Alternative Housing Ordinance Amendments (updated 1/22/26)
The No Place To Go Project (“Project”) supports the proposed Alt/RV Housing Ordinance (“RV Ordinance”). We have some suggestions to improve it, but we see no dealbreakers. We urge passage of the RV Ordinance.
It’s been our concern all along that the regulations would be so restrictive and expensive that it’s just housing on paper, not on the ground. The prohibitive costs and restrictions will discourage people from taking advantage of the RV Ordinance, and they will continue to resort to the unregulated housing black market. Nevertheless, the RV Ordinance does offer a relatively inexpensive way for people to get into legal housing at a fraction of the cost of traditional housing.
The major effect of the RV Ordinance will be to give Code Compliance the guidelines to require the landlord and/or tenant to bring an existing and occupied alternative dwelling unit into compliance instead of forcing the relocation of the tenant.
There is no evidence to support the misconception that the county will be invaded by homeless people in rundown RVs and trailers.
Code Compliance must remain complaint-driven. Code Compliance must be directed to prioritize bringing violators into compliance. Forced relocation must only be used as a last resort. Meritless and malicious complaints must be dismissed.
Probably the biggest disincentive to requesting a permit for a legal RV placement is the requirement in Section C.1. of the RV Ordinance. That section requires a fee and inspection every two years to renew the permit. Very few people are going to want to agree to that, much less pay to be inspected. Just as with other ADUs, initial inspection and permit should be sufficient.
Amendment #2 – Reduce permissible acreage
The purpose of the RV Ordinance is to provide more housing. Restricting RV tenancy to three acres (Section C.6.) or more limits the availability of housing. We recommend one acre with proper screening and setbacks. Many existing RV rentals are peacefully living on lots that are on smaller than three-acres.
Amendment #2a — increase permitted units
Property owners of larger parcels should be allowed to have up to three RV ADUs — provided health & safety (water and septic) standards are met.
Amendment #3 – increase rental term
The purpose of the RV Ordinance also is to provide stable, long-term housing for low-income locals, not tourists. We recommend changing Section C.5.a. from a minimum rental term of 30 days to at least 90 days.
Amendment #4 – This amendment has been withdrawn.
Amendment #5 – prohibit movement during evacuations
Amendment #6 – landlord-liaison and mediation programs
To protect property owners who are concerned about renting to an unhoused person seeking to transition out of homelessness, Nevada County offers a landlord-liaison service that guarantees rent, offers financial incentives to landlords, and covers repair/replacement costs. Landlords may take advantage of this service by calling 530-878-5088 or writing HCT@amihousing.org.
Both the county and private agencies offer conflict mediation and alternative dispute resolution services. Landlords, tenants and complaining neighbors should be encouraged to get to know one another and seek amity instead of enmity.
Amendment #7 - Incentives
What this Alternative/RV Housing Ordinance seriously lacks is incentives. The restrictions, inspections and fees are disincentives to register an RV ADU. Something(s) must be added to the RV Ordinance to encourage people to register. We suggest adding an amnesty for existing occupancies to come into voluntary compliance and for new residencies to register at a reduced cost. Incentives to register might also include a financial incentive or tax break. While such financial inducements might be an increased cost to the county, such incentives are a relatively inexpensive way to create badly needed affordable housing for low-wage workers and those on limited fixed incomes.
Amendment #8 - Grandfather
People who are already living peacefully and responsibly on lots that are smaller than three acres or are in other technical zoning violations should be “grandfathered” in as a way to avoid unnecessary household disruptions.
