Approximately 90 people attended the town hall-style public hearing intended to gather public comments on a proposed draft ordinance that would allow recreational vehicles (RVs) as residential dwellings on private property in Nevada County’s unincorporated areas, Tuesday evening at the Grass Valley Veterans Memorial Building.
If the ordinance is passed as written by the board of supervisors in November, the RVs would be subject to the approval of an administrative development permit from Nevada County, and site inspection for renewal would be required every two years.
No decisions were made during the public hearing.
The proposal would allow RVs to serve as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on private properties of three acres or more that already have a single-family home, according to the draft ordinance.
If approved, permits would be renewed with inspection by a person who is certified as an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) inspector, not the county’s building department, according to Brian Foss, Planning Department Director.
Approximately 1,900 written comments have been submitted to the county regarding the draft ordinance according to Tyler Barrington, Director of Housing & Community Services and former Principal Planner who co-hosted the workshop with Foss.
“It’s one of the largest public input that we’ve ever gotten on a project,” Barrington said. “Kudos to all of you for doing that.”
A total of 22 people spoke at the podium — an almost equal amount of comments in favor and in opposition to the draft ordinance — with an informal question and answer session following.
Many individuals offered suggestions on what they would like to see adjusted in the language of the draft ordinance.
The purpose of the draft ordinance is to respond to the need for housing throughout the county.
The county’s planning department is still fine-tuning the five-page document before it is presented to the Nevada County Planning Commission in October, and then potentially the board of supervisors in November, according to Foss.
Tom Durkin, Director of the No Place to Go Project spoke in favor of the ordinance and requested that the permissible size of a lot be reduced from “three to one acre” before final recommendations are made.
He also requested that the definition for an RV be changed so that it did not require the structure to have wheels — this way the resident could qualify for a housing choice voucher, also known as a Section 8, rental assistance program funded by the federal government, that helps low-income individuals and families afford housing.
“Take the wheels off, and now it’s an ADU,” Durkin told The Union.
Making the requirements affordable and offering “amnesty” to people who currently live in RVs, giving them time to come into compliance were other key amendments Durkin suggested, otherwise it is just “housing on paper.”
Currently the draft ordinance states that the RV must be “either self-propelled, truck-mounted, or permanently towable on the highways.”
Another speaker, generally in favor of the ordinance, asked Foss why a primary single-family dwelling is required to exist on the lot where the RV might be set up.
The speaker explained that she is a property owner and can’t afford to build a single-family dwelling, but that she “wants to live in her RV on her own property.”
“I don’t get any services, really, for my property tax, as far as I’m concerned, If I’m in a safe RV, as long as the utilities are not becoming a hazard environmentally, it should be allowed,” the speaker said.
Alternatives to the ordinance suggested by others at the meeting supported the idea of the county establishing “safe stay areas” with adequate infrastructure where the residents in RVs could be closer to social services and facilities such as schools, grocery stores, medical offices, and other needs within the city limits.
In May, the Nevada County Civil Grand Jury made the recommendation to Nevada County officials, that local governments should develop one or more designated low barrier “sanctioned” camping areas for the homeless, with facilities and access to support services, similar to those established by other municipalities.
Other entities and individuals have made efforts to establish a safe camping area in the past.
Brad Peceimer, who has acquired and distributed 300 RVs or vehicles to people in need over the past nine years told Foss, Barrington, and the public that the county needs to “solve this problem now.”
Other attendees made the point that an unfair stereotype is being applied to the types of people who would reside in an affordable, permitted RV if given the opportunity.
“There are a lot of people who want to follow the rules,” one speaker in favor of the ordinance said.
Ralph Silberstein, President of Community Environmental Advocates Foundation said he was “generally in support of the ordinance as long as all the correct safeguards are in place.”
Even though the ordinance has been presented as a solution for homelessness, Silberstein and several speakers made the point that with all the regulations and costs, this ordinance is more of an opportunity for retired people, people with low-to-average paying jobs, and families — not the people living in the streets with substance abuse disorders as stated by fearful opponents.
The ordinance provides a “pathway” to housing for those who need a permanent home, according to Silberstein.
A recurring comment from several speakers was a lack of trust in enforcement of codes and regulations. That Nevada County has a complaint-driven process for compliance in other areas, such as cannabis farms, enforcement was questioned by some.
One resident from the Cement Hill Road area was concerned about the “normalization” of people living in camps.
She and others doubted how well law enforcement agencies could stop people living in RVs from taking to the single-lane roads during an evacuation.
A large budget would be needed for enforcement of regulations and code compliance on every level, another resident, from the Red Dog Road area, stated.
First time code violations were suggested to start at $250 and “any real fine worth its weight in gold” should start off at $5,000, according to another.
Several individuals with a self-proclaimed background in real estate and lending, warned homeowners to consider consequences of the ordinance if approved.
“Anyone trying to refinance their home would have to remove a tiny home on wheels,” one person who worked in lending said.
Another long-time resident opposed to the ordinance stated that the primary concern is insurance.
“I think that is really frightening and needs to be considered,” the speaker said.
Supporters of the ordinance highlighted the importance of helping people experiencing homelessness, a mounting problem in not only Nevada County, but California.
Other supporters of the ordinance stressed the need to keep administrative costs down because they then are passed on to the renter. One speaker mentioned that there are a lot of people who are “really struggling” and that they “wait on lists for years, living in the woods” just for a chance to get housing and “feel like a human.”
As folks were leaving the workshop, one attendee could be heard saying, “This could be a game changer.”
Two more public hearings are scheduled
- South County Municipal Advisory Council Special Meeting on September 15, from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Higgins Lions Community Center, 22490 East Hacienda Drive, Grass Valley.
- Penn Valley Municipal Advisory Council Special Meeting on September 23 from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Penn Valley Fire Protection District Headquarters, 10513 Spenceville Road, Penn Valley.
