Crescent City sends RV-permitting ordinance back to staff after heated debate

The Crescent City Commission on May 14 declined to approve an amendment to Section 18-8 of the city code as presented and instead directed staff to rework the proposal so temporary vehicle-based living quarters on nonresidential sites would be handled through a conditional-use or similar case-by-case process.

The ordinance as drafted would have updated city rules to permit motor homes, travel trailers, campers and similar recreational vehicles to be used temporarily as living quarters or to be stationed on commercial and other nonresidential properties during construction for security purposes. Planning staff said the change was intended to modernize code and create a permit pathway for legitimate security and construction-related needs.

Commission debate focused on enforcement, definitions and potential unintended consequences. “My problem with all of this, I think it sounds ridiculous,” one commissioner said during the discussion, questioning whether the city can realistically prevent long-term occupancy if permits are broadly available. Planning staff and the city attorney said the existing residential permit allowed up to a year for property owners under construction but that the current code lacked a mechanism to authorize similar uses on commercial or light-industrial sites.

City Attorney Donald Holmes noted enforcement options differ between residential and commercial properties and suggested the commission could require a special exception or conditional-use review to add conditions—such as hookup requirements, screening and limited durations—that would be enforceable through the city’s code process. Commissioners pressed staff on whether definitions for “recreational vehicle” and related terms should be added before a second reading; staff agreed definitions could be incorporated.

After an extended exchange and an initial failed roll call on the ordinance in its current form, the commission voted to direct the city manager, planning staff and the city attorney to return with a new ordinance framing the use as a conditional use or special exception with specific criteria and enforcement tools. The motion passed unanimously.

What happens next: Staff will draft a revised ordinance that would require commission or planning-body review (or other case-by-case authorization) and return it to the commission for further consideration. The rewrite is intended to add clearer conditions, define vehicle types, and create practical enforcement mechanisms rather than grant open, blanket permission to park living vehicles on any nonresidential site.

The discussion included multiple commissioners, the planning director, the city manager and the city attorney; no ordinance was adopted on first reading at the May 14 meeting.