4h) 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)
Please do not consider approving this without a fully funded (e.g., 24 hours/day, 7 days/week) plan for permit compliance/enforcement. As shown in the survey of respondents, fire safety is at the top of the list of concerns. With at least 95% of fires started by humans, any additional activity (brush clearing, campfires, driving, smoking, cooking, etc.) in the wildland and wildland urban interface increase the potential for fire starts (and spread). Fire Districts already have too many unfunded mandates. If this passes, I would expect that a significant portion of the revenue be allocated to them. There will be increased expectations for the Fire Districts to respond to both emergencies and complaints. Any additional commercial activity on private roads should not be allowed unless very specific conditions are met (i.e., agreement with the road association and/or neighbors who use the road).
No on private roads unless all landowners over which the road passes agree (must be confirmed in writing by county and in permit). I don't believe the county has the right to permit commercial use over rural residential easements. Potential lawsuit. This proposal would increase use and therefore maintenance with no recourse for those who pay for and conduct maintenance on their section of road. The cannabis ordinance did this and now the board is visiting this issue upon us once again. We have over 20 parcels behind our property that use the easement with most using the easement without contributing to maintenance. The questionnaire didn't allow adequate ability to provide a detailed response. I believe from talking to neighbors and landowners that use over private roads is a major concern and should not be allowed.
This should be limited to properties already conducting business such as wineries where there is adequate infrastructure and personnel to ensure safety and compliance, Please review the Santa Barbara ordinance. The proposed use in our county is inconsistent with rural residential zoning. If we wanted to live next to congregations of people we would have purchased property in the city.
It is unconscionable that the board is even considering this given nearly the entire footprint of this proposal is within high and very high fire hazard severity zoning. By eliminating nearly the entire coast it forces use in the most at-risk areas. Also, the current language regarding campfires is meaningless as cooking and warming fires are exempt from state fire regulations including bans. And also, there is an exemption for campgrounds. This would bring people from out of the county, many from cities, who have little to no experience with fire safety measures to protect our rural community. They have no local investment and may have less regard for the neighboring properties. Think rental car use and abuse.
Enforcement: The county currently lacks adequate code enforcement staff to regulate just the cannabis permits. Most applicants are said to be "in program" while moving toward compliance while being allowed to continue to operate without a full permit. How would this lax enforcement translate to compliance in the proposed LIC program. Code enforcement staff work 8 AM to 5 PM when most of the concerns/issues will likely occur outside of those hours. Who will enforce during those times? Self-enforcing is ridiculous. If the county proceeds with this proposal all permits issued must include, as a condition of the permit, access by code enforcement staff at any time to ensure compliance.
The full board should be present before voting on this since District 2 would be minimally impacted and Districts 4 and 5 have a good portion carved out on the coast side.
Prepping these sites will likely entail grading and possible timberland conversion, particular if yurts and other infrastructure are proposed.
I participated at a zoom meeting where Low Intensity Camping for the Inland areas was discussed. I have seen first hand how camping by people who are not aware of fire dangers can threaten a whole community. In this case Code Enforcement had to shut the operation down as the possibility of a fire was very real. With wildfires increasing it is harder to get homeowner’s insurance. Data shows that cancellations and nonrenewals are rising nationwide. The costs of climate change are being offloaded onto individual homeowners at the same time insurance companies are investing policyholders’ premiums into stocks, bonds, and more to walk away with record profits. It is a risky business to invite transients to camp. People who live here know about survival. Transients are often not aware of the local conditions. I believe that Low Intensity Camping is a misnomer.
Concerns include: 1) If County enables access to campsites via private roads, problems could arise. Example: my lane was paved by us 5 local homeowners hiring and paying for this. It's not intended for use by campers, as we'd have to pay for all repairs and be liable legally. 2) If allowed, the County must require a resident living on site, to manage enforcement issues, as County is not adequately staffed for any close enforcement. Further, the new proposed Complaint policy limiting the number of complaints per year could negatively affect local residents' interests. 3) Length of stays, number of campers, size of parcel, and other limitations must be specific in any ordinance, and VARIANCES SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. Too often, residents don't object to new County regulations, but PBS often grants variances to the original understanding in regulation, and it's NOT in residents' interests to have to "police" PBS-granted variances. 4) Deadly wildfire hazards are very real in inland Mendocino County. Visitors unfamiliar with this country may find emergency evacuation difficult, when minutes count. The County should consider siren warning systems to help in these situations.
This sounds like an excellent idea until you realize that there are no funds for code/rule enforcement in the county budget. Unless these funds are regenerated through the camper and the campsite owner, they will be nonexistent. Fire danger is the most considerable risk for inland Mendocino, and the slide desk survey confirms that this is the biggest concern of those polled.
Self-reporting of operators, which is being proposed here, is not a realistic proposition because people don't report and comply without enforcement—just human nature. And speaking about nature, Inland Mendocino is vast, and suitable properties over 10 acres will be remote. This remoteness and the high combustibility of Inland Mendocino County's landscape make this a terrible idea for the proposed region.
Please do not consider approving this without a fully funded (e.g., 24 hours/day, 7 days/week) plan for permit compliance/enforcement. As shown in the survey of respondents, fire safety is at the top of the list of concerns. With at least 95% of fires started by humans, any additional activity (brush clearing, campfires, driving, smoking, cooking, etc.) in the wildland and wildland urban interface increase the potential for fire starts (and spread). Fire Districts already have too many unfunded mandates. If this passes, I would expect that a significant portion of the revenue be allocated to them. There will be increased expectations for the Fire Districts to respond to both emergencies and complaints. Any additional commercial activity on private roads should not be allowed unless very specific conditions are met (i.e., agreement with the road association and/or neighbors who use the road).
No on private roads unless all landowners over which the road passes agree (must be confirmed in writing by county and in permit). I don't believe the county has the right to permit commercial use over rural residential easements. Potential lawsuit. This proposal would increase use and therefore maintenance with no recourse for those who pay for and conduct maintenance on their section of road. The cannabis ordinance did this and now the board is visiting this issue upon us once again. We have over 20 parcels behind our property that use the easement with most using the easement without contributing to maintenance. The questionnaire didn't allow adequate ability to provide a detailed response. I believe from talking to neighbors and landowners that use over private roads is a major concern and should not be allowed.
This should be limited to properties already conducting business such as wineries where there is adequate infrastructure and personnel to ensure safety and compliance, Please review the Santa Barbara ordinance. The proposed use in our county is inconsistent with rural residential zoning. If we wanted to live next to congregations of people we would have purchased property in the city.
It is unconscionable that the board is even considering this given nearly the entire footprint of this proposal is within high and very high fire hazard severity zoning. By eliminating nearly the entire coast it forces use in the most at-risk areas. Also, the current language regarding campfires is meaningless as cooking and warming fires are exempt from state fire regulations including bans. And also, there is an exemption for campgrounds. This would bring people from out of the county, many from cities, who have little to no experience with fire safety measures to protect our rural community. They have no local investment and may have less regard for the neighboring properties. Think rental car use and abuse.
Enforcement: The county currently lacks adequate code enforcement staff to regulate just the cannabis permits. Most applicants are said to be "in program" while moving toward compliance while being allowed to continue to operate without a full permit. How would this lax enforcement translate to compliance in the proposed LIC program. Code enforcement staff work 8 AM to 5 PM when most of the concerns/issues will likely occur outside of those hours. Who will enforce during those times? Self-enforcing is ridiculous. If the county proceeds with this proposal all permits issued must include, as a condition of the permit, access by code enforcement staff at any time to ensure compliance.
The full board should be present before voting on this since District 2 would be minimally impacted and Districts 4 and 5 have a good portion carved out on the coast side.
Prepping these sites will likely entail grading and possible timberland conversion, particular if yurts and other infrastructure are proposed.
I participated at a zoom meeting where Low Intensity Camping for the Inland areas was discussed. I have seen first hand how camping by people who are not aware of fire dangers can threaten a whole community. In this case Code Enforcement had to shut the operation down as the possibility of a fire was very real. With wildfires increasing it is harder to get homeowner’s insurance. Data shows that cancellations and nonrenewals are rising nationwide. The costs of climate change are being offloaded onto individual homeowners at the same time insurance companies are investing policyholders’ premiums into stocks, bonds, and more to walk away with record profits. It is a risky business to invite transients to camp. People who live here know about survival. Transients are often not aware of the local conditions. I believe that Low Intensity Camping is a misnomer.
Concerns include: 1) If County enables access to campsites via private roads, problems could arise. Example: my lane was paved by us 5 local homeowners hiring and paying for this. It's not intended for use by campers, as we'd have to pay for all repairs and be liable legally. 2) If allowed, the County must require a resident living on site, to manage enforcement issues, as County is not adequately staffed for any close enforcement. Further, the new proposed Complaint policy limiting the number of complaints per year could negatively affect local residents' interests. 3) Length of stays, number of campers, size of parcel, and other limitations must be specific in any ordinance, and VARIANCES SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. Too often, residents don't object to new County regulations, but PBS often grants variances to the original understanding in regulation, and it's NOT in residents' interests to have to "police" PBS-granted variances. 4) Deadly wildfire hazards are very real in inland Mendocino County. Visitors unfamiliar with this country may find emergency evacuation difficult, when minutes count. The County should consider siren warning systems to help in these situations.
This sounds like an excellent idea until you realize that there are no funds for code/rule enforcement in the county budget. Unless these funds are regenerated through the camper and the campsite owner, they will be nonexistent. Fire danger is the most considerable risk for inland Mendocino, and the slide desk survey confirms that this is the biggest concern of those polled.
Self-reporting of operators, which is being proposed here, is not a realistic proposition because people don't report and comply without enforcement—just human nature. And speaking about nature, Inland Mendocino is vast, and suitable properties over 10 acres will be remote. This remoteness and the high combustibility of Inland Mendocino County's landscape make this a terrible idea for the proposed region.