Planning commission recommends rezoning three Hopland‑area parcels to A40 with conditions to protect riparian and cultural resources

The Mendocino County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve a general plan amendment and rezone of three parcels near Hopland from Rangeland (RL160) to Agricultural (A40) with a contract‑reszone combining district imposing limits to protect riparian and cultural resources.

Staff planner Shelley Miller told the commission the proposal would change zoning and land‑use classification for three legal parcels totaling roughly 108 acres (multiple APNs presented in staff material) and that the owner has stated the rezone would enhance the viability of agricultural operations, align the parcels with surrounding land uses and support long‑term vineyard and grazing activity. Miller noted the parcels are partly subject to a Williamson Act contract; the applicant indicated compatible commercial cannabis cultivation would be technically allowed under the Williamson Act but that they do not plan to pursue cannabis currently.

The archaeological commission reviewed two cultural reports: one for a dam removal and a second survey that covered only a one‑acre portion of the property. Archaeology reviewers did not identify artifacts in the second report but recommended additional surveys where future ground disturbance occurs near Feliz Creek. County staff and project conditions require a 50‑foot setback from riparian vegetation, a pre‑construction bird survey if work occurs in nesting season (Jan. 15–Sept. 15), and wildlife‑friendly fencing for any new or replacement fences.

Applicant agent Jim Ronco and owner Stephen Amato said the rezoning is driven in part by access to agricultural lending and other financing sources that are more readily available for A40‑zoned properties. "Lenders will not make an agricultural loan for vineyards on lands that are zone[r] rangeland," Ronco explained; Amato said the change would help preserve agricultural use and increase the property’s equity and prospects for continued farm operations.

Deputy County Counsel advised staff and commissioners that the initial staff finding that used the term "spot zoning" was legally problematic and suggested it be removed or revised because the application does not reduce the rights of surrounding parcels; staff supplied a revised finding and exhibit corrections during the hearing. Commissioners discussed the financing rationale and local parcel size patterns and asked staff to consider whether similar nonconforming parcels in the valley should be addressed in future plan updates.

The commission approved a resolution (as amended) recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt the general plan amendment and rezone to A40 with the contract combining district. The recommendation included the negative declaration with the added conditions described above; commissioners recorded a unanimous roll‑call vote in support (Jones, Richards, Weedman, Chair Pollen). The item will next go to the Board of Supervisors for final action.