to be completed, an actual transfer of the property to the church. Williams said that the requirements take time, more than a year at the least. Williams felt that if the Board of Supervisors tentatively approves the cancellation the Church would have a difficulty completing all of the requirements in the one year time frame.

Skyrud questioned if Lot A was taken our to the Land Conservation Act, would there be a requirement for it to be subdivided.

Williams answered that taking something out of the Williamson Act Contract does not require that it be subdivided. Williams explained that it is the gift, transfer of the property that requires a subdivision. Skyrud asked that after the property was taken out of the Williamson Act, would it have to be re-zoned to have a church built?

Williams stated that a church is conditional use in the Mountain Home Zone and a church is a conditional use in AE Zone. So obtaining a Conditional Use Permit for the church would not require a re-zoning.

Public Portion of the Hearing: Opened.

David Breemer, agent for Frank and Francis Long and for Mariposa Revival Center, stated that they are proposing to partially cancel the contact and he realizes that the contract is not cancelled until the cancellation fees are paid. Breemer said that if the contract does get cancelled, it means that the 6.7 acres in the proposed cancellation request would simply be removed from the Williamson Act, but still part of the AE Zone and still part of the larger taxed parcel owned by Long. A separate parcel is not being created, and the Mariposa Revival Center will lease the property for church use for one dollar.

Breemer discussed the public concerns of the Church feeding the poor in Mariposa. He stated that the public food program, The Lords Pantry, is an integral part of the Church.

Breemer then discussed the issue of available and suitable non approximate land and what constitutes available. Bremer explained that his referral to the East Willits case was only because it gives the definition of “available” as depending on financial circumstances. Breemer said that neither Long nor the Mariposa Revival Center can afford the property that is within 2 to 3 acres of the proposed cancellation property and for sale for $142,000.00, thus making no land available for the Church site.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 5

Breemer stated that there is nothing in the Williamson Act that says that the Church has to prove they have the financial ability to pay for future improvements to the land. They just have to prove that there is no available land. Breemer then expressed his frustration with this process.

Cathy Pierce, representing the Farm Bureau, read letter from John R. Weech, Associate Counsel for The Farm Bureau, which is in the Planning Commission Packet (see attached).

Pierce commented that the property for sale for $142,000.00 already had improvements done. Pierce also stated that she felt that all of the 160 acres in the Williamson Act owned by Long should be cancelled not the proposed small portion. She then referred to the Department of Conservation Letter (see attached) pointing out the third to the last paragraph where it states “Based on the information provided to date, it is the Department’s conclusion that this petition lacks necessary supporting evidence to permit the Board to reasonably find that it can partially cancel the contract upon required findings.” Pierce’s last comment was questioning if the land for the Church is being donated or leased.

Henry Falany, founder of Mariposa Revival Center, stated that the land was donated to the Church from Frank Long. Falany said that The Lord’s Pantry is the most visible part of the Church, to the Community and serves 140 to 180 families per month. Falany said that he feels the Church needs to be located at the top of the mountain as it was mandated by God. Falany remarked that the visibility and accessibility of that location is most important so that people will know where they can go for help. He also stated that a storage area is needed for the food since they lost their location. At this time they are using their home storage areas making distribution difficult. Falany ended by saying that the Church is trying to be a credit to the community by helping people.

Skyrud asked if that Pastor Falany’s testimony was in support of one of the findings that the Cancellation is in the Public interest

Don Starchman, agent for Mariposa Revival Center, stated that the use is compatible with the property as to accessibility and visibility. Starchman repeated the information that Long does not have the ability to purchase another property and he does not own another available property.

Paul Chapman spoke to the distribution of the food to the poor. Chapman questioned why the food needs to be distributed on the hill and not at another location. Chapman stated that the Church and food distribution can be located somewhere out of the Williamson Act as the Church is not in the best interest of the Williamson Act.

Rick Lobaugh stated that he has Williamson Act property, and he feels that the Church providing food is compatible to the Williamson Act. Lobaugh felt that since the land itself is being used to provide food that makes the land use compatible and that the Cancellation would be in the Public Interest.

Bart Brown spoke to the public interest concern of traffic issues for the encroachment. He feels that the encroachment is very dangerous and with the increase of usage of the Church, he is very concerned and wants to know if that issue has been addressed.

Skyrud asked if there were any other members of the public wishing to speak. Since no one came forward he asked Breemer if he would like to speak to any of the issues that had been presented.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 6

Breemer stated that Pastor Falany’s testimony was relevant to the Public Interest as the hill top location for the Church will increase the quality and quantity of the food distribution. Breemer said that the Church will not be a food distribution center as the distribution will continue to be done at Mariposa Park. Breemer again stated his argument for no available land for the Church and said that there would be minimal impact to the cattle grazing on the larger parcel

Skyrud asked Breemer if Long had provided substantial evidence that he had searched for other not contracted land available for this project and why the Mariposa Revival Center needs to be located at the top of the hill location and not anywhere else in the County.

Breemer answered that Long had searched for available land within the 2 to 3 mile radius and he feels that the Church would not be as useful to the Community at any other location..

Francisco asked Breemer to clarify the food the Lord’s Pantry food distribution. Francisco referred Breemer to the petition on circle page 107, 3rd paragraph, which describes the food distribution and storage facility at the Church and states food will be distributed during regular hours on an emergency basis. Francisco stated that he was under the impression that the food distribution would be taking place at the park.

Breemer answered that the food would be distributed off site except for emergency situations.

Francisco then asked Breemer if regular food distribution takes place off site from the storage facility, why does the storage facility have to be on this parcel of Williamson Act land?

Breemer answered that if you “chop” up the administration, storage and distribution to other locations, people will not know where to go.

Francisco asked specifically about the food ministry and Food Pantry operation and the ability to have that operation located somewhere other that the Williamson Act parcel in question.

Breemer said that it does exist somewhere else right now, but is not as effective as it would be if it were located on the Williamson Act Parcel.

Francisco stated that a proximate, suitable location could be used for the food storage other than the Williamson Act Parcel. Francisco said that the food program the Church is declaring is for the use of the land, could be facilitated at another location other than the Williamson Act Parcel.

Breemer stated that all of the Church functions need to be at one location so that people will know where the Church is and they can get food from one location. Breemer again stated that the food distribution will be from the Church on an emergency basis and regular distribution will be off site. The administration and food storage will be at the Church and it is a much more practical use of the Church Ministry.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 7

Rudzik stated that Long owns 28 acres of AE property west of Marshall Road on Old Highway that would be suitable for the Church. Rudzik also expressed his concern regarding the left turn issue going to the proposed Church and believes it would be a safety issue

Breemer said that 28 acres would be too big as they only need 5 to 7 acres and they could not afford to go through the subdivision process.

Skyrud reminded Breemer that they would not have to go through the subdivision process, they would only have to enter into a lease/donation agreement from Long for the property needed.

Breemer stated that it is his understanding that the 28 acres is in Conservation Easement.

Breemer spoke to the left turn lane issue and said that there is an alternative access at Spring Hill High School resolving the safety issue.

Skyrud asked Rudzik if he had received an answer to his question about the 28 acres in the Mormon Bar area.

Rudzik stated that no he had not, but his question was more to the Church being located within the 28 acres that are owned by Long. Rudzik stated that the larger acreage would have better and safer access as it would be located off a major County Road. Rudzik stated that the 28 acres should seriously be considered as the optimum option for the Church location.

Francisco asked Breemer to point out where in the Williamson Act it is stated that there has to be no affordable land in the proximate area. Francisco said that he found the word suitable but not affordable. Breemer said that the reason be brought up the East Willits Case is because the Williamson Act does not define available. In the East Willits Case the Courts held that financial constraints could be considered as unavailable.

Francisco stated that the Courts did not say that proximate had to be close by where you would like to be. Francisco referred to the case of the Sierra Club vs. The City of Hayward, circle page 103, where the Supreme Court stated that purpose of the Williamson Act requires that proximate not be construed to unreasonable limit of non contracted land. In certain circumstances the suitable property could be several miles from the proposed development site.

Francisco went on to state that Breemer said that he had searched for available, suitable land and was not able to locate anything, but the 28 acres owned by Long would be suitable. Francisco said that there are several 5 acre parcels available for sale that would be suitable and although they have an upfront cost, they may be less that the build out costs on the Williamson Act Parcel..

Breemer said that he looked in a 2 to 3 mile radius and stated that the 28 acres is under the Conservation Easement and is not available.

Skyrud spoke to the 28 acres being in the Conservation Easement and directed Breemer to page 81, the letter from the Sierra Foothill Conservancy, where it states it would allow a Church in the Conservation Easement .

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 8

Williams clarified that the 28 acre parcel in the AE zone, not in the Williamson Act, is the Conservation Easement. Williams went on to say that Long also owns a 15 acre parcel, not in the contract. Williams said the property is in the Mountain Home Zone and currently has 4 mobile homes on it already.

Starchman stated that when Long negotiated that Conservation Easement, he specifically excluded this site and no other site. Starchman said that there is no other land available.

Falany spoke to the up front costs and building costs. Falany said that the costs of building and legal work would be donated and that upfront costs to purchase land would be prohibitive.

Linda Meyer questioned if the Church had looked for another benefactor who would be willing to donate/ lease land to the Church. Meyer questioned whether the intent of the Church is to feed the poor to get this particular property. The process may have taken so long because they are going after that one particular property that is located in the Williamson Act and not looking for another location to feed the poor. Meyer stated that a lot of people have the same impression that taking a small portion of land out of the Williamson Act would do no harm, but all those little projects become big projects and do damage the Williamson Act.

Starchman spoke again and said that the project has been in the paper for 14 years and no one has offered any other property.

Public Portion of the Hearing: Closed.

Deliberations:

Motion made by Commissioner Rudzik, seconded by Commissioner Francisco, to adopt a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution Denying Application No. 2008-89 with findings.

Skyrud asked if there was any discussion on the motion prior to the vote.

Ross stated that he felt the conditions have been met and the concerns about fragmentation of the rest of the property does not stand because there are other conservation overlays that have been put into place. Ross said that the Commission needs to look at this one single piece of property and he opposes the issue before the Commission.

Francisco stated that if the cancellation is allowed, a non conforming AE zone parcel will have been created. Francisco also stated that he disagrees with the notion that this is just a small isolated piece of land that won’t matter as far as the overall Williamson Act provision. Francisco went on to say that the Williamson Act was created to help discourage the premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and is in the public interest and benefit to the State.

Ross again stated his opposition by saying that the individual land owner voluntarily goes into a Williamson Act contract and should have the right to voluntarily cancel the contact.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 9

Francisco reminded Ross that the process for doing exactly that is called non renewal of the Williamson Act Contract.

Ross stated that the law also has provisions for cancellation requests of the Williamson Act.

Francisco agreed, but stated that that provision is only when there is an overwhelming benefit to the public good and it meets the sub primary findings which is that there is no proximate non contracted land which is both available and suitable. Francisco said that he is not convinced that the petitioner has a convincing argument that there is no proximate and suitable land available.

Skyrud then called for a vote.

Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 4 ( Francisco, Rudzik, Skyrud, DeSantis) NOES: 1 (Ross)

Williams informed the Commission that the Pubic Hearing for this issue will be on Monday, November 10th at 10:30 before the Board of Supervisors. Williams stated that the Board of Supervisors is the final decision authority as the action by the Planning Commission is a recommendation.

Skyrud announced that there would be a short break and the Appeal scheduled for 10:30am would be heard directly after the break.

Break: 12.01pm Reconvened: 12:22pm

2 C. Appeal No. 2008-155; Theresa Castaldi, appellant.

Williams presented Appeal No. 2008-155, Williams explained that this is an appeal of the Planning Director’s determination regarding plans for Building Permit No. 27681 for interior remodel to develop a kitchen and eating areas in the existing pole barn. The property is located at 2100 Old Highway, Catheys Valley (Coyote Springs Ranch), a 21.47 acre parcel known as APN 016-220-008.

Skyrud asked Williams for a clarification of the Vicinity Map on circle page 12. Skyrud questioned the legend on the map showing the Oakander and Castaldi parcels as being referred to as Coyote Springs Ranch and wanted clarification if the ranch is doing business as all of the listed parcels.

Williams said yes, Coyote Springs Ranch is doing business on all of the listed parcels.

Skyrud then asked Williams to discuss the difference between agritourism day guests and the general public visiting the ranch and the ability of the ranch to provide food for the agritourism guests and not the general public.

Williams said that Coyote Springs Ranch could have a restaurant for the purpose of feeding agritourism day guests but could not advertise to the general public a restaurant with the only purpose being that of providing a meal. The agritourism day guest must be someone visiting the ranch to experience the activity centered on the agricultural/horticultural production of the ranch and to enjoy the operation of the ranch.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 10

Ross asked what the appropriate load number is for a restaurant servicing the 6 proposed cabins and the day guests?

Williams said that there is not a number, but the load number of 184 is too large for the Coyote Springs Ranch permit that has been submitted.

Ross asked Williams if the applicant had furnished a number in their request for a permit.

Williams stated that from the beginning of this process, Coyote Springs Ranch owners were encouraged to present a business plan so that the whole project would be outlined and the situation now before the Commission would have been avoided.

Francisco clarified that there is no business plan for Coyote Springs Ranch and asked Williams if that was correct.

Williams stated that there has not been a business plan presented that contains the level of detail that would enable the Planning Department to have the ability to approve specific facilities and uses as the permits were submitted.

Francisco then pointed out that the proposed cabins have not been built or started yet, and the permanent food facility is only justified by the existence of the guest cabins. Francisco asked if the cabins were under construction or already existed, would the load number of 184 be correct for that size of operation?

Williams said no because there would not be 184 occupancy in the 6 cabins.

Kris Schenk, Planning Director, commented that when agritourism was defined for this property by the Board of Supervisors in October of 2007, they recommended 6 cabins instead of the 5 cabins recommended by the Planning Department. Schenk said that this was due to the home stay provision in State law. The home stay provision states that there be a program in place and the food and beverage becomes a part of that program. Many counties have adopted the home stay provision. Schenk went on to say that with that provision the number of 15 guests would be appropriate for the 6 cabins.

Skyrud asked Schenk if there could be a food facility for agritourism day use visitors without having any cabins and referred to Schenk’s letter to Castaldi stating that she was finally authorized to serve food to the agritourism day guests who were visiting the ranch.

Schenk said that that letter did not address temporary versus permanent facilities. In order to have a permanent facility with a permanent use, a Conditional Use Permit must be obtained.

Skyrud then asked Schenk if a Conditional Use Permit was applied for what the appropriate load number would be for restaurant at Coyote Springs Ranch which sponsors many large events?

Schenk replied that is why a business plan submission is so important to this project. Schenk went on to say that when the permits are submitted there are regulations that need to be enforced in the AEZ zoning, Guest Ranch and Conditional Use Permits and the regulations need to be responded to upon submission. Skyrud asked if there is an authority that requires the submission of a business plan?

Williams answered by saying that it was a suggestion made from the beginning to assist Coyote Springs Ranch owners in future permitting. Williams said that if the project was made clear in a Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 11

specific, detailed business plan then each time a permit was submitted for individual facilities that were within the approved business plan there would not be the questions and confusion that there is now.

Skyrud again asked Williams if there is a legal requirement for the submission of a business plan.

Williams said not there is not a legal requirement for the submission of a business plan.

Skyrud then asked Williams who would approve a business plan that was submitted?

Williams said the Planning Director would as agritourism is a permitted use, a Guest Ranch is a conditional use.

Public Portion Opened

Theresa Castaldi, appellant, stated that a brief business plan was submitted to the Planning Department on August 7, 2007, (she gave the attached copy to The Commission). Castaldi gave an overview of the business plan and what it contained.

Castaldi said that there is a floor plan for a restaurant with a seating area for 48 people currently submitted to the Planning Department. Castaldi then read from an email from Schenk to her dated November 30th answering her question of “can I serve my other guests?” with his response being “Theresa, as long as the purpose of your other guests being on the Coyote Springs Ranch is centered on agritourism and the ranch operations, I then agree that you should be able to serve them food and beverages if you want to go beyond that then you can use a Conditional Use Permit”.

Castaldi went on to say that Coyote Springs Ranch has been permitted for over two years. Castaldi then invited anyone interested to visit the ranch and see that they are trying to do everything appropriately. Castaldi commented that she has appealed each of Schenk’s determinations. Castaldi remarked that Coyote Springs Ranch is a true benefit to all of the businesses and the Community of Mariposa County. She asked the Commission to uphold the appeal.

Rudzik asked Castaldi why she was resisting the Conditional Use Permit?

Castaldi answered that she is not resisting a Conditional Use Permit and had started the process in 2003, but it has been delayed, as it is almost impossible to get a Conditional Use Permit in Mariposa County.

Francisco asked Castaldi what caused the delays?

Castaldi stated that the Planning Department wanted to know where the horse trails were going to be and what size the windows are going to be in the cabins

Francisco asked why she was not able to answer the questions posed as they were asking for information needed to process the Conditional Use Permit.

Castatdi stated that she did not have that information at that time.

Skyrud stated that a Conditional Use Permit in this County is a nice method of getting something approved, but is not always followed though and adhered to.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 12

Ken Baker stated that the issue before the Planning Commission is actually a Building Department issue and that Planning Department won’t allow the Building Department to do any further inspections at Coyote Springs Ranch until the restaurant issue is resolved.

Rudzik commented on the business plan that was submitted and said that it was more of a “wish list” not a business plan.

Baker stated that it was understood that a simple plan was to be submitted, and it was not clear what was required. Baker said that they applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a Guest Ranch in 1999 and that the Planning Department asked for items that were unreasonable.

Baker went on to describe the proposed Guest Ranch and the benefits to Mariposa County.

Rudzik asked Baker if a Guest Ranch is a permitted use? . Baker said that under Title 17 if a Guest Ranch is primary then a Conditional Use Permit is required, but if it is secondary it is permitted.

Baker then said that he challenges everything in the staff report and asked for the Commission to ask him questions so that he can respond to the issues.

Francisco referred Baker to circle pages 23 and 24, the building permit plans for the project, and stated that the plans included a dining area of 600 square feet, a kitchen of 705 square feet, a coffee shop with storage of 232 square feet, a coffee shop dining area of 300 square feet, a gift shop of 700 square feet and hallways, etc of 2077 square feet. Francisco noted that those are all ancillary areas that are proposed as part of the project. Francisco added that without a detailed business plan, the concern would be that this could grow into a commercial resort operation. Francisco then referred to the definition of agritourism which is visitor oriented destinations and experiences which are centered on agricultural production. Francisco stated that the facilities need to be built and linked to the primary purpose of visitor orientation to agricultural production not just the aura of Cowboy environment. Francisco noted that agricultural production means the production of food and fiber. Francisco said that this project is being built as a support facility to the main purpose that defines Coyote Springs Ranch as agritourism under the production of calving and oat hay which is what is being presented. Francisco then noted that when a large restaurant facility is presented and Planning Department does not have a detailed business plan showing what the total “big picture” is for the project, it makes it difficult to sort out whether something is being created that will be in opposition to the General Plan eventually.

Baker said that he agrees except that this is a Guest Ranch under agritourism. Baker stated that ranching is the agricultural crop in Mariposa County and horses are part of a Guest Ranch.

Francisco said that he likes the concept of the Ranch, but the problem is finding the agritourism use of the land. Francisco noted that Guest Ranches are defined as being permitted uses under AE exclusive with a Conditional Use Permit.

Baker said that under the new General Plan, Guest Ranches are permitted as a secondary use on AE land. Baker also remarked that he is concerned about the process when they add the vineyard and orchard to the ranch.

Rudzik again stated that if there was a business plan it would show all of the project.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 13

Skyrud referred Baker to circle page 67 where Guest Ranches are listed as a conditional use in Title 17. Skyrud stated that Baker keeps stating that Guest Ranches are permitted under agritourism, but they are not permitted.

Williams clarified by referring to pages 66 and 67 which are the AE zone that was amended in June 2006, before the General Plan was amended and adopted in December of 2006. Williams stated that the permitted uses in the AE zone are listed on circle page 66 and conditional uses are on page 67 and turning the page lists the Commercial Hunting Clubs and Dude/Guest Ranches permitted if not a permitted agritourism use as listed above. Williams said that if you want have a Guest Ranch where the uses are not centered on agricultural production as defined on circle page 68, then it is recommended to go through a Conditional Use Permit. Williams stated that if more than 6 cabins are needed at Coyote Springs Ranch then a Conditional Use Permit is needed.

Skyrud asked Williams if the County has a definition of Guest Ranches.

Williams stated that neither the General Plan or County Zoning Ordinance has a definition of Guest Ranches.

Baker said that a ranch is considered a large farm with cattle and crops. Dude ranches are working farms according to the definition of ranch according to Baker. Baker said that the owners of Coyote Springs Ranch owners are willing to go for a Conditional Use Permit or Commercial Resort Permit.

Skyrud referred again to circle page 25, the email from Schenk stating “ finally you are OK to serve food to day guests visiting your facility.” Skyrud stated that he takes that statement to mean a restaurant.

Ken Pulvino, a Greeley Hill Rancher, spoke in support of Coyote Springs Ranch.

Paul Chapman gave the definition of agritourism and said he felt that Castaldi needs to get a Conditional Use Permit or Commercial Resort Permit.

Rich Lobaugh, lives in Catheys Valley, spoke in support of the Coyote Springs Ranch development .

Norm Miller, lives on ranch, spoke to the concern that lights are on at times when events are not going on. Miller said that he feels he should be able to live and ride on the ranch with the lights on.

Cathy Pierce asked for clarification of the primary and secondary uses of the Ranch. Pierce was concerned with the carrying capacity of Coyote Springs Ranch and its effect on the ranch usage.

Skyrud answered that the primary use is a ranch.

Skyrud asked Schenk if he wanted to respond to any of the comments regarding the appeal.

Schenk said that all the findings regarding the appeal are in the staff report presented and recommendations given to the Commission.

Francisco asked what kind of tool is used to determine primary and secondary usage.

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 14

Williams answered by saying that the allowance of agritourism is to enable ranchers to have another source of income. The expectation is not that the agricultural income exceeds the income of the agritourism activity. Williams stated that there is a clear expectation that the primary land use acreage wise, remains agricultural production.

Francisco said that his understanding is that the measurement tool is acreage not production as far a determining primary and secondary usage.

Skyrud asked if the restaurant was built on Okander’s 130 acres instead of Castaldi’s 21.74 acres, would that make a difference in the size of the facility.

Williams stated that the determination was made on the application that was submitted.

Rudzik expressed his concern again regarding the reluctance of Coyote Springs Ranch to not apply for a Conditional Use Permit.

Public Portion of the Hearing: Closed.

Deliberations:

Motion made by Commissioner Rudzik seconded by Commissioner DeSantis, to adopt a resolution with findings, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Director’s determination and findings.

Francisco remarked that he would like to see the project go forward but is not comfortable with it going forward as agritourism and feels that it should be a Resort Commercial Operation or Guest Ranch Conditional Use Permit and for that reason he supports denial.

Ross stated that he thought there were good efforts and ideas at the ranch that are being harmed and he is disturbed by the idea of not moving forward with the project, but realizes that the laws can’t be ignored so he is in support of the denial.

Skyrud said that he feels that the Planning Director is micro managing the issue and that is not appropriate for the Planning Department. Skyrud said that he would like to see this motion fail. Skyrud added that he feels that this County has got to get really serious about business and not put up barriers, paper or concrete.

Francisco reminded the Commission that this applicant has had the opportunity to pursue the Conditional Use Permit process knowing that it would be easier to do than pursuing the agritourism, especially since agritourism is so new to the County.

Skyrud stated that he would open the Public Portion for the appellant to address the commission.

Public Portion Opened

Castaldi said that she is pleading to the Commission as they tried to do everything possible and if the appeal is denied she will have to close Coyote Springs Ranch. Castatdi said that she would be

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 15

willing to reduce the scale of food being served as the details are being worked out. She feels that because he (Schenk) said she could feed her day guests, the Commission should approve the appeal.

Norm Miller, a member of the Public, asked to speak again and was denied by Skyrud as the Public Portion of the meeting was closed.

Public Portion Closed

Motion Carried by the following vote:

AYES: 3 (Rudzik, Francisco, DeSantis) NOES: 2 (Skyrud, Ross)

Skyrud called for a 10 minute break Break: 2:23pm Reconvened: 2:32pm

Skyrud said that the Cell Tower discussion will be carried over to the next Planning Commission Meeting on November 7, 2008

There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 2:32pm

______Skip Skyrud, Chair Mariposa County Planning Commission ATTEST: ______Judy Mueller, Secretary Mariposa County Planning Commission

Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/17/2008 16