4d) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff Regarding Establishing a New Use Type of Transient Habitation: Low Intensity Camping for the Inland Area (OA_2024-0002)
(Sponsor: Planning and Building Services)
For camping on the coast, and even inland areas of coast please do not allow on private or shared roads. Do not allow on lots smaller than 10 acres.These are neighborhoods, not commercial or visitor services. Turning neighborhoods into a tourist destination is wrong.
With new allowances for 2nd and 3rd units, there is no reason to put more strain on our small rds, neighborhood communities. Why allow problems to happen, this all ends up being civil feuds as planning and building says out of their hands. No more in coastal inland neighborhoods. Period.
I have been a 49 year resident of the Mendocino Coast.
Why are resources wasted during three BOS meetings about “low intensity camping” in addition to three Commission meetings? Supervisors were only given information about the 11-7-2024 Commission meeting, not what transpired beforehand. 22 people opposed the Mayor Use Permit short term vacation home rental application in Albion on 7-15-2021 and 36 people opposed it on 10-21-2021. Similar arguments were brought up then. During the review of the Inland Zoning Code Update, the Commission recommended against adopting regulations for this use type. Ultimately, the BOS 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.
At the 11-7-2024 meeting PBS staff was looking for preliminary direction from Commission regarding low intensity camping, then get input from BOS. Why would Commission, and BOS address these issues first and then hold stakeholder meetings? Why railroading decisions to benefit politicians, lawyers, realtors, Hip Camp and other corporate entities and wasting our tax dollars instead of listening to the constituents from the get go. There is no low impact, nor low intensity connected with this amendment to the General Plan!
Why bother looking at a possibility of a 4 mile, 7 mile, or roadshed boundary? The highly scenic Coastal Zone extends inland by Big River, Albion River, Navarro River, and Garcia River and touches almost the 4 mile boundary. Who cares about the County of Benito Low Impact Camping Ordinance? The County of Benito has public transportation on major highways; there is an airport close by; the median income is much higher; the population more dense; and the median age of residents is 31 years.
What is in the Memorandum (PC Packet Attachment C from a-e) is the Commission’s reasons for recommending against Low Intensity Camping provisions. 70% (43 people) of the people who submitted written comments for the 11-7-2024 meeting clearly expressed their dismay with the Low Intensity Camping provisions. They are worried and appalled about the cost (potential cost) to landowners, renters, and neighbors. Based on all the comments received you know what residents are concerned with. In addition the dead end narrow country roads full of potholes; traffic problems with many areas being under construction; narrow bridges, the two lane coastal road (Hwy 1); degradation of private and public roads; flooded rivers; no effective monitoring, no timely enforcement, lack of environmental protection, setbacks from rivers and wetlands; protection of native plants, dispersal of invasive plants; issues with trash (bear attacks). There is a lack of quick help from emergency services with most of the Hipcamps being on the Coast. A Hipcamp without a permit that had to be reported to the enforcement department and shut down as fire rings and BBQ grills were unsafe, outdoor showers were surrounded by straw mats leaning against propane tanks and propane water heaters next to a dead end road. It does not seem legal to convert residential areas to commercial areas. What about amending the zoning ordinance? These sites need at least a business license, a mayor use permit, and address cumulative impacts through an EIR. Based on written comments 30% (13 people) seem to be less concerned with the Low Intensity Camping provisions. To live/work on site and monitor guests must be a requirement. Commissioner Diana Wiedemann clearly stated issues that were overlooked by staff’s loosely thought out plan.
Where is input from police, ambulance, and Caltrans? Since 10-25-2021 locals shared concerns with Albion-Little River Fire Chief and Supervisor William that there are no Hipcamps guidelines.
Recent adoption of Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, Accessory Units, and subsidized housing for low income people might help with housing needs.
We have state parks and beautiful settings that provides safe relaxation without threatening neighborhoods. Would they suffer from loss of income? How about using fairgrounds? With increased global warming, fire danger, drought, and atmospheric rivers are the risks worth it? The lightning fires, fires in Redwood Valley, Paradise, Santa Rosa, Anderson Valley, and Los Angeles remind us of the dangers.
The premature letter of support of State Senator McGuire’s pre-emptive state-level minimally restrictive Hipcamp approval bill SB 620 (low impact camping) from the BOS was not sponsored by a Supervisor, and without input by the Commission, or the public. It was brought up during the consent calendar where it did not belong, and should not have been approved. It was instigated/coordinated with Hip Camp and other corporate entities. The County is benefiting from the income generated on the Coast without giving back enough money to the Coast. Marijuana did not bring in as much money as County hoped to get. County is not cashing in money owed to them in property taxes, has lost many years of now unrecoverable fees. Would locals loose money, would the County gain money?
Sonoma County BOS voted to change vacation rental regulations. They created a business license program that standardizes operating requirements for vacation rentals to protect neighbors from nuisances, while placing caps and exclusion zones in specific neighborhoods to reduce over-concentration of vacation rentals in these areas. They also amended zoning code to clarify regulations for timeshares and short-term use of fractionally owned residential properties. Sonoma County’s approach bans out-of-county corporate vacation rental ownership. To address proliferation of short-term rentals Santa Rosa started a grassroots organization that is taking their neighborhoods back. See https://sosr.org/ Here are San Francisco’s short-term rental regulations: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/overview-airbnb-law-san-francisco.html
See the 2020/2021 Grand Jury Report about Homelessness and Need for Housing. The Report does unfortunately not address the problems caused by short term rentals. https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/grand-jury/2020-2021-reports
How many empty buildings are in Mendocino County? What would it take to house people in them? Will County Counsel look into obstacles and locations for trailer parks, especially on county-owned land, and ask their “drought task force” to develop some near term water supply and storage projects?
Please deny placing Hipcamps on private properties.
February 11, 2025
From: Don Shanley, Philo, CA
To: Mendocino County Planning Commission & BOS
Re: Transient, “Low Impact Camping” amendment to General Plan
I am writing again to OPPOSE proposed changes to the Mendocino County General Plan to allow Transient Habitation---Low Intensity Camping in all zones of Mendocino County without even a minor use permit to address the multitude of concerns addressed in over 100 written negative responses to this inane proposal. I oppose this code amendment for all the obvious issues well addressed by others. I am not surprised that the Board of Supervisors completely ignored both the vocal and written input of hundreds of opposed constituents as well as ignoring our own Mendocino County Planning Staff precautions and hurdles to this proposed amendment. The BOS slipped in the back door their “Ratification of a Letter of Support for Senate Bill 620 (McGuire) Low Impact Camping” in a regular meeting back on September 10, 2024. This deceitful move is reminiscent of the CEO and Supervisors speedy 2024 eviction of the Veteran Service Office on Observatory Ave in Ukiah. Regarding this eviction former Supervisor McGourty told me to my face, “It’s a done deal Don but appreciate your comments.” How did that work out Mr. McGourty and Supervisor Haschat?
Here we go again! “Low Impact Camping”? Really?! This “Low Impact Camping” is AIRBNB cubed. My wife and I along with neighbors in November 2019 opposed a use permit (U-2017-0032) for an AIRBNB on a private road through our respective properties. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to OPPOSE and denied the use permit. I strongly urge the Planning Commission and BOS review our presentation (a 25 page document) containing attachments addressing neighborhood safety, County enforcement and County/community legal liability issues. All of these concerns apply significantly more to what is now euphemistically so-called “LOW IMPACT CAMPING”.
Why is the County even devoting time and resources to this issue? Was McGuire’s campaign given pledges? Is a cadre of out of work weed entrepreneurs grasping for a low ticket item to keep their gates open and pocket some loose-change for the laundromat. Or, Is the County government now a shill for a Silicon Valley venture capital start-up, “HIPCAMP” with a present market cap of over 300 million dollars with investor’s self-stated goal to “monetize open space”? Investors and their declared company focus is to “Scale globally” (at present over 7 million registered HipCampers) and urge “Hosts” to upgrade their properties with “rentable structures” “A-Frames & Cabins” as offered “add-ons”. HIPCAMP CEO on her way to an IPO states: “We will save the wilderness by disrupting it…” -- as obscene as “we had to destroy the village in order to save it”. HIPCAMP’s goal is the commodification of “amazing outdoor, magical experiences”. The poster above the HIPCAMP CEO’s desk a Walt Whitman line, “Resist Much. Obey Little”. Oh pleeze! Dear Walt turns in his grave as Joni Mitchell’s 1970 lyrics resonate, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone? They paved paradise & put up a parking lot…”
Thank you for your serious consideration to oppose this amendment to protect the “amazing outdoor, magical experiences” of living in Mendocino County---my experience for the past 55 years.
I am concerned that the inland low impact camping ordinance has fundamental flaws. Specific concerns are fire, road impacts, and economic impact to the county and community.
As a resident of Brooktrails wildfire is a major concern. There are some 100 parcels out Sherwood Road that are zoned RU20 or 40. Pre-fire planning has been suggested to mitigate fire risk and provide safety for campers. In case of wildfire, first responders will still need to evacuate the campers. This will delay protection of homes and fire suppression.
Sherwood road and many other rural inland roads are dangerous one way in/one way out. The ordinance would increase pressure on these routes during fire/camping season. If camps are allowed in areas with non-public roads, the campers and associated traffic can create conflicts.
Developing “inland low impact camping” on lands without existing business (ex. wineries or farms) may not be viable. Safety features like; 24-hour on-site management, potable water, fire protection infrastructure, and sanitation will require landowner investment. There need to be adequate amenities or nearby attractions to bring campers to “inland low impact campgrounds”.
The existing ordnance allows for responsible commercial campground development on appropriate lands. In Brooktrails we see the results of under resourced county planning and enforcement. The cost of developing and enforcing this new ordinance is not justified by its benefits to Mendocino County or its people.
Pam Linstedt
After re-reviewing the initial proposal for low intensity camping, items outlined by the Planning Commission for your consideration, and the current public comments in opposition, I remain opposed to allowing for low intensity camping. In particular, my opposition is based on the following concerns: increased fire danger, insufficient infrastructure (public roads), as well as additional cumulative impacts likely to occur (i.e., traffic, noise, visitor use, health and safety regarding water and septic, ecosystem, neighborhood character, property value). Also, I am concerned that if there is a use change that new regulations will not come with sufficient additional funding for regulatory review and enforcement. In your continued assessment of this use change I implore you to prepare a full financial assessment that includes costs (and revenues) to the County and the Special Districts.
Thank you,
Pam Linstedt
As a long-time resident of Mendocino County, I am strongly opposed to the proposed revision to the General Plan that would permit transient camping in residential areas. To preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhoods, outdoor camping and RV use should remain restricted to designated local, state, and national recreation areas, as well as commercial RV and camping sites. These established areas are equipped with the necessary facilities and trained staff to ensure a safe and non-intrusive experience. In contrast, private residential properties lack these essential features, making them ill-suited for such activities. Allowing for-pay camping on private land could introduce significant risks, including noise disturbances, fire hazards, and property damage. Additionally, this change would likely diminish property values and compromise both personal and property safety. The increased demand on police and fire services would also impose an undue burden on our community’s resources.
I live on a rural, non county-maintained road and do not want transient low-intensity camping in my neighborhood. I oppose further degradation of the road by trailers, motor-homes, cars and other vehicles that would drive here. I am concerned about sewage disposal and water usage. I am concerned about garbage. Will accommodations be required for securing garbage from bears?
California wildfires, a majority of which are human-caused, are catastrophic to everyone. Mendocino County has had its fair share and my fire insurance reflects this risk. Are HipCamp sites insured? If so, do these insurance policies account for neighboring properties? I am highly concerned about the impact on my property values and the risk of wildfire. I disagree with MCFCA's support to allow campfires; "discretionary safeguards" do not stop a campfire that is out of control or the negligent drunken cigarette smoker.
There is a plethora of camping facilities on the coast providing safe and professional amenities and services for campers. To create a category of "transient/low-intensity" camping that poses critical risks to everyone is ludicrous.
Please, do not change County plans regarding Transient/Low-Impact Camping in Mendocino County.
My husband and I live on a narrow country road near MacKerricher State Park in beautiful, rural Cleone, California. We are homeowners and Mendocino County taxpayers who oppose the idea of the “low intensity” camping proposed by HipCamp on country lanes like ours and on properties that are not expressly designated for transient campers.
We live across the highway the state park which provides a beautiful campground that welcomes campers, their equipment, and vehicles; they offer an infrastructure that provides water, toilets, safety, fire prevention regulations, and park rangers who oversee the operation.
Alternatively, HipCamp, which is spearheading the drive to permit transient camping on private property in rural neighborhoods, is capitalizing on private citizens’ desires to monetize their properties for camping without the oversight of professional management (as per a State Park or commercial campground), and without clearly protecting whole neighborhoods and ecosystems from harm.
We oppose permitting transient campers on private property, where oversight would be minimal at best. Neighbors would bear the burden of road maintenance, fire safety, sanitary issues, noise, and traffic in quiet rural enclaves.
We fear that the lack of regulation would lead to:
Wildfires ignited inadvertently by clueless campers. Can private property owners effectively regulate smoking or ensure that fire danger is a nonissue? I believe the answer is no.
Poorly designed and/or makeshift sanitation accommodations that could affect fragile creeks, waterways, native plants, fungi, as well as adjacent properties.
Risks for local wildlife that might be attracted by campers’ food supplies and/or trash.
Water use issues. In dry years, water tables are low, and water supplies can be scarce and fire risk high.
No recourse for residents who don’t want to live next to a campground.
Road maintenance issue for neighbors whose rural streets are not designed for heavy recreational vehicles and buses.
The list could go on, but in closing we cite the concerns of the Albion-Little River Fire Dept. and the Elk Fire Dept. who have responded to fire and medical emergencies, as well as other complaints from HipCamp properties. This alone points to enough potential risk that HipCamp should not be allowed to operate in Mendocino County. We strongly oppose this proposal and humbly ask the planning commission to vote NO.
This is a TERRIBLE, ILL-CONCEIVED plan. Low intensity camping should only be in commercial zones where there are services - NOT rural villages or rural residential areas.
Homeowners, like myself, should not be asked to burden the serious risks transients and campers pose to neighbors because a landowner wishes to make additional income.
Homeowners, like myself, should not be asked to burden these risks simply because HipCamp sees an opportunity to expand and increase its revenues or that the Mendocino Tourist Board wants more visitors and increased revenue.
HipCamp’s letters to the commission about reconnecting to nature does not qualify for such a change in Division 1, Title 20 of the Mendocino County Code.
HiCcamp’s stated host and camper standards are not functional realities and we all know it.
Along with public comment letters last year stating negative experiences regarding nearby HipCamp sites, the Albion-Little River Fire Dept. and the Elk Fire Dept. also submitted their concerns to you - stating they have responded to numerous incidents, medical calls, complaints and fires from HipCamp sites. There were many many public comment letters submitted against this proposal in August 2024.
How can this proposal even be considered when there are the following critical concerns?
• Who will stop people smoking in bone-dry grass?
• Who will protect us from a camp fire that gets out of control on an adjacent property?
• What about our property values and ability to re-sell if we’re next to a HipCamp site?
• How will this impact homeowners fire insurance coverage?
• What recourse do neighbors have who don’t want to be next to a campsite?
• What happens to our limited water supply, our roads, sensitive habitat, our peace and quiet?
I already pay enormous property taxes for very little public services. I do not want to live with RVs, trailers, campers, tents or people staying in their cars coming and going in our neighborhood. I especially don’t want to live with such a possible eminent fire danger because some camper turns out to be an idiot.
I urge the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission to reject this inappropriate and dangerous plan and vote NO to adopting this proposal.
We support the requests made by the Mendocino County Fire Chiefs Association and urge the County to include appropriate safeguards so that additional camping and human ignitions in the wildlands of Mendocino County does not lead to additional wildfires. We remind the Board that the vast majority of wildfires are human caused.
The Mendocino County Fire Chiefs Association (MCFCA) supports creating a low-intensity camping ordinance for Mendocino County to ensure that sites are operated safely, with awareness and consideration for emergency services and neighbors. Based on our expertise in these matters, MCFCA requests the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission consider incorporating the following in any low-intensity camping ordinance as it will have a direct and potentially significant impact on our personnel, operations, and public safety.
1. MCFCA requests language within the ordinance specifying that Fire Agencies receive a notification from the County regarding new or updated discretionary and ministerial permits related to low-intensity camping. Notifications should include the location, a site map and responder access information. These notifications will provide Fire Agencies with essential situational awareness for fire and medical emergency response.
MCFCA also requests that these notifications are distributed to individual Fire Agencies, based on response areas as opposed to District boundaries. While most Fire Agencies in Mendocino County are Special Districts with District boundaries, some are not. Furthermore, most Fire Agencies respond to areas well beyond their District boundaries. Therefore, using response areas to provide notifications to Agencies is a more accurate and reliable way to provide all first responders with the information necessary for effective emergency services countywide. MCFCA can work with Planning and Building to provide response area information and implement a notification system.
2. MCFCA requests language within the ordinance specifying that all eligible Fire Districts will receive a referral for discretionary permits, and will be given the option of making site-specific recommendations to ensure that structures and premises are compliant with existing state and local fire safety laws. Additionally, if District recommendations are made, the County will inform the Districts of any changes made by the applicant, and the status of the permit.
3. MCFCA proposes that all discretionary permits include an emergency-plan component that addresses procedures both for handling onsite emergencies and for notifying guests of larger emergencies in the general area. These emergency plans would be most useful if they are required to be posted somewhere onsite.
4. MCFCA understands and appreciates the intention of the first draft ordinance heard by the Planning Commission in banning campfires, but would like to offer an alternate perspective. Property owners have a right to have campfires and burn piles on their property, both recreationally including cooking and to reduce fuel loads, as long as they are in accordance with State and local District rules. Hosting a low-intensity campsite should not nullify this right. Furthermore, if campfires are banned only when guests are present or special requirements are made for these sites, much confusion could result for hosts, neighbors and responding agencies.
Local Fire Agencies or County building officials already have a clear authority and responsibility to enforce and interpret the existing Fire Code to address any hazards and safety issues with structures and premises. Existing Fire Code has well-established regulations, including Section 307: Open Burning, Recreational Fires and Portable Outdoor Fireplaces, providing stipulations for permit requirements (307.2), location and size specifications (307.4), and extinguishing and attendance requirements (307.3 and 307.5); also Section 112, stating that it is ultimately the owner’s full responsibility and liability to abate any hazards.
The County may wish to reiterate these existing codes to those applying for permits as well as existing requirements for reflective address signs and defensible space. Notification of permit applications to Fire Agencies will ensure that Agencies are equipped to enforce the Fire Code as necessary.
5. MCFCA recommends that the ordinance require all-weather road access to camp areas. Fire Agencies respond to medical emergencies, car accidents, downed trees, and all manner of public-safety calls in the winter months, and year-round access to ingress/egress roads is essential to our services.
6. MCFCA requests that the ordinance clarify that low-intensity camp sites are considered private campgrounds for the purposes of transient occupancy tax collection.
MCFCA appreciates the opportunity to provide this feedback to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, and urges the passage and implementation of a low-intensity camping ordinance with these incorporations before next fire season.
For camping on the coast, and even inland areas of coast please do not allow on private or shared roads. Do not allow on lots smaller than 10 acres.These are neighborhoods, not commercial or visitor services. Turning neighborhoods into a tourist destination is wrong.
With new allowances for 2nd and 3rd units, there is no reason to put more strain on our small rds, neighborhood communities. Why allow problems to happen, this all ends up being civil feuds as planning and building says out of their hands. No more in coastal inland neighborhoods. Period.
I oppose low intensity camping in residentially zoned areas. Any camping facilities should have full approval of local fire departments.
To Supervisors,
I have been a 49 year resident of the Mendocino Coast.
Why are resources wasted during three BOS meetings about “low intensity camping” in addition to three Commission meetings? Supervisors were only given information about the 11-7-2024 Commission meeting, not what transpired beforehand. 22 people opposed the Mayor Use Permit short term vacation home rental application in Albion on 7-15-2021 and 36 people opposed it on 10-21-2021. Similar arguments were brought up then. During the review of the Inland Zoning Code Update, the Commission recommended against adopting regulations for this use type. Ultimately, the BOS 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.
At the 11-7-2024 meeting PBS staff was looking for preliminary direction from Commission regarding low intensity camping, then get input from BOS. Why would Commission, and BOS address these issues first and then hold stakeholder meetings? Why railroading decisions to benefit politicians, lawyers, realtors, Hip Camp and other corporate entities and wasting our tax dollars instead of listening to the constituents from the get go. There is no low impact, nor low intensity connected with this amendment to the General Plan!
Why bother looking at a possibility of a 4 mile, 7 mile, or roadshed boundary? The highly scenic Coastal Zone extends inland by Big River, Albion River, Navarro River, and Garcia River and touches almost the 4 mile boundary. Who cares about the County of Benito Low Impact Camping Ordinance? The County of Benito has public transportation on major highways; there is an airport close by; the median income is much higher; the population more dense; and the median age of residents is 31 years.
What is in the Memorandum (PC Packet Attachment C from a-e) is the Commission’s reasons for recommending against Low Intensity Camping provisions. 70% (43 people) of the people who submitted written comments for the 11-7-2024 meeting clearly expressed their dismay with the Low Intensity Camping provisions. They are worried and appalled about the cost (potential cost) to landowners, renters, and neighbors. Based on all the comments received you know what residents are concerned with. In addition the dead end narrow country roads full of potholes; traffic problems with many areas being under construction; narrow bridges, the two lane coastal road (Hwy 1); degradation of private and public roads; flooded rivers; no effective monitoring, no timely enforcement, lack of environmental protection, setbacks from rivers and wetlands; protection of native plants, dispersal of invasive plants; issues with trash (bear attacks). There is a lack of quick help from emergency services with most of the Hipcamps being on the Coast. A Hipcamp without a permit that had to be reported to the enforcement department and shut down as fire rings and BBQ grills were unsafe, outdoor showers were surrounded by straw mats leaning against propane tanks and propane water heaters next to a dead end road. It does not seem legal to convert residential areas to commercial areas. What about amending the zoning ordinance? These sites need at least a business license, a mayor use permit, and address cumulative impacts through an EIR. Based on written comments 30% (13 people) seem to be less concerned with the Low Intensity Camping provisions. To live/work on site and monitor guests must be a requirement. Commissioner Diana Wiedemann clearly stated issues that were overlooked by staff’s loosely thought out plan.
Where is input from police, ambulance, and Caltrans? Since 10-25-2021 locals shared concerns with Albion-Little River Fire Chief and Supervisor William that there are no Hipcamps guidelines.
Recent adoption of Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, Accessory Units, and subsidized housing for low income people might help with housing needs.
We have state parks and beautiful settings that provides safe relaxation without threatening neighborhoods. Would they suffer from loss of income? How about using fairgrounds? With increased global warming, fire danger, drought, and atmospheric rivers are the risks worth it? The lightning fires, fires in Redwood Valley, Paradise, Santa Rosa, Anderson Valley, and Los Angeles remind us of the dangers.
The premature letter of support of State Senator McGuire’s pre-emptive state-level minimally restrictive Hipcamp approval bill SB 620 (low impact camping) from the BOS was not sponsored by a Supervisor, and without input by the Commission, or the public. It was brought up during the consent calendar where it did not belong, and should not have been approved. It was instigated/coordinated with Hip Camp and other corporate entities. The County is benefiting from the income generated on the Coast without giving back enough money to the Coast. Marijuana did not bring in as much money as County hoped to get. County is not cashing in money owed to them in property taxes, has lost many years of now unrecoverable fees. Would locals loose money, would the County gain money?
Sonoma County BOS voted to change vacation rental regulations. They created a business license program that standardizes operating requirements for vacation rentals to protect neighbors from nuisances, while placing caps and exclusion zones in specific neighborhoods to reduce over-concentration of vacation rentals in these areas. They also amended zoning code to clarify regulations for timeshares and short-term use of fractionally owned residential properties. Sonoma County’s approach bans out-of-county corporate vacation rental ownership. To address proliferation of short-term rentals Santa Rosa started a grassroots organization that is taking their neighborhoods back. See https://sosr.org/ Here are San Francisco’s short-term rental regulations: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/overview-airbnb-law-san-francisco.html
See the 2020/2021 Grand Jury Report about Homelessness and Need for Housing. The Report does unfortunately not address the problems caused by short term rentals. https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/grand-jury/2020-2021-reports
How many empty buildings are in Mendocino County? What would it take to house people in them? Will County Counsel look into obstacles and locations for trailer parks, especially on county-owned land, and ask their “drought task force” to develop some near term water supply and storage projects?
Please deny placing Hipcamps on private properties.
Sincerely, Annemarie Weibel
2-10-2025
February 11, 2025
From: Don Shanley, Philo, CA
To: Mendocino County Planning Commission & BOS
Re: Transient, “Low Impact Camping” amendment to General Plan
I am writing again to OPPOSE proposed changes to the Mendocino County General Plan to allow Transient Habitation---Low Intensity Camping in all zones of Mendocino County without even a minor use permit to address the multitude of concerns addressed in over 100 written negative responses to this inane proposal. I oppose this code amendment for all the obvious issues well addressed by others. I am not surprised that the Board of Supervisors completely ignored both the vocal and written input of hundreds of opposed constituents as well as ignoring our own Mendocino County Planning Staff precautions and hurdles to this proposed amendment. The BOS slipped in the back door their “Ratification of a Letter of Support for Senate Bill 620 (McGuire) Low Impact Camping” in a regular meeting back on September 10, 2024. This deceitful move is reminiscent of the CEO and Supervisors speedy 2024 eviction of the Veteran Service Office on Observatory Ave in Ukiah. Regarding this eviction former Supervisor McGourty told me to my face, “It’s a done deal Don but appreciate your comments.” How did that work out Mr. McGourty and Supervisor Haschat?
Here we go again! “Low Impact Camping”? Really?! This “Low Impact Camping” is AIRBNB cubed. My wife and I along with neighbors in November 2019 opposed a use permit (U-2017-0032) for an AIRBNB on a private road through our respective properties. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to OPPOSE and denied the use permit. I strongly urge the Planning Commission and BOS review our presentation (a 25 page document) containing attachments addressing neighborhood safety, County enforcement and County/community legal liability issues. All of these concerns apply significantly more to what is now euphemistically so-called “LOW IMPACT CAMPING”.
Why is the County even devoting time and resources to this issue? Was McGuire’s campaign given pledges? Is a cadre of out of work weed entrepreneurs grasping for a low ticket item to keep their gates open and pocket some loose-change for the laundromat. Or, Is the County government now a shill for a Silicon Valley venture capital start-up, “HIPCAMP” with a present market cap of over 300 million dollars with investor’s self-stated goal to “monetize open space”? Investors and their declared company focus is to “Scale globally” (at present over 7 million registered HipCampers) and urge “Hosts” to upgrade their properties with “rentable structures” “A-Frames & Cabins” as offered “add-ons”. HIPCAMP CEO on her way to an IPO states: “We will save the wilderness by disrupting it…” -- as obscene as “we had to destroy the village in order to save it”. HIPCAMP’s goal is the commodification of “amazing outdoor, magical experiences”. The poster above the HIPCAMP CEO’s desk a Walt Whitman line, “Resist Much. Obey Little”. Oh pleeze! Dear Walt turns in his grave as Joni Mitchell’s 1970 lyrics resonate, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone? They paved paradise & put up a parking lot…”
Thank you for your serious consideration to oppose this amendment to protect the “amazing outdoor, magical experiences” of living in Mendocino County---my experience for the past 55 years.
I am concerned that the inland low impact camping ordinance has fundamental flaws. Specific concerns are fire, road impacts, and economic impact to the county and community.
As a resident of Brooktrails wildfire is a major concern. There are some 100 parcels out Sherwood Road that are zoned RU20 or 40. Pre-fire planning has been suggested to mitigate fire risk and provide safety for campers. In case of wildfire, first responders will still need to evacuate the campers. This will delay protection of homes and fire suppression.
Sherwood road and many other rural inland roads are dangerous one way in/one way out. The ordinance would increase pressure on these routes during fire/camping season. If camps are allowed in areas with non-public roads, the campers and associated traffic can create conflicts.
Developing “inland low impact camping” on lands without existing business (ex. wineries or farms) may not be viable. Safety features like; 24-hour on-site management, potable water, fire protection infrastructure, and sanitation will require landowner investment. There need to be adequate amenities or nearby attractions to bring campers to “inland low impact campgrounds”.
The existing ordnance allows for responsible commercial campground development on appropriate lands. In Brooktrails we see the results of under resourced county planning and enforcement. The cost of developing and enforcing this new ordinance is not justified by its benefits to Mendocino County or its people.
Pam Linstedt
After re-reviewing the initial proposal for low intensity camping, items outlined by the Planning Commission for your consideration, and the current public comments in opposition, I remain opposed to allowing for low intensity camping. In particular, my opposition is based on the following concerns: increased fire danger, insufficient infrastructure (public roads), as well as additional cumulative impacts likely to occur (i.e., traffic, noise, visitor use, health and safety regarding water and septic, ecosystem, neighborhood character, property value). Also, I am concerned that if there is a use change that new regulations will not come with sufficient additional funding for regulatory review and enforcement. In your continued assessment of this use change I implore you to prepare a full financial assessment that includes costs (and revenues) to the County and the Special Districts.
Thank you,
Pam Linstedt
As a long-time resident of Mendocino County, I am strongly opposed to the proposed revision to the General Plan that would permit transient camping in residential areas. To preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhoods, outdoor camping and RV use should remain restricted to designated local, state, and national recreation areas, as well as commercial RV and camping sites. These established areas are equipped with the necessary facilities and trained staff to ensure a safe and non-intrusive experience. In contrast, private residential properties lack these essential features, making them ill-suited for such activities. Allowing for-pay camping on private land could introduce significant risks, including noise disturbances, fire hazards, and property damage. Additionally, this change would likely diminish property values and compromise both personal and property safety. The increased demand on police and fire services would also impose an undue burden on our community’s resources.
Thank you,
Dr. Stephen Lane
I live on a rural, non county-maintained road and do not want transient low-intensity camping in my neighborhood. I oppose further degradation of the road by trailers, motor-homes, cars and other vehicles that would drive here. I am concerned about sewage disposal and water usage. I am concerned about garbage. Will accommodations be required for securing garbage from bears?
California wildfires, a majority of which are human-caused, are catastrophic to everyone. Mendocino County has had its fair share and my fire insurance reflects this risk. Are HipCamp sites insured? If so, do these insurance policies account for neighboring properties? I am highly concerned about the impact on my property values and the risk of wildfire. I disagree with MCFCA's support to allow campfires; "discretionary safeguards" do not stop a campfire that is out of control or the negligent drunken cigarette smoker.
There is a plethora of camping facilities on the coast providing safe and professional amenities and services for campers. To create a category of "transient/low-intensity" camping that poses critical risks to everyone is ludicrous.
Please, do not change County plans regarding Transient/Low-Impact Camping in Mendocino County.
My husband and I live on a narrow country road near MacKerricher State Park in beautiful, rural Cleone, California. We are homeowners and Mendocino County taxpayers who oppose the idea of the “low intensity” camping proposed by HipCamp on country lanes like ours and on properties that are not expressly designated for transient campers.
We live across the highway the state park which provides a beautiful campground that welcomes campers, their equipment, and vehicles; they offer an infrastructure that provides water, toilets, safety, fire prevention regulations, and park rangers who oversee the operation.
Alternatively, HipCamp, which is spearheading the drive to permit transient camping on private property in rural neighborhoods, is capitalizing on private citizens’ desires to monetize their properties for camping without the oversight of professional management (as per a State Park or commercial campground), and without clearly protecting whole neighborhoods and ecosystems from harm.
We oppose permitting transient campers on private property, where oversight would be minimal at best. Neighbors would bear the burden of road maintenance, fire safety, sanitary issues, noise, and traffic in quiet rural enclaves.
We fear that the lack of regulation would lead to:
Wildfires ignited inadvertently by clueless campers. Can private property owners effectively regulate smoking or ensure that fire danger is a nonissue? I believe the answer is no.
Poorly designed and/or makeshift sanitation accommodations that could affect fragile creeks, waterways, native plants, fungi, as well as adjacent properties.
Risks for local wildlife that might be attracted by campers’ food supplies and/or trash.
Water use issues. In dry years, water tables are low, and water supplies can be scarce and fire risk high.
No recourse for residents who don’t want to live next to a campground.
Road maintenance issue for neighbors whose rural streets are not designed for heavy recreational vehicles and buses.
The list could go on, but in closing we cite the concerns of the Albion-Little River Fire Dept. and the Elk Fire Dept. who have responded to fire and medical emergencies, as well as other complaints from HipCamp properties. This alone points to enough potential risk that HipCamp should not be allowed to operate in Mendocino County. We strongly oppose this proposal and humbly ask the planning commission to vote NO.
This is a TERRIBLE, ILL-CONCEIVED plan. Low intensity camping should only be in commercial zones where there are services - NOT rural villages or rural residential areas.
Homeowners, like myself, should not be asked to burden the serious risks transients and campers pose to neighbors because a landowner wishes to make additional income.
Homeowners, like myself, should not be asked to burden these risks simply because HipCamp sees an opportunity to expand and increase its revenues or that the Mendocino Tourist Board wants more visitors and increased revenue.
HipCamp’s letters to the commission about reconnecting to nature does not qualify for such a change in Division 1, Title 20 of the Mendocino County Code.
HiCcamp’s stated host and camper standards are not functional realities and we all know it.
Along with public comment letters last year stating negative experiences regarding nearby HipCamp sites, the Albion-Little River Fire Dept. and the Elk Fire Dept. also submitted their concerns to you - stating they have responded to numerous incidents, medical calls, complaints and fires from HipCamp sites. There were many many public comment letters submitted against this proposal in August 2024.
How can this proposal even be considered when there are the following critical concerns?
• Who will stop people smoking in bone-dry grass?
• Who will protect us from a camp fire that gets out of control on an adjacent property?
• What about our property values and ability to re-sell if we’re next to a HipCamp site?
• How will this impact homeowners fire insurance coverage?
• What recourse do neighbors have who don’t want to be next to a campsite?
• What happens to our limited water supply, our roads, sensitive habitat, our peace and quiet?
I already pay enormous property taxes for very little public services. I do not want to live with RVs, trailers, campers, tents or people staying in their cars coming and going in our neighborhood. I especially don’t want to live with such a possible eminent fire danger because some camper turns out to be an idiot.
I urge the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission to reject this inappropriate and dangerous plan and vote NO to adopting this proposal.
We support the requests made by the Mendocino County Fire Chiefs Association and urge the County to include appropriate safeguards so that additional camping and human ignitions in the wildlands of Mendocino County does not lead to additional wildfires. We remind the Board that the vast majority of wildfires are human caused.
The Mendocino County Fire Chiefs Association (MCFCA) supports creating a low-intensity camping ordinance for Mendocino County to ensure that sites are operated safely, with awareness and consideration for emergency services and neighbors. Based on our expertise in these matters, MCFCA requests the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission consider incorporating the following in any low-intensity camping ordinance as it will have a direct and potentially significant impact on our personnel, operations, and public safety.
1. MCFCA requests language within the ordinance specifying that Fire Agencies receive a notification from the County regarding new or updated discretionary and ministerial permits related to low-intensity camping. Notifications should include the location, a site map and responder access information. These notifications will provide Fire Agencies with essential situational awareness for fire and medical emergency response.
MCFCA also requests that these notifications are distributed to individual Fire Agencies, based on response areas as opposed to District boundaries. While most Fire Agencies in Mendocino County are Special Districts with District boundaries, some are not. Furthermore, most Fire Agencies respond to areas well beyond their District boundaries. Therefore, using response areas to provide notifications to Agencies is a more accurate and reliable way to provide all first responders with the information necessary for effective emergency services countywide. MCFCA can work with Planning and Building to provide response area information and implement a notification system.
2. MCFCA requests language within the ordinance specifying that all eligible Fire Districts will receive a referral for discretionary permits, and will be given the option of making site-specific recommendations to ensure that structures and premises are compliant with existing state and local fire safety laws. Additionally, if District recommendations are made, the County will inform the Districts of any changes made by the applicant, and the status of the permit.
3. MCFCA proposes that all discretionary permits include an emergency-plan component that addresses procedures both for handling onsite emergencies and for notifying guests of larger emergencies in the general area. These emergency plans would be most useful if they are required to be posted somewhere onsite.
4. MCFCA understands and appreciates the intention of the first draft ordinance heard by the Planning Commission in banning campfires, but would like to offer an alternate perspective. Property owners have a right to have campfires and burn piles on their property, both recreationally including cooking and to reduce fuel loads, as long as they are in accordance with State and local District rules. Hosting a low-intensity campsite should not nullify this right. Furthermore, if campfires are banned only when guests are present or special requirements are made for these sites, much confusion could result for hosts, neighbors and responding agencies.
Local Fire Agencies or County building officials already have a clear authority and responsibility to enforce and interpret the existing Fire Code to address any hazards and safety issues with structures and premises. Existing Fire Code has well-established regulations, including Section 307: Open Burning, Recreational Fires and Portable Outdoor Fireplaces, providing stipulations for permit requirements (307.2), location and size specifications (307.4), and extinguishing and attendance requirements (307.3 and 307.5); also Section 112, stating that it is ultimately the owner’s full responsibility and liability to abate any hazards.
The County may wish to reiterate these existing codes to those applying for permits as well as existing requirements for reflective address signs and defensible space. Notification of permit applications to Fire Agencies will ensure that Agencies are equipped to enforce the Fire Code as necessary.
5. MCFCA recommends that the ordinance require all-weather road access to camp areas. Fire Agencies respond to medical emergencies, car accidents, downed trees, and all manner of public-safety calls in the winter months, and year-round access to ingress/egress roads is essential to our services.
6. MCFCA requests that the ordinance clarify that low-intensity camp sites are considered private campgrounds for the purposes of transient occupancy tax collection.
MCFCA appreciates the opportunity to provide this feedback to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, and urges the passage and implementation of a low-intensity camping ordinance with these incorporations before next fire season.