On March 10 at 1:30 p.m., the Nevada County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote – after a final public hearing – on the proposed Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance (RV Ordinance).

If the supervisors approve the ordinance, Nevada County will be the first county in the state to allow people to live in RVs & trailers full-time on private property with, of course, provisions for health & safety and certain other restrictions.

The Tuesday hearing will be the last chance for citizens to voice their opinions on this affordable housing option.

“We are urging RV Ordinance supporters to show up and speak up – respectfully and peacefully – in favor of this carefully crafted ordinance,” said Tom Durkin, executive director of the No Place To Go (NPTG) Project, which first proposed the idea seven years ago.

A community survey conducted last summer by the Nevada County Community Development Agency revealed that 72% of survey respondents favored the ordinance.

homeless/housing crisis

Lack of affordable housing is the primary cause of homelessness in California, according to the 2024 “California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness” (CASPEH)) from the University of California, San Francisco.

This means even people who can afford housing can’t find it in what CASPEH calls a ruthless game of “musical chairs” where there are more people than there is housing for them.

Low wages and high rents significantly contribute to the homeless/housing crisis, according to CASPEH.

Despite Nevada County’s best efforts to facilitate the construction of more housing, an average of five people become homeless in Nevada County every month, according to a report last year from Health and Human Services Director Ryan Gruver and then-Behavioral Health Director Phebe Bell.

During the discussion to direct staff to write the ordinance. Chair Supervisor Lisa Swarthout noted, “We can’t build our way out of this crisis.”

a new pathway

The draft ordinance was released in August. Nevada County Planning Director Brian Foss and Housing Director Tyler Barrington hosted three public hearings on the ordinance.

The first hearing in Grass Valley was evenly split between supporters and opponents.

The second hearing at the South County Municipal Advisory Council resulted in a 5-1 vote against the ordinance. The third hearing at the Penn Valley MAC resulted in a 6-0 vote in favor of the ordinance.

County staff amended several provisions of the ordinance based on written comments and public input during the hearings. The revised ordinance was presented to the Nevada County Planning Commission at a contentious hearing Nov. 13, 2025.

Donn Harris, secretary of the NPTG Project Board of Directors, reported 21 people spoke in favor of ordinance, 10 spoke against it, and he characterized two public comments as neutral.

Despite reminders from county staff and fellow planning commissioners that their charge was to determine land-use policy, Commissioners Terry McAteer and Steve French voted against the ordinance based on unproved allegations of lack of Code Compliance enforcement and the high cost of compliance with the ordinance.

Both during the planning commission testimony and in a previous private meeting with the NTPG Project, Matt Kelley, director of Code Compliance Division, denied that Code Compliance is not doing its job or that the division is understaffed.

While conceding the cost of compliance is considerable, Commissioners Danny Milman, Jo Garst and John Foley noted the cost of an RV/ADU (accessory dwelling unit) is less than half the cost of a “stick-built” ADU.

The existing consensus is that an ADU costs at least $200K. Milman noted after the hearing that a property owner could put in a pad with hookups to the property’s existing electrical, water and septic systems and buy an RV or trailer for a total cost of less than $100K.

The majority of commissioners also stated they wanted to give “good actors” a chance to have a “legal pathway” to housing if tenants and landlords were willing to pay the costs and were eligible to meet the requirements of the ordinance.

impact

The proposed Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance would  create a new, affordable-housing market.

RVs & trailers are a proven housing option because an estimated ‘thousands” of Nevada County residents already  live in RVs & trailers – illegally.

Previously, people living in illegal RVs are at risk of being forced to leave their homes by Code Compliance. With the critical lack of legal, affordable housing, the dislocated tenants might just move to another illegal RV/trailer – or worse, become homeless.

When the supervisors directed staff to write the ordinance, they also ordered a moratorium on forced relocations of tenants who were safe in their RVs for at least during the determination period of the ordinance.

Ordinance analysis

Although the ordinance would provide a legal pathway to housing, it also presents significant roadblocks and speed bumps.

RVs & trailers are limited to just one per parcel that must be three acres or larger in specified rural areas. An existing single-family residence must already be on the property or under construction.

The parcel must have sufficient water and septic capacity to accommodate an occupied RV/ADU.

Unlike other ADUs, an RV/ADU must be permitted and inspected every two years. RV/ADUs must pay all other permits and fees as just like other ADUs.

There are no fee or permit waivers in the ordinance as opponents of the ordinance erroneously claim.

Because of the costs and restrictions of compliance, as well as evidence from CASPEH, the NPTG Project does not anticipate an influx on new RV/ADUs as ordinance opponents assume without proof.

Opponents also claim a “great financial loss” to property value if the ordinance is approved. This ignores the fact that RVs & trailers are already – and historically  have been – a long-standing option for low-income essential workers, emerging entrepreneurs and self-employed creatives; college students; homeless youth; single-parent families; older and disabled people; and other citizens  at-risk of homelessness.

In a last-ditch effort to stop the ordinance, several opponents are now threatening a class-action lawsuit.

“It’s sad that some people seem to prefer to maintain the status quo of a steadily worsening homeless/housing crisis rather than to allow their fellow citizens live in safe and affordable housing,” said NPTG Project Director Durkin.

“The beauty of this carefully crafted Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance is that it creates safe and affordable housing without building anything or spending millions of dollars,” he said. “This just makes dollars and sense.”

Therefore, “We are asking civil and respectful people to come to the Board of Supervisors’ chambers this Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. to show and tell the supervisors that we, the majority of Nevada County citizens, believe housing is a human right.”

The No Place To Go Project is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to using the creative arts to promote social justice and housing for at-risk and unhoused/homeless people.

To review the actual proposed ordinance as amended, go to:
www.nevadacountyca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59181/Alternative-RV-Housing-Ordinance-PLN25-0084-ORD25-1-Public-Review-Draft-PDF

To review the reason the No Place To Go Project supports the Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance, go to:
www.noplacetogoproject.org/talking-points

To review the No Place To Go Project’s suggested amendments to the Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance, go to:
www.noplacetogoproject.org/alternative-housing-amendments

There is no known online source of consolidated arguments against the Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance.