NEVADA COUNTY, Calif. March 10, 2026 – The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, by a 4-1 vote, decided to punt on an ordinance permitting RVs as permanent housing on developed, 3-acre minimum residential parcels.
The board item was the culmination of a year-long process, initiated by the supervisors as a policy directive. Public comment was spirited, with musical numbers and close to two hours long. A majority of commenters were in favor of the proposed ordinance.
Usually, the Board Chair invites questions or comments from fellow board members after public comment has concluded. Chair Swarthout acknowledged that her move was a bit unusual but said, “So the one thing that I did want to say though is, we have an existing ordinance that deals with RV and people living in RVs. And basically right now we have choice today. We can vote yes, we can vote no, or potentially we can have a compromise on this. I would like to throw out a compromise.”
Her compromise consisted of adding a hardship clause to the existing RV ordinance that currently lists only four different scenarios where you can legally live in an RV on a property. [construction of a residence, medical care, seasonal housing and security.]
District 4 Supervisor Sue Hoek pointed to a comment by a member of the public regarding the need for a financial analysis, how potentially an RV could impact neighboring property values. Hoek added, “The road standards, that was big for me too. How’s that all going to fit in and play into the safety net from whether you put in an ADU and the restrictions to that, versus now allowing the mobile homes? I’m just going to say, I just watched one of these burn up the other day and they do go really fast.”
District 2 Supervisor Robb Tucker took the idea of compromise and suggested passing it on to other jurisdictions. “I think this is a microcosm because we’re not proposing this in the cities of Grass Valley and Truckee and Nevada City. In fact, I think those, if this is such a great idea, I think they should step up and let’s try it there. That could be our pilot program.”
District 1 Supervisor Heidi Hall expressed some impatience with drawing the decision out “We are one community. So I’m at this point willing to consider pilot programs or other options, but I’m not interested in delaying this if we can avoid that or having to go back and do more major changes. I feel very committed at this point. I really did listen a lot today. I feel quite committed to the fact that staff has done a really good job, has listened very well to the community. I know I’m going to make some people unhappy, and I’m sorry. But I feel like the need for the housing and the robust way we’ve approached this and the safety measures we put in place means this is probably the best we can do, and I hope that we can get it passed and get a few of these permitted and see how it goes.”
District 5 Supervisor Hardy Bullock disagreed with the concept of an RV being a home, “I don’t think it’s a house. I don’t think it’s a home. I think it’s shelter. And I come to that conclusion after helping a friend of mine for a year live in an RV in a different county.” He went on to say, “I just don’t know if allowing somebody to live in an RV for an extended period of time is the most helpful thing for them and or for our community character. I think there’s concerns with noise and light. To me, I don’t see the fire as being a big concern because I think that everybody has an inherent solid understanding at this point that they don’t want to start a fire.”
The ensuing discussion highlighted some interesting perspectives, including the fact that staff had done a great job at bringing the Board’s policy directive back to them in the form of this ordinance. But that’s where the agreement stopped.
Swarthout said, “I think exactly what you’re talking about Hardy, is kind of my thought as well. People who are living in RVs, because that is really what they can afford. Oftentimes they do need additional services. If we create a hardship category under allowing people to live in an RV on a temporary basis, it gives us, the county, an opportunity to help people… So I want to give people that opportunity, I don’t want to just say, yeah, no one can live in an RV. That I think is not realistic, because we do have people living in that situation.”
Hoek went back to the possibility of considering RV housing for a shorter period, providing it as a stepping stone to permanent traditional housing. “Then somebody else gets to come in, so it keeps it moving. It keeps it from just being actually, just possibly a Airbnb type situation. Because that’s really not what we’re looking for. It’s more of an emergency situation.” It’s not that lifetime daily situation that affects the neighbors,” she said, disagreeing with Tucker who had no issue with RVs being used as short term rentals. “This is our whole county and I know we all want to be a part of the solutions. Nobody wants anybody to be homeless.”
Hall tried again to make the argument for using the ordinance before them as a pilot project, “I think I would agree that for most people, living in an RV long term is not their ideal goal. I think most people want to move up front out from that. But some of us here are being theoretical. There are already people living in RVs. We’re trying to give them a path to compliance. What about if we turn this into into a pilot program. So we say, we’ll allow it for one year or two years because it might take a while for people to figure out and we’ll come back and look at it.”
Motion making is hard
The discussion then turned to the finer points of how to make any changes to the proposed ordinance. This turned into a confusing discussion, despite CEO Lehman’s attempts to clarify the process, “If you’re going to make a motion to continue, then we need further direction of what we’re going to be working on, what we’re going to be bringing back and I’m not quite sure we’re there yet.”
Tucker had trouble with the concept of bringing the proposed ordinance back with changes, “I feel like from my standpoint, number one, I agree, Heidi. We don’t want all this work and ideas and discussion to go to waste and I hope that won’t happen. On the flip side, I feel like from my standpoint, so much of it has been, you know, thousands of comments have been directed at permanent RV dwellings on private property.” His preference at that point appeared to be tabling the ordinance and coming back at a later date. Lehman explained again, “I wasn’t clear. We would take a break to bring back the direction of the board and then come back. The other option that the board would have is that you could go ahead and make a motion on the current ordinance and then, if it fails, at a later date you can reopen it with new directions.”
Bullock jumped back on the discussion, “I mean, I guess lacking a radical departure from the current ordinance, a time sensitive, or maybe to your point, maybe we call it a pilot, maybe it’s a two year pilot and we see how it goes.” Swarthout chimed in, “I’m not a big fan of changing direction from all of us up here. I think there’s sometimes we’ll give you suggestions. There’s unintended consequences that we don’t know need to be vetted by legal counsel. So, you know, my recommendation would be to continue it, to look at the compromise.”
Staff tried to summarize what they heard, “Supervisors and Chair Swarthout, I think we got the main points and then, if we took a break after we get your feedback, we would come back with a slide that kind of outlined what the direction was so it was very clear. Then you could make your motion on that, and what I’ve heard so far is amending the proposed ordinance to fit within the existing or rather in creating a new section, call it a hardship ordinance and develop hardship criteria or the parameters for what that criteria would look like and potentially consider it to be a pilot program to be determined on the length of time with that.”
Tucker was still unsure about the consequences of the process, “Like I said, I think it speaks to where today I would not be ready to support something like that because I need, I would want to see that process because this is different and it might potentially have to go back to the planning commission.”
Hall was not impressed with the Board, “We’ve had a year, you’ve had a year to come up with all these other ideas. I mean, people are sitting in their RVs waiting for housing. I’m really disappointed that we’re coming up with last minute decisions. I am not inclined to vote for anything but moving forward. But I will continue to work on trying to get more housing here no matter what anybody up here says or votes.” Swarthout disagreed, “You know, we’ve been working on, some people have been working on this for a long time, but the first opportunity that all of us have to talk about this is right here and right now. This is the process.” She continued, “I think if we can take a little bit more time and maybe reason through a few of these things that we’ve heard today. I’ve heard some new information. One of the things that I’m very committed to helping with is looking for a permanent site to park recreational vehicles for people who are in this situation with some of our nonprofits who are already working in that space.”
Direction to staff
The Board then took a break and staff came back with a slide presenting the directions given by the Supervisors:
Revise the proposed ordinance to be included in the current recreational vehicle use and temporary occupancy section of the zoning ordinance to allow RV use based on hardship qualification. Second point is develop criteria for hardship qualification for temporary occupancy working with HHSA Housing Authority and the housing ad hoc committee as needed. And thirdly, explore pilot program pros and cons options.
Of course, that was too simple. Hardy Bullock asked, “Could we add to the last bullet Explore pilot programs pros and cons and a sunsetting episode. I mean there’s something addressing time or the length of it.” That prompted Heidi Hall to point back to the proposed ordinance, “We’re making these assumptions that we just need to get them out into a permanent home. And to me, this is addressing the fact that we don’t have other places for these people to go that are affordable.” Robb Tucker was still unclear on the concept of voting to give direction to staff to come back with a modified proposal was just that and not agreeing or hinting at agreeing to vote in favor of the ordinance, “I just make that clear because perhaps I feel like, how do we get here when, you know, a year ago or whatever, did I say yes, I agree with giving direction to staff to evaluate this. But in my mind at the time, I wasn’t envisioning what was presented today.”
Swarthout explained, again, “A vote today is just a vote to continue this to see if we can get closer to having consensus from all of us first for something. So that’s what about today is. It doesn’t mean that you support or don’t support the ordinance, is just about to continue it.”
That’s when Hall stated again she couldn’t vote for that, “So we are voting on the recommendation to continue it. That’s the motion. Right. So I just want to make clear that to me, I am not going to be able to vote yes on this. It’s because this is a failure of us that we have spent so much time on this. We should have each been talking to staff and telling them what we wanted to see if it was different than what came forward today. We agreed to explore this in January. And so to me, this is a failure of the process altogether.”
That then prompted Bullock to explain his position again, “I just want to respectfully disagree and that’s from my position. I own property in every district in the county except Robb’s. Maybe I’ll find something near Robb. But I have considered it every which way from Sunday. When I walked in here, I said, I’m not going to have a bias. I’m not going to predetermine my decision. I’m going to wait to hear what everybody else has to say. I’m going to try and understand them from where they are. I’ve had every external conversation I can have, every single meeting that was requested of me. I sat down and I understood everything in the written staff report. I didn’t know how it was going to be when I came in here because I wanted to hear from you. I want to hear from you. I want to hear from you, and I want to hear from Supervisor Tucker. And now that I have. This is where I land. And so that’s what I stand for.”
Swarthout finally brought the discussion to a close, “So think this is a good compromise here. We’re not saying no today. We’re not saying yes. We’re going to do a little bit more work on this, and we’re going to try and get it right, and we’re going to see if we can get consensus to make it work for everybody. So with that, I think, Hardy, you had made a motion.”
Bullock’s motion, seconded by Hoek, to have staff work up a revision of the existing ordinance, make modifications to the proposed ordinance, and bring all the options back to the Board passed with a 4-1 vote with Hall voting No. Staff mentioned they should be able to bring this back this summer.
Some background
During the 2024 Board workshop, supervisors directed staff to develop an ordinance to allow for Tiny Homes on Wheels as permanent housing. That ordinance was adopted in January 2025. At that time, the board directed staff to develop an ordinance to allow RVs to be considered as a form of alternative housing, with a lengthy series of requirements. In April of 2025, staff presented the work plan to the supervisors and held several community meetings, conducted surveys and finally brought the item to the Planning Commission in November of 2025.
The core of the ordinance states “Residential RVs would be permitted only as additional dwelling units on a developed site, as they are required to connect to existing infrastructure. Eligible parcels would be at least three acres in size to ensure adequate space for both well and septic systems. Only one residential RV would be allowed per parcel, and all units would have to comply with the setback requirements of the applicable zoning district.” Inspections for a use permit would take place before permit issuance and the permit would have to be renewed every two years.