At its next Tuesday meeting, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors will again discuss whether or not to allow a “new type of transient habitation” referred to as “Low Intensity Camping.”
According to the staff report prepared for the Feb. 11 meeting of the board, the supervisors are expected to discuss, and possibly provide direction to the Department of Planning and Building Services on allowing a “limited number of short-term commercial campsites on properties within the inland areas of the county.”
In their report, Planning and Building Services staff explain that they “sought preliminary direction from the Mendocino County Planning Commission on Nov. 7, 2024 and (are) now seeking preliminary direction from the Board of Supervisors before proceeding with any stakeholder/public meetings. During the review of the Inland Zoning Code Update, the Commission recommended against adopting regulations for this use type (and the) board did not adopt regulations for this use type as part of the Inland Zoning Code Update, but directed staff to come back with a subsequent ordinance amendment to regulate this use type.”
Staff explain that some of the reasons the commission did not recommend adopting Low Intensity Camping provisions at that time were: “Additional time is needed to hear comments from emergency service providers, especially fire districts, and resource agencies, [and there was] concern that separate regulations may be necessary for the western portion of the county that… is generally seen as being part of the Mendocino coast, which generally has greater demand for transient habitation and impacts to traffic and services in the Mendocino Coast area that already includes several permitted campgrounds.”
Other comments and concerns expressed by the commission included:
Traffic/transportation impacts to local roads and state highways.
Require more robust permitting process if located on a private road.
Notification to neighbors if located on a private road.
Impact on fire insurance policies both where campsite is located and adjacent landowners.
Fire risk.
Nuisance to neighbors from noise such as barking dogs, car doors closing, music, generators, etc.
Exclude residentially zoned properties or limit number of campsites.
Ensure solid waste removal from site.
Staff also listed several specific items they are requesting direction from the board on, including: “are there certain zoning districts that should be excluded from consideration, does the board desire to have a minimum parcel size requirement, a cap on the number of campsites that are allowed on any one parcel, a cap on the number of campsites allowed within areas subject to the Inland Zoning Code, and to have an on-site host requirement, essentially meaning that a dwelling unit shall be required and is occupied by a designated host, along with several other questions.”
The board meeting is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on Feb. 11, and will be held in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, located at 501 Low Gap Road in Ukiah. Meetings are live streamed and available for viewing on the Mendocino County YouTube page, at https://www.youtube.com/MendocinoCountyVideo or by toll-free, telephonic live stream at 888-544-8306.
Comments can be submitted using an “online eComment platform at https://mendocino.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. All submitted eComments will be made available to the Supervisors, staff, and the general public immediately upon submittal.”
(Ukiah Daily Journal)
Mark Scaramella Adds:
The UDJ’s unbylined summary of the euphemistically named “new type of transient habitation,” aka “hipcamps,” aka tent and RV camping (plus a few rustic cabins) on rented campsites, covers the basics from next Tuesday’s agenda item.
What it leaves out is 1) the breakdown of who’s for it and who’s against it, 2) the fact that it’s already going on in most of the unincorporated areas of the County, and 3) that the basic outcome is a foregone conclusion since the Board voted unanimously last year to support State Senator Mike McGuire’s pre-emptive state-level minimally restrictive hipcamp approval bill.
https://theava.com/archives/252148
The breakdown of the supporters and opponents is simple: Anybody who stands to make money directly or indirectly from “hipcamps” is for it for no other reason than it will supplement their incomes. Pretty much everybody else is either against the idea outright, or only if substantial restrictions and regulation are imposed — hence the problems listed by the Planning staff which were considered insurmountable by a majority of the Planning Commission.
Obviously, such camping is hard to restrict, regulate or tax. Of course, there are some well-meaning renters out there like Philo’s Kira Brennan who rents out her “Butterfly Landing” campsite and cabin via the hipcamp website and expects people to abide by her “leave it better” policy (although she says the policy is enforced by the “honor system”). And there are the, ahem, less well managed sites that are one step up from a homeless encampment.
A wide variety of unsanctioned hipcamps have already sprung up all over the County, generating both revenue and neighbor complaints as they go. Proponents argue that it will increase tourism, supplement the income of some rural property owners and generate revenue for the County if properly regulated. Opponents say it will create problems that will be nearly impossible to regulate and enforce.
Public comment as presented in Tuesday’s agenda packet ranges from, Okay “if properly managed,” to “only under strict limits and regulation,” to “outrageous.”
The agenda packet also includes several neighbor complaints about existing hipcamps and the less than effective follow-up that ensued.
Since it’s highly likely that the two new Supervisors — Madeline Cline and Bernie Norvell — support the idea as much as their predecessors did, the Supervisors will probably favor some kind of hipcamp proposal despite their own Planning Commission’s opposition. The only question will be what restrictions they might impose and how those restrictions would be enforced.
The unstated background for the idea is at least partly rooted in the ongoing decline of the local wine industry. We’ve heard several reports of large sections of local vineyards being ripped out for lack of grape buyers or grape prices dropping below the cost of production. It’s become so bad in some cases that vineyard owners are preparing to file to have their property reassessed to reflect the down market, a market which few think will recover anytime soon, if at all. Therefore, any vineyard owner suffering from Shrinking Vineyard Syndrome will see hipcamps as an easy way to supplement their declining revenues.
Be First to Comment