The following is a lightly edited summary of the Board of Supervisors meeting on February 11, 2025 produced and transcribed by Notebook LLM.
The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors provided direction to the planning department to undertake public outreach on a new land use type that would allow short-term commercial campsites to be established on properties in inland areas of the county.
Such short-term campsites are commonly associated with Hipcamp, the San Francisco marketing company that makes it easy for property owners to list camp sites and for campers to find them.
The issue is controversial because the modest income provided by the campgrounds does not appear to be enough to defray the cost of fire protection and private road maintenance. According to figures provided to KZYX News by Supervisor John Haschak, there are currently 70 hipcamps operating in Mendocino County. The hosts earned an average of $10,000 a year, Hipcamp reported. If these hosts were required to pay the transient occupancy tax, often known as the "hotel tax," total revenue to the county would be just $70,000.
Supervisor Ted Williams, whose district encompasses the Mendocino Coast, had several comments regarding outreach:
“I hope the meeting is held with Zoom and I think we should have one in each region. I think you know the coast probably needs [a meeting for the] north coast and south coast. “
There's a lot of public concern… Some of the points you haven't touched on that I think will come up in those public forums impact on the sheriff and potentially code enforcement. I think we need to begin working with the sheriff and code enforcement. Is this camping or is this a place to park an RV? Is there a limit to the size of the trailer? Can they pull an RV with a truck behind it? What about loose dogs? Are we putting any limitations on [whether] you're bringing dogs into a residential neighborhood that may not be fenced? That could create a nuisance, even the barking, but dogs running loose.
“The sewage concern: the first hipcamp I ever saw, somebody sent me a screenshot of it and it had a hole in the ground. I grew up with an outhouse. There's places where that has worked historically. I don't think we want to invite visitors into the county to use a hole in the ground as a restroom.
“How does environmental health play into this? I think that's going to be a a big public concern. And then fire safety. I want to see an annual fire inspection by the local fire department. We need to phrase it in code so that the fire district can get reimbursed for their actual cost without doing a nexus study. Right?.. we need to give some means to reimburse the actual cost for inspecting. And we need a way we need to be very clear with the public how these can be revoked that if the sheriff gets called multiple times the complaints are sustained or you know fire says that it's not safe that it will be shut down.
“I think the county has not the greatest track record right we set rules and then they're not followed and really nothing much happens in a lot of cases.”
Supervisor Bernie Norvell, whose district includes Fort Bragg, was notably less concerned than Williams.
“A lot of the discussion here today is about what can go wrong and why these things are bad. That's not always the case. I mean I've got one in the fourth [district] at least one that I know they're here today that are the example of it can be done and it can be done well and for the right reasons.”
Supervisor Madeline Cline specifically expressed support for large, heavy RVs that can exert significant wear and tear on private roads. “Something that was discussed at the planning commission was a ban on RVs or or large vehicles, vans. I want to just discourage that from being included. It's a great way for people to be self-contained and have low impact on the parcel that they're on.”
The memorandum prepared for the meeting outlined 11 topic areas to discuss. Notebook LLM provides a summary that is included with the topic area hipif the topic was addressed.
Separate Regulations: Whether to establish separate regulations for areas near the coastal zone that are subject to inland zoning regulations. Options for consideration of a potential buffer from the coastal bluff included a four-mile boundary, a seven-mile boundary, and a roaded boundary. Ultimately, the board agreed that there should be separate considerations for areas near the coast that fall into the inland district.
Zoning Districts: Which zoning districts should be excluded from consideration for this type of land use activity. There was a suggestion of focusing primarily on agricultural zones to address potential nuisance concerns.
Parcel Size: Whether to have a minimum parcel size requirement6. It was suggested that a sliding scale might be appropriate, allowing more campsites on larger parcels.
Cap on Campsites: Whether the board desires to have a cap on the number of campsites that are allowed on any one parcel.
Overall Cap: Whether to have a cap on the number of campsites allowed within the areas subject to the inland zoning code.
On-site Host: Whether the board desires to have an on-site host requirement. There was general support for this.
Setback Standard: Whether the board desires to have a minimum setback standard between campsites and either adjacent properties or dwellings beyond the standard zoning setbacks. The board discussed a 1,000 foot setback, while also allowing for a discretionary permit to reduce that setback.
Discretionary Permits: Whether discretionary permits should be required for all sites.
Private Roads: Whether to have different permit requirements for sites located on private roads.
Williamson Act: Whether to have more restrictive requirements on properties under Williamson Act contract.
Public Outreach: What public outreach efforts should be made for ordinance preparation. It was suggested that meetings be held via Zoom, with at least one meeting in each region.