Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2506-4783CITY OF PALO ALTO Policy & Services Committee Special Meeting Monday, August 25, 2025 6:00 PM     Agenda Item     1.Discussion and recommendation to Council on prioritization of potential approaches to address oversized vehicle (including recreational vehicle) impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in vehicles Presentation Policy & Services Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: August 25, 2025 Report #:2506-4783 TITLE Discussion and recommendation to Council on prioritization of potential approaches to address oversized vehicle (including recreational vehicle) impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in vehicles RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee discuss and recommend Council approval of a phased approach to addressing oversized vehicle impacts. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item responds to the Council Priority Objective to present possible approaches to Policy & Services Committee to address oversized vehicle (OSV) impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in vehicles, anecdotal reports of significant increases in people living in OSVs on City streets, and recent increases in calls and complaints relating to OSV long-term parking and associated health and safety concerns. This report summarizes a variety of approaches to accommodate some demand for OSV parking and related services while also increasing regulation of OSVs. These options enable a phased approach that balances the need to accommodate those living in vehicles with the need to manage public health, safety, and neighborhood impacts, while also considering available resources. Potential phasing could begin with additional regulations, street maintenance measures, and an enhanced services pilot (e.g., mobile pump-out, garbage pick-up, and additional outreach), leading toward expanded safe parking options and limited OSV parking on certain streets with focused regulations. At the time of this report, the 2025 Point in Time count numbers at the city level is not yet available by Santa Clara County. However, the 2023 Point in Time count observed 206 people experiencing homelessness in Palo Alto, with 88% living in approximately 102 vehicles. Given the anecdotal increases in vehicle dwellers, this report assumes a doubling of the 2023 vehicle count. Potential approaches for addressing homelessness impacts outlined in this report, offer potential actions and reflect experience gained from other cities’ experiences with this challenge. The preliminary list of ideas presented are to gain initial feedback from the Committee. Based on the Committee and Council discussion and direction, stakeholder engagement plans will be developed and additional fiscal analysis completed. BACKGROUND Homelessness is clearly one of, if not the most, vexing societal problems of our time and impacting communities across California and the nation. The City of Palo Alto aligned its homelessness response with the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025, which the City endorsed in August 2021.1 Since then, the City has pursued a variety of initiatives to better support housing stability including: strengthening renter protections, enabling safe parking programs, permitting and beginning construction of the interim Homekey shelter, and supporting affordable housing developments such as Wilton Court Apartments, 231 Grant Ave, Mitchell Park Place, and development on City-owned properties such as Lot T downtown and 340 Portage Ave. On an ongoing basis, the City also responds to resident and business concerns associated with the impacts of homelessness throughout Palo Alto, with a focus on service referrals and enforcement of existing laws. By late 2023, Council prioritized a deeper insight into the unhoused situation locally, resulting in a 2024 Council Priority Objective to conduct a gap analysis of local housing and homelessness services.2 The analysis, shared as an information item to Council on December 9, 2024, was followed by a study session on February 10, 2025.3 That session included updates on service coordination and enforcement efforts; a review of the gap analysis; an overview of suggested community engagement next steps, including involving the Human Relations Commission; and a Council discussion on housing production, homelessness prevention, support services, and enforcement efforts related to health and safety, referring follow-up discussion to the Policy and Services Committee. 1 Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025: https://housingtoolkit.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb501/files/CommunityPlan_2020.pdf ; Council Staff Report, April 5, 2021 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendasminutesreports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12133.pdf ; Council Action Minutes, August 9, 2021 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3354&compileOutputType= 1 2 Council Meeting, December 4, 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-2CuhXvs84; Council Staff Report, December 9, 2024 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6549&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=12534 3 Council Staff Report, February 10, 2025 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6751&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=13091 Through the discussion, Council referred follow up on this topic to the Policy & Services Committee with focus on a few key areas from the February Council study session discussion. The discussion also informed two 2025 Council Priority Objectives:7 Present options to address homelessness impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in vehicles, to Policy & Services Committee for prioritization. Identify feasible (1) regulatory approaches to manage the use of public space and (2) policy solutions to expand RV safe parking. Present options to Policy & Services for consideration and prioritization. Organize an initial review of sources and methods to raise funding to support new affordable housing production for future evaluation. Conduct research to identify and evaluate sources and methods. Work with the Finance Committee to develop recommendations for City Council. This staff report responds to the first Council Priority Objective. The second Objective, once staff has identified and evaluated sources and methods, will be referred to Finance Committee. Following the study session and adoption of the 2025 Council Priority Objectives, staff presented the gap analysis on June 12, 20258 to the Human Relations Commission for discussion and input relating to housing and services for the unhoused. Two commissioners called for more housing in general and more senior housing, specifically. Individual commissioners (this was not an action item) supported a variety of ideas, including: Adding safe parking, particularly for RVs; Increasing incentives for below market rate (BMR) housing; Making it easier to build (e.g., streamlining the process); Addressing family homelessness, perhaps through hotel vouchers or building tiny homes; Improving the quality of shelters; Continuing progress with renter protections; and More aggressively pursuing partnerships with the tech industry for a variety of things including providing communications access to people experiencing homeless (e.g., cell phones, wi-fi, etc.). 7 Council Staff Report, May 5, 2025 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=7767&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=14271 8 Human Relations Commission Staff Report, June 12, 2025 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=8147&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=14739 ANALYSIS The 2023 Point in Time (PIT)11 count observed 206 people experiencing homelessness in Palo Alto, with 88% living in a vehicle (those individuals lived within 102 vehicles). This differs from the 32% countywide unhoused population living in vehicles. More recently, service providers and City staff have reported a significant increase in people living in vehicles in Palo Alto. At the time of this report, the 2025 PIT count numbers at the city level were not yet available. The County has indicated they will be sharing the city level 2025 PIT numbers in late summer. Given the anecdotal increases in vehicle dwellers, this report assumes a doubling of the 2023 vehicle count. The increasing numbers of people living in vehicles on public streets presents a health and safety challenge which leads to an increased demand for off-street safe parking, outreach services, street cleaning, and waste disposal. The City received calls and complaints relating to the long-term parking of oversized vehicles (OSVs), personal property obstructing the streets and sidewalks, and improper disposal of human waste. The City Manager’s Office has noted a sharp increase in these complaints beginning in Spring 2025. The remainder of this report provides a discussion of potential approaches for addressing homelessness impacts, looking at potential actions to (1) mitigate impacts of accommodating some demand, (2) increase regulation where impacts occur and avoiding impacts elsewhere, and (3) combine options into a potential phased approach that recognizes implementation timelines and the complexity of this issue. These options reflect experience gained from other cities’ experiences with this challenge, and a summary of some other cities’ experiences are provided in Attachment A. Please note, this is a preliminary list of ideas for the Committee’s discussion and feedback. Staff has not yet conducted outreach to community stakeholders on these ideas. State Law and Local Parking Regulations Relating to Oversized Vehicles In California, the state legislature has exerted preemptive authority over vehicle movement and parking regulations. Cities, including charter cities, are permitted to adopt local laws regulating parking only to the extent authorized by state law. City regulations must also comply with requirements arising from the U.S. Constitution. In general, vehicle parking is available in the public right of way where: (a) parking is not prohibited; and (b) vehicles can be parked without blocking an active lane of traffic, fire-safety hydrants, driveways, and for other reasons set forth in state law. These general rules apply equally to parking of oversized vehicles, unless a local jurisdiction adopts parking restrictions for OSVs, which the state Vehicle Code allows. 11 The PIT count is conducted every two years in Santa Clara County. The Palo Alto Municipal Code includes one provision regulating OSV parking: a prohibition on parking of OSVs in residential and public facility zones between 2am and 6am. However, while the Code states this regulation is enforceable regardless of signage, preemptive state law bars enforcement without adequate signage to inform parkers of the restrictions. (Note: as a practical matter, to date, it is not common that OSVs attempt to park in residential zones.) State law authorizes local jurisdictions to regulate parking in a variety of specific ways. One area of interest is the “72-hour” rule. State law allows cities to adopt a local ordinance authorizing removal of a vehicle that has been parked in the same place for more than 72 hours. Palo Alto has adopted such an ordinance. Prior to removing a vehicle, the ordinance requires City staff to affix a notice to the vehicle advising that the vehicle will be removed for violation of the ordinance after 72 hours unless it is moved at least five tenths of a mile. (This notice procedure satisfies federal due process requirements.) If the vehicle is moved, there is nothing in state or local law that prevents the owner from re-parking in the same location. In general, parking regulations are enforced through citations and fines. In some circumstances defined in state law, vehicles are also subject to being towed, but towing is a seizure of property, which implicates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Courts have ruled that a judicial warrant is required to tow a vehicle unless the tow is justified under the judicially-defined “community caretaking doctrine.” That doctrine authorizes towing vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic or to keep the vehicle from being a target for vandalism or theft. In many cases, towing also requires individualized notice and an opportunity to remedy the violation. Potential Actions to Accommodate Some Demand A. Expand Safe Parking at Baylands Athletic Center (or Other Dedicated Parkland) The Baylands Athletic Center and surrounding area is currently dedicated parkland. Providing additional safe parking near the City’s current Geng Road site would require “undedication” of space that is currently dedicated parkland. Potential spaces to consider for undedication would be the (A) the batting cage area, or (B) the land facing the current safe parking site on the other side of Geng Road, or (C) the baseball field, as shown in Figure 1 below. Undedicating any of these areas would require a vote of the electorate. This change would provide additional spaces for safe parking, facilitate the provision of services to those living in their vehicles, and reduce the number of vehicles parked on public streets. It would, however, only accommodate a fraction of the oversized vehicles currently occupying public streets around the city. Figure 1, Baylands Athletic Field space, showing (A) batting cages, (B) land facing current safe parking, and (C) baseball field. Implementation Considerations This change would require analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as the work needed to convert the space to a safe parking site (e.g., grading, plumbing, electrical, etc.). The land facing the current safe parking site (area B in Figure 1), would need to be surveyed for sensitive species and habitat. Converting the athletic field to a safe parking site could impact other uses of area C such as baseball field use and staging and space for events held at the site (e.g., the annual Moonlight Run). Converting and running the site would require both City funding and support from Santa Clara County and non-profit partners. Any of the proposed portions in or around the Baylands Athletic Center could likely support 10-20 safe parking spaces. Use of any of this area for safe parking could limit future opportunities for habitat restoration or recreational uses. C A B Resource Impact Resources required include the cost of putting an item on the ballot, plus site preparation and operational costs. For the 2026 ballot, costs are forecast to be approximately $100,000 for a single ballot measure (e.g., base charges, printing, legal publication/notice, analysis). The recent safe parking expansion, adding 10 RV spaces, cost roughly $270,000 annually, covering staffing (e.g., facilities management, case management, outreach), utilities, portable restrooms and sinks, and administrative costs. Assuming approximately 14,000 square feet of space needed to accommodate 10 additional oversized vehicles (OSVs), site prep costs for clearing vegetation, grading, paving, and striping would be approximately $600,000.13 With federal funding cuts for housing and homelessness, the County does not have additional resources to contribute. Overall, staff estimates that the minimum cost would be $1,000,000 in the first year, which would include election costs, site preparation, and operations. Ongoing, the annual cost is estimated to be similar to the recent safe parking expansion amount of $270,000 annually. B. Safe Parking on Privately-Owned Commercial Lots The City could allow safe parking sites on privately-owned commercial property. Allowing this use of commercial property would likely require an amendment to the City’s zoning code. It would require analysis under CEQA, with issues that will be site-specific. The City could then enter into a lease with the property owner for safe parking operations. Implementation Considerations This approach is in the Planning and Development Services Department long-term workplan (forecasted for 2026) but is not currently resourced given no currently identified site. It would require a private property owner willing to lease land to the City for this purpose, and to date no property owner has come forward. Should a willing property owner come forward, staff would need to reprioritize other work to advance this option. Resource Impact The impact would vary depending on the existing onsite amenities (e.g., utilities, buildings, restrooms, etc.), versus anything that would need to be brought in. As mentioned above, the recent safe parking expansion cost roughly $270,000 annually for 10 additional RV spaces at a site with existing amenities (i.e., onsite showers, restrooms, kitchen, fencing, office space, etc.). The cost of a lease with a property owner is unknown. 13 The expansion area for 2000 Geng Road Safe Parking measures approximately 113 feet by 118 feet or 13,334 square feet and can accommodate 10 oversize vehicles, together with sufficient portable toilets, sink, and trash receptacles. The cost estimate is preliminary and includes paving costs and contingencies for design, testing and stormwater treatment as the area is over the 5,000 square foot requirement. C. Expand Congregation-Based Safe Parking Program In January 2024, Council made permanent the City’s Congregation-Based Safe Parking Program,15 including regulations allowing for up to eight (8) vehicles overnight. Staff could explore feasibility of and interest in expanding the congregation-based program to allow vehicles to stay 24 hours and/or to consider allowing some number of OSVs. Implementation Considerations While the City does not prohibit OSVs from the existing congregation-based program, the safe parking program operator has noted these sites are not ideal for OSVs because the daily movement required with the existing operation hours would be difficult for OSVs. An exploration of adding OSVs to these sites and extending the program from overnight to 24-hour parking would involve outreach to congregations and neighbors. Resource Impact Researching and developing this policy change would require staff time and reprioritizing other work. D. Increased Cleaning and Street Sweeping on Selected Streets Streets impacted by OSVs often need more frequent and thorough cleaning and maintenance than other streets. This could include streets where OSVs are currently observed, including: Embarcadero Way, Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101, Faber Place, Elwell Court, Corporation Way, East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, Park Boulevard, Sheridan Avenue, Portage Avenue, Ash Street, Commercial Street, Transport Street, and Industrial Avenue. Regular street sweeping can mitigate some of the impacts associated with long-term inhabited OSV parking on streets (e.g., refuse in the storm drain system). The Vehicle Code authorizes cities to establish and enforce parking restrictions to facilitate thorough street sweeping. Implementation Considerations Parking restrictions to support street sweeping would prohibit all parking on the designated streets during sweeping hours, and as such street sweeping regulations may incentivize OSV owners to park elsewhere. This could include areas more sensitive to associated impacts, such as retail districts or residential neighborhoods. 15 City Council Staff Report, January 16, 2024, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=3827&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=8890 To mitigate storm drain impacts, the City could install filter fabric17 at each storm drain location to deter biohazards from entering storm drains. After OSVs relocate or move, staff have observed large amounts of debris left behind, including fluid spills and biohazards. This requires not only street sweeping, but a team and special equipment to address the biohazard elements of the cleanup. Resource Impact The City would incur the cost of signage and increased sweeping and any required road cleanup. Staff estimates signage would cost approximately $70,000 if installed along the aforementioned segments of the 14 streets where OSVs are currently clustered.18 When OSVs have been parking in a particular area for an extended period, it often requires additional cleanup of abandoned items, spilled liquids, biohazards, etc. This type of street cleanup would require the dispatch of workers for 4-8 hours from each worker, depending on the situation, at a cost between $2,000 - $4,000 (4 or 8 hours, at $100/hour), plus a debris dumping fee. To increase roadway sweeping to remove debris with a street sweeper would not trigger by itself a significant cost increase.19 As an example, if street sweeping increased to weekly, year-round only on the street segments where OSVs are currently clustered (i.e., Embarcadero Way, Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101, Faber Place, Elwell Court, Corporation Way, East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, Park Boulevard, Sheridan Avenue, Portage Avenue, Ash Street, Commercial Street, Transport Street, and Industrial Avenue), the annual cost increase would be approximately $11,000. Enforcement of this regulation is anticipated to create a minimal workload increase for existing Police Department parking enforcement personnel and a minimal increase in annual towing expenses. However, if Council adopts multiple measures requiring additional parking enforcement, cumulatively, that would require an additional 0.5 FTE at an approximate cost of $50,000-$75,000 in parking enforcement, and additional towing 17 Filter fabric would not prevent liquids from entering the system and can cause local ponding and flooding if not removed before rains. 18 This estimate assumes signs along the 14 aforementioned street segments where OSVs are currently clustered and approximately 1 sign/150 feet. 19 The City’s current street sweeping contractor sweeps residential streets once a week during Leaf Season (October – February), and once every two weeks during non-Leaf Season (February – October). If the City increased sweeping frequency, such as changing the “once every two weeks during non-Leaf Season” to once a week so that all residential streets are swept weekly year-round, then there will be an ongoing additional cost of approximately $85 per curb mile. expenses of approximately $50,000-$100,000. Overall, this strategy is estimated to cost $165,000-250,000 the first year.23 E. Enhance Services Relating to Inhabited OSVs The ongoing presence of inhabited OSVs generates impacts that the City may wish to further address with enhanced services, such as conducting outreach to people experiencing homelessness, particularly those inhabiting OSVs, providing garbage pick-up and mobile pump- outs to OSVs combined with the expanded street sweeping and storm drain maintenance described above. Other concepts such as setting up an OSV “buy back” program could also be explored. This could help increase the effectiveness of outreach and mitigate some of the impacts associated with long-term inhabited OSV parking (e.g., personal property obstructing the street, debris buildup in storm drains, improper human waste disposal). Allocating additional resources to outreach and cleanup services could help mitigate the impacts of inhabited OSVs without requiring significant additional regulatory action or could be paired with additional regulation to mitigate impacts from OSV parking. This approach could be combined with an increase in enforcement of existing regulations, such as prohibitions on illegal dumping. Implementation Considerations Vehicle dwellers are often harder to contact, take longer to establish trust with service providers, and are frequently reticent to “give up” the flexibility, autonomy, and perceived security of a private vehicle for the commitment to program rules and reduced privacy associated with shelters. Currently, the City has a contract for two (2) outreach workers, with some flex scheduling available, primarily operating Monday through Friday during the daytime. Having enough outreach workers to cover weekends, evenings, and early mornings will increase the likelihood of successful contact, which is the first step towards establishing trust. To address the reluctance of leaving a vehicle for a shelter, the City could follow the example of other Bay Area cities (i.e., Berkeley and San Francisco) in offering a small stipend for those willing to accept shelter and relinquish their OSVs. However, buyback programs are an untested novel approach and their efficacy and full costs are not yet known. Overall, it will be difficult to identify funding for additional resources given fiscal constraints. To provide garbage pick-up, the City could identify a dedicated location for disposing of OSV waste or an existing facility with a refuse enclosure and container capacity for additional 23 Since it is likely initial efforts will require the additional street cleanup in a more intensive manner and decrease as street sweeping assumes a regular rhythm, this estimate assumes $2,000/$4,000 cleanup (minimum/maximum) on each of 14 streets 3 times ($81,000/$168,000) plus $70,000 in signage costs and $11,000 for weekly street sweeping. disposal volume. Staff does not recommend placing additional public waste containers because of the potential to encourage illegal dumping. A handful of jurisdictions in the west have attempted to provide pump-out services to OSVs, with varying degrees of success. Two recent examples are Long Beach, CA and Portland, OR. Long Beach provided a pump-out location during weekdays and had very little uptake or use. Portland started with a regular route on a weekly basis and then added some “by-request” responses and served more than 4,000 OSVs in the first several years of the program. Mountain View also piloted a three-week pump-out program in 2018, at two locations and two times, one afternoon/evening on Tuesdays, the other midday on Saturdays, which served 18 OSVs a total of 33 times.25 Resource Impact Currently, the City pays approximately $66/hour (per outreach worker) for 2 FTEs and $99/hour for a 0.1 FTE manager, operating on a Monday – Friday day shift schedule, totaling $256,000 annually. Funding for the outreach pilot is provided through a combination of State Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) entitlement funds, City General Fund contributions and financial support from Stanford University. In terms of the cost of a buyback program, the City of Berkeley allocated $150,000 towards a buyback pilot, with early results indicating 20 of 21 OSV occupants accepting a cash offer for their OSV in exchange for moving into interim housing.26 As mentioned above, additional street sweeping and cleanup has a range of costs from an as- needed basis at several thousand dollars an instance to weekly, street sweeping, which would cost approximately $165,000-250,000 the first year, assuming the 14 street segments where OSVs are currently clustered. In terms of pump out costs, this would require more research for accurate, up-to-date estimates. At the time of this report, staff was able to learn the cost of both the Portland program at $805,000 for July 2021 through June 2025 (approximately $22,361/month), and the Mountain View pilot at $29,000 for January through April 2018 (approximately $7,250/month). For Mountain View, the per service cost, exclusive of staff costs, was $391. 25 Mountain View City Council Report, May 15, 2018 https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3501450&GUID=FEBF512E-C985-4BD6-B35F- 302756729DC5 26 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-04- 15%20Item%2004%20%20Contract%20University%20of%20California.pdf Potential Actions to Increase Regulation29 Some of the potential actions listed below involve new parking regulations. Most parking regulations require signage. In general, comprehensive citywide regulations typically require signage throughout the City. In some cases, however, it may be possible for the City to use temporary signage or individualized notices. Also, depending on the strategy selected, it may be possible to install signage in targeted areas or to approach a comprehensive signage program through a phased approach. For the Committee’s understanding, full implementation of a citywide parking regulation would require significant resources for signage as well as enforcement. More details are below. Signage Cost Considerations (relevant for any citywide regulation approaches) The estimated cost to install new signs for a new citywide regulation would be hundreds of thousands of dollars. For context, in 2020, the City of Mountain View spent $980,00030 one- time cost on signage to implement their OSV parking ordinances. For Palo Alto, costs would vary but at minimum, assuming two signs and posts per side, per block it would cost $1,200 per block in-house ($800 labor, $400 materials) and $1,900 per block if contracted out. If signage is required on all Palo Alto blocks, the City would need to add 2.0 FTE in Public Works working full-time on this work for approximately five (5) years.31 Additionally, if deploying signage on all city blocks, this would require significant staff time from the Office of Transportation including an additional 1.0 FTE or the re-allocation of traffic engineering staff from other duties (such as signal timing and capital projects) to design and direct field staff for sign installations citywide for the duration of the implementation time period. The costs associated with traffic review and permitting for a more narrowly defined approach could be on the order of $300,000 and/or equivalent opportunity costs associated with diversion from other City projects and essential City services. For context, in 2020, the City of Mountain View dedicated 9 to 12 months of work for more than two (2) traffic engineers who reviewed, permitted and issued work orders to implement their OSV parking ordinance. 29 In some cases, California cities that have adopted one or more of the listed regulatory actions have been sued by advocates for the unhoused, resulting in legal costs. Potential legal fees and costs are not included in the resource impact sections that follow. 30 Number not adjusted for inflation nor construction cost increases over time. https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4712008&GUID=B91F5618-049D-44E7-9BA9- 966071A60D1C&Options=&Search= 31This estimate assumes approximately 2,200 blocks in the City and 2 signs per side per block. For in-house staff, fabrication and installation of signs and posts at each location, would be approximately $800 per block for field staff labor plus $400 for materials, or $2.65 million for the approximately 2,200 blocks in the City and take over 20 years to complete. If signage will be installed throughout the City it would equate to approximately 8,800 signs. To install this signage, the City would need an additional 2 FTE, working full time, for approximately five years. If the work is outsourced to a contractor, the work would cost approximately $4 million31. To install both signs and posts would costs $4 million (8,800 x $475). Staff also anticipates an impact on Utility Locators during the implementation period for the Locators to verify each sign location for utility conflicts. Once all the signs have been installed throughout the City, ongoing maintenance requiring 2.0 FTE to fabricate and replace signs will be needed. The maintenance timeframe begins soon after installation. Parking Enforcement Cost Considerations Enforcement of a citywide parking regulation likely would create a significant parking enforcement workload increase, requiring an additional 1-2 FTE parking enforcement officers. The approximate annual cost of 1-2 FTE parking enforcement officers (in house or contracted enforcement services) is $125,000-$250,000. Beyond enforcement personnel, any citywide parking regulation that results in additional towing expenses, could add costs ranging from approximately $50,000-$100,000 annually. The cost information above is relevant to some of the approaches described below. F. Prohibit Renting of Public Parking Spaces Staff have determined that some of the occupied OSVs parked on city streets are owned by “vanlords” purporting to rent vehicles for habitation. Staff could develop an ordinance prohibiting the renting of vehicles for habitation on public streets or otherwise purporting to rent space in the public right of way. Such a prohibition would prohibit private profit-taking from use of a public resource (on-street parking spaces) and discourage vanlords who take advantage of vulnerable populations by charging rent while failing to provide the infrastructure necessary for human habitation. This prohibition would be enforced against the vanlord, not the renter, and penalties could include a fine assessed per day of violation. Other cities are seeing vanlording proliferate and are working to crack down on the practice. While San Francisco does not have any laws regulating vanlords specifically, the municipal police code does forbid leases, rental agreements, or contracts of any kind for the use of any sidewalk or street enforceable by citations up to $300 per violation. Los Angeles is currently considering an ordinance aimed specifically at vanlords, and San José recently adopted one.35 Implementation Considerations Identifying a vanlord can be challenging. In the past, the City has relied on information from the RV renters, but renters will be disincentivized from helping the City identify their vanlords if the City starts enforcing a ban on the practice. Enforcement will likely rely on complaints. 35 San Jose’s vanlording ordinance is available here: https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1363727 Resource Impact Enforcement of a vanlord ban would require minimal staff resources, primarily in the Police Department and City Attorney’s Office. Enforcement would involve collecting evidence that a violation is occurring, both online and in the field. Once staff determine a violation is likely occurring, the City would need to locate the vanlord, issue a warning or fine, and then collect on the fine. If the vehicle is inhabited, staff would determine what resources can be offered to those living there. G. Prohibit Storage of Detached Trailers/Inoperable Vehicles on Public Streets A frequently cited source of concern from community members are detached trailers, that are clearly unable to move therefore essentially being stored or stationary on city streets. The City could adopt an ordinance prohibiting placement of nonmotorized or inoperable conveyances (such as camper shells and trailers) on the public right-of-way, or limiting parking to a maximum duration such as 1-2 hours. This would reduce the use of public parking spaces for storage of non-vehicles that are unable to move under their own power (e.g., to comply with the 72-hour parking limit).37 Implementation Considerations A prohibition on parking non-motorized or inoperable conveyances would apply equally to all such conveyances, whether inhabited or not. Signage is required for enforcement as discussed earlier, and installation priorities will need to be established likely starting with areas impacted by detached trailer parking. Resource Impact Sign installation will require Transportation and Public Works staff resources similar to other options discussed. Enforcing this prohibition is anticipated to create a minimal increase in workload for existing police department parking enforcement personnel and a minimal increase in annual towing expenses; however, if multiple measures requiring additional parking enforcement are adopted, they are expected to, cumulatively, require an additional 0.5 FTE at an approximate cost of $50,000-$75,000, and additional towing expenses of approximately $50,000-$100,000. 37 The zoning code (Title 18) includes a prohibition on storing or parking non-operable conveyances on private property, except where screened from neighbors. This provision is enforced by Code Enforcement through issuance of warnings, administrative citations, and fines. For non-operable conveyances on public streets, staff recommends adoption of a new ordinance specifically addressing use of public parking spaces, enforceable by the Police Department or Office of Transportation. H. Limit Oversized Vehicle Parking to Certain Streets with Focused Regulations The City could consider limiting OSV parking to certain designated streets by prohibiting or limiting it on all other streets (for example, through an overnight parking ban) similar to Mountain View. This would effectively formalize locations where OSVs are allowed to park by limiting OSV parking on other streets, such as commercial zones where not already restricted.39 Designating streets where inhabited OSVs are allowed could facilitate effective management of the associated public health and sanitation impacts. This approach could be coupled with increased services (i.e., street sweeping, trash pickup, other safety measures) for the streets on which OSV parking is allowed. Focused parking regulation such as street sweeping and red curbs at intersections and driveways could also be included. City staff has observed that there are current OSV clusters on particular streets including: Embarcadero Way, Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101, Faber Place, Elwell Court, Corporation Way, East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, Park Boulevard, Sheridan Avenue, Portage Avenue, Ash Street, Commercial Street, Transport Street, and Industrial Avenue. These street segments are not adjacent to residential or schools; however, the City has received complaints regarding impacts to adjacent businesses. The City would need to conduct a process to identify the streets where OSV would be allowed if this approach is pursued. As an example for illustration, preliminary analysis indicates that the existing streets with OSV clusters have enough capacity for the on-street parking of the estimated 200 OSVs currently in Palo Alto, albeit with impacts to the availability of on-street parking for other users and other localized impacts arising from habitation on public right of ways that are not designed to support ongoing activities of living.40 Implementation Considerations This approach would require a comprehensive plan identifying areas where OSVs may and may not park, not an ad hoc street-by-street ban. On streets where OSV parking is permitted, to maintain cleanliness, the City could institute weekly street sweeping and, to ensure that vehicles are not stored or abandoned and to maintain equitable access to public parking spaces, the City could continue enforcement of the 72-hour parking rule. The City may also establish a process for adding or removing streets from the list in the future. Resource Impact As mentioned in the note at the beginning of this section, any citywide parking regulation would require significant resources for signage and enforcement, although a targeted or 39 The municipal code already prohibits OSV parking in residential and public facilities zones. However, to enforce the provision, state law requires local jurisdictions to install signs adequately informing parkers of the restriction. 40 Analysis assumptions include OSV length of 30’, 5’ distance between vehicles, driveway clearance of 10’, intersection clearance of 20’, hydrant clearance of 15’ and 300’ hydrant spacing. phased approach may be available. Resources required for services (e.g., street sweeping, outreach, etc.) as described earlier. I. Prohibit Oversized Vehicles on Specific Streets The City could consider banning oversized vehicles on streets that meet certain conditions (e.g., highly impacted blocks, narrow widths, etc.) on a street-by-street basis. Implementation Considerations This approach would likely create a cycle of escalating restrictions and is therefore not recommended unless accompanied by designating other streets as previously described. Street- by-street prohibitions alone would have the unintended consequence of relocating OSV parking to other streets. This would likely trigger a cycle of requests for bans on other streets. Resource Impact Depending on the number of streets marked for no OSV parking, this approach would require resources for signage and enforcement. At this time, to add signage to the existing streets where OSVs tend to park, staff estimates it would cost approximately $70,000.43 J. Prohibit Oversized Vehicle Parking Throughout the City The Vehicle Code authorizes local jurisdictions to adopt restrictions on OSV parking, which could, in theory, include a comprehensive prohibition on parking OSVs throughout the City. In some cases, cities that have passed comprehensive parking regulations that are perceived to restrict the ability of the unhoused to remain in the jurisdiction, or that have the practical effect of doing so, have drawn lawsuits from advocates supporting the unhoused. Most of these jurisdictions have lost or settled these suits. Those cities include Mountain View, Pacifica, San Diego, and others. Other cities, including Berkeley and Sebastopol, are currently defending ongoing lawsuits from the vehicularly housed and their advocates. Typically, these lawsuits begin with a temporary injunction or agreement to toll enforcement, both of which put enforcement of the challenged ordinances on hold while litigation is underway. Where advocates prevail in court or where settlements were agreed to, regulations were either wholly invalidated or significantly modified. Attachment A provides additional information on specific cities’ experiences. 43 The estimate analyzed the 14 streets where OSVs are currently clustered, focusing on the segments of those streets where OSVs park. Given those parameters, the combined street length is approximately 12,000 linear feet and assuming one sign per 150 feet and $300/sign. Recommended Phased Approach Staff compiled information on a variety of approaches which are summarized in the previous subsections. Given the range of possible approaches, staff has put together a sequence of actions for the Committee’s consideration to accommodate some OSV parking demand while increasing regulation to manage impacts. This sequence considers current resources, effectiveness, scalability, and the estimated timing needed for some of the approaches. Of note, the sequence below does not include further exploration of the citywide OSV ban nor the ‘prohibit OSVs on specific streets’ approach given the considerations shared in those subsections above. It should also be noted that this sequence would require redeploying staff from other work, impacting other Council priorities. Phase 1: Upon Council approval, staff would: - Develop an ordinance to prohibit parking of detached/inoperable vehicles on public streets, - Develop an ordinance to prohibit the renting of public parking spaces (“vanlording”), - Refine the scope and begin implementation of additional street cleanups and sweeping, - Return to Council for approvals of ordinances and contract amendments (e.g., street sweeping) as soon as possible, estimated to require up to four (4) months, and - Implementation and enforcement of these actions would follow. Phase 2: Concurrent of Phase 1 implementation, staff would initiate work on: - Design a small-scale enhanced services pilot (e.g., mobile pump outs, additional outreach workers/hours, garbage pickup, etc.), - Return to Council for direction on a preferred option for expanded safe parking, and - Begin exploration of the “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” approach, including determining a process and criteria for designating streets where OSV parking might be permitted, with appropriate community engagement. Phase 3: Following the completion of related components in Phase 2, Council would: - Approve pilot and any related contracts and agreements for small-scale enhanced services pilot, - Approve a preferred option for expanded safe parking, -Identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed and develop necessary ordinances and program design for “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” approach, and - Implementation of these actions would follow. Phase 4: Following the completion of related components in Phase 3, staff would: - Evaluate the enhanced services pilot, - Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking, and - Obtain related Council approvals for “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” and begin enforcing new approach. Implementation Considerations The phasing would require ongoing, significant work over the course of several years, the near- term addition of at least 1 FTE staff position at an approximate cost of $104,000-$156,000 to assist in the associated complex funding, administration, and reporting needs, and likely require reprioritizing of some other assignments. However, this begins with the easier to implement actions and gradually progresses to the more complex and expensive, employing actions to both accommodate demand and regulate parking. In this way it is also responsive to the varied community perspectives (e.g., the needs of unhoused neighbors, the needs of housed neighbors, the shared use of public space, etc.). Table 1 POTENTIAL APPROACH IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS RESOURCE Potential Actions to Accommodate Some Demand A. Expand safe parking at Baylands Athletic Center Impact other uses of area Adds approximately 10-20 safe parking spaces Limits future opportunities for habitat restoration or recreational uses $$$ B. Allow safe parking on privately owned commercial lot Not currently staff resourced No identified private property owner willing to lease $$ C. Expand congregation- based safe parking May not be ideal because daily movement is difficult for OSVs. Changing operations to 24-hours would require neighbor outreach and consideration of feedback received. $ D. Increased cleaning and street sweeping on selected streets Impacts all vehicles parking on street Could displace OSVs to areas more sensitive to impacts $$ E.Enhance services, with or without new regulations Increased outreach worker staffing to cover evenings/weekends Buyback program efficacy and cost not known Pump-out likely uptake and costs not known $$-$$$*45 Potential Actions to Increase Regulation F. Prohibit renting of public parking spaces Identifying/investigating ‘vanlords’ can be difficult $ G. Prohibit storage of detached trailers/ inoperable vehicles on public streets Applies equally to all vehicles $ H. Limit OSVs to certain streets Identifying adequate parking locations for OSVs $-$$$ *I. Prohibit OSVs on certain streets May lead to escalating restrictions Could displace OSVs to areas more sensitive to impacts $-$$$ *J. Prohibit OSVs citywide  See litigation description above $$$ Phased Approach Phased Approach Combines above, with the exception of the *asterisked approaches. $-$$$ *Not recommended in the phased approach. $ ≤50,000 $$ 51,000-400,000 $$$ ≥400,000 $-$$$ Scales over time, increasing resource impacts as various actions are implemented. 45 Depending on the scale and type of services selected. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT As discussed in this report, each potential approach has an estimated fiscal impact. Overall based on the options presented it should be anticipated that this effort will require City funding in excess of one million dollars annually and a significant ongoing staff allocation for the foreseeable future. Funding sources for these impacts have not been identified, however, significant General Fund allocation should be expected. Staff will also research and evaluate funding options based on the Committee discussion (e.g., funding for additional staff, grant funding and/or entitlement opportunities). Implementing the options described will also impact other Council priorities. At this time, no resources are required to support the Committee discussion outlined in this report. Beyond the immediate steps described in this report, a comprehensive strategy to address homelessness in our community will require available housing for the unhoused individuals being assisted. While beyond the scope of this report, this longer term effort should be recognized. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT As mentioned elsewhere in this report, staff has not yet conducted outreach to housed or unhoused residents, affected property or business owners, or other stakeholders on these ideas. Based on the Committee and Council discussion and direction, stakeholder engagement plans will be developed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Council action on this item is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Summary of Other Cities’ Experiences APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 Attachment A: Summary of Other Cities’ Experiences The following is a summary of other cities’ experiences addressing homelessness impacts relating to people living in vehicles. Mountain View In 2019, the City of Mountain View adopted two oversize vehicle parking ordinances: the “Narrow Streets Ordinance” prohibited parking an oversized vehicle (OSV) on streets less than 40 feet wide, and the “Bike Lanes Ordinance” prohibited parking an OSV on streets with Class II bikeways (i.e., striped, separate bike lanes adjacent to the outer lanes of traffic). A violation of either ordinance could result in a ticket and/or towing at the owner’s expense. A group of plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Silicon Valley Law Foundation, among others, sued to invalidate the two ordinances. Plaintiffs alleged that they were Mountain View residents who were priced out of their homes in the city and decided to live in recreational vehicles (RVs) on public streets. The complaint alleged that the two ordinances would ban oversize vehicle parking on about 89% of the City’s streets. The plaintiffs brought various statutory and constitutional claims, including 1) that the $65 ticket for violations and the cost of retrieving a towed vehicle both violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause, 2) the city created a “state-created danger” under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to leave plaintiffs a safe alternative place to park, 3) towing for violations of the ordinances was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and 4) that the signs the city posted did not provide sufficient notice to satisfy the Due Process Clause. The city moved to dismiss the case. The trial court granted the city’s motion in part and denied it in part, allowing all the claims listed above to proceed.1 In 2022, following the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, the city settled the case. The settlement agreement required Mountain View to provide at least three miles of parking capacity for oversized vehicles, though it could continue to apply the 72-hour rule there. Mountain View also was required to publish a map of the available parking areas and distribute it proactively to persons living in OSVs and when doing enforcement.2 The settlement agreement also included terms related to pre-enforcement notice (signage and individualized notice) as well as a process for those with disabilities to request accommodations, such as more time to move their vehicle. 1 The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for invasion of privacy, right to travel, and disability discrimination, with leave to amend. 2 The map is available here: https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublishedimage/3580/638200916486970000. CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 Pacifica In late 2019, Pacifica passed an ordinance that prohibited “oversized vehicle” parking at any time on streets less than 40 feet wide and gave the city discretion to prohibit RV parking on other streets based on aesthetics and traffic safety concerns. Pacifica began enforcing this ordinance in September 2020. Those who violated the ordinance were subject to escalating fines. If five tickets were left unpaid, the RV could be towed and impounded. In 2021, advocates for persons living in RVs filed a class action lawsuit challenging the ordinance.5 The lawsuit argued that ordinance was an attempt by the city to banish those who rely on RVs for housing and mobility. Instead of providing any clear parking rule, the suit alleged that the city was giving out tickets based on housed residents’ complaints, even when an RV was parked on a street where there was no justification for prohibiting RV parking. Plaintiffs brought many of the same claims as in the Mountain View suit.6 Shortly after filing the complaint, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to immediately stop Pacifica from enforcing the ordinance. Just before a scheduled hearing on the motion, the city agreed that the Court could enter a preliminary injunction that required it to issue and publicize a list and map of streets allowable for oversized vehicle parking. In November 2021, the parties settled the case. Among other things, the settlement required the city to refund fines previously imposed for violation of the RV ordinance; to preserve at least two miles of streets as allowable for OSV parking; to continue to make the list and map of “allowable” streets broadly available; and to establish a process for people with disabilities to seek accommodations relating to the parking of their vehicles. The settlement also required the city to establish a safe parking program for OSVs, and to set up facilities for OSVs to empty their waste tanks and dispose of trash. Sebastopol In 2022, the City of Sebastopol was sued over an ordinance that prohibited parking an RV: (1) on public streets zoned as residential, (2) on public streets zoned as commercial, industrial, or community facility between 7:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., (3) on any park, square, or alley, and (4) in a city-owned parking lot unless the person is conducting city-related business during business hours at the location for which the parking lot is designated. Unlike Mountain View and 5 The advocates included the ACLU, Disability Rights Advocates, and Legal Aid of San Mateo County. 6 Plaintiffs alleged that the City violated their right to free movement under the U.S. and California Constitutions, that the ordinance was void for vagueness and susceptible to discriminatory enforcement, that the fines for violations were excessive under the Eighth Amendment, that the ban subjected them to a state-created danger, that towing to enforce the ordinances was an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and that the ordinance violated several statutes prohibiting disability discrimination. CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 Pacifica, the city relied not on traffic safety but on a record of complaints about availability of parking and public health/safety complaints (e.g., belongings blocking the sidewalks, human waste, garbage, etc.) related to RV residents. Plaintiffs brought many of the same claims as in the Mountain View and Pacifica suits.9 The trial court granted summary judgment to the city on all claims. Plaintiffs have appealed the trial court’s ruling, and the Ninth Circuit will likely hear oral argument in the case this fall. A Ninth Circuit ruling is applicable to the federal trial courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. 2025 City Regulations and Programs In the last few months, a number of Bay Area cities have taken action to respond to needs and impacts associated with persons living in OSVs. San Francisco, San José, Fremont, San Mateo, and Menlo Park have adopted new regulations placing limits on OSV parking. Santa Clara and San Francisco have increased housing and shelter resources and increased services to the unhoused. It is too early to assess the impact and cost of these approaches, and it is unknown whether advocates will file litigation. 9 These included: excessive fines in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the California Constitution; state-created danger in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, unreasonable seizure of property in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the California Constitution and California Vehicle Code § 22650(b); procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; void for vagueness under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and violation of several disability discrimination statutes. Plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU, Disability Rights Advocates, Legal Aid of Sonoma County, and California Rural Legal Assistance. ADDRESSING OVERSIZED VEHICLE (OSV) IMPACTS IN PALO ALTO Presenter: Melissa McDonough, Assistant to the City Manager AUGUST 25, 2025 Paloalto.gov TITLE 40 FONT BOLD Subtitle 32 font AUGUST 25, 2025 •Responding to 2025 Council Priority Objective: Present options to address homelessness impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in vehicles, to Policy & Services Committee for participation. Identify feasible (1) regulatory approaches to manage the use of public space and (2) policy solutions to expand RV safe parking. Present options to Policy & Services for consideration and prioritization. •Responds to increasing complaints and visible street-level impacts. •Balances compassion, community livability and public safety. PURPOSE/OVERVIEW OF COUNCIL ITEM Paloalto.gov 1 BASELINE INFORMATION •2023 Point-in-Time Count: 206 unhoused individuals; 88% (~102 vehicles); estimates suggest doubling since then. •Recent efforts include: •Homekey interim shelter under construction. •Safe parking program –22 RV spaces at Geng Road +14 vehicle spaces at congregation-based sites •Below Market Rate (BMR) -401 entitled units, ~315 pipeline •$57M to affordable housing projects since 2017, including $5M in 2025 towards 130 affordable units (3001 El Camino Real) •>2,000 existing affordable units •Enhanced renter protections •Service support and referrals •Law enforcement coordination Housing Initiatives & Pipeline 2 3 How We Got Here FEB 2025 Council study session MAY 2025 Council Priority Objectives Adopted JUN 2025 Human Relations Commission (HRC) Feedback JUL 2025 Growing concern, anecdotal increase in vehicle dwellers Potential Policy Options –Summary Table POTENTIAL APPROACH IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS RESOURCE Potential Actions to Accommodate Some Demand A. Expand safe parking at Baylands Athletic Center •Impact other uses of area •Adds approximately 10-20 safe parking spaces •Limits future opportunities for habitat restoration or recreational uses $$$ B.Allow safe parking on privately owned commercial lot •Not currently staff resourced •No identified private property owner willing to lease $$ C. Expand congregation-based safe parking •May not be ideal because daily movement is difficult for OSVs •Changing operations to 24-hours would require neighbor outreach and consideration of feedback received $ D. Increased cleaning and street sweeping on selected streets •Impacts all vehicles parking on street •Could displace OSVs to areas more sensitive to impacts $$ E. Enhance services, with or without new regulations •Increased outreach worker staffing to cover evenings/weekends •Buyback program efficiency and cost not known •Pump-out likely uptake and costs not known $$-$$$ $ ≤50,000 $$ 51,000-400,000 $$$ ≥ 400,000 $-$$$ Scales over time, increasing resource impacts as various actions are implemented. 4 Potential Policy Options –Summary Table POTENTIAL APPROACH IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS RESOURCE Potential Actions to Increase Regulation F.Prohibit renting of public parking spaces •Identifying/investigation ‘vanlords’ can be difficult $ G. Prohibit storage of detached trailers/inoperable vehicles on public streets •Applies equally to all vehicles $ H.Limit OSVs to certain streets •Identifying adequate parking locations for OSVs $-$$$ *I.Prohibit OSVs on certain streets •May lead to escalating restrictions •Could displace OSVs to areas more sensitive to impacts $-$$$ *J.Prohibit OSVs citywide •See litigation described above $$$ Phased Approach Phased Approach •Combines above, with the exception of *asterisked approaches $-$$$ *Not recommended in the phased approach $ ≤50,000 $$ 51,000-400,000 $$$ ≥ 400,000 $-$$$ Scales over time, increasing resource impacts as various actions are implemented. 5 Phased Approach Combines multiple strategies for flexibility and resource alignment. Requires redeploying staff from other work. Phase 1 Upon Council approval, staff would: -Develop ordinance to prohibit detached/inoperable vehicle parking on public streets -Develop ordinance to prohibit renting of public parking spaces (vanlording) -Refine scope and begin implementation of additional street cleanups and sweeping -Return to Council for approvals of ordinances and contract amendments (street sweeping) -Implementation and enforcement of these actions would follow Phase 2 Concurrent of Phase 1 implementation, staff would initiate work on: -Design small-scale enhanced services pilot (e.g., mobile pump out, additional outreach, garbage pick-up, etc) -Return to Council for direction on preferred option for safe parking -Begin exploration of “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” approach, including process for designating streets 6 Phased Approach Phase 3 Following completion of related Phase 2 components, Council would: -Approve pilot and any related contracts/agreements for small-scale enhanced services pilot, -Approve preferred option for expanded safe parking -Identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed, develop necessary ordinances and program design for ‘limiting OSV parking to certain streets’ approach -Implementation of these actions would follow Phase 4 Following completion of related Phase 3 components, staff would: -Evaluate the enhanced services pilot -Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking -Obtain related Council approvals for ‘limiting OSV parking to certain streets’ and began enforcing new approach 7 Phased Approach •Accommodates some OSV parking demand while increasing regulation to manage impacts •Sequencing considers current resources, effectiveness, scalability and timing needed •Begins with easier to implement actions and gradually progresses to the more complex and expensive •Responsive to varied community perspectives (e.g., the needs of unhoused neighbors, the needs of housed neighbors, the shared use of public space, etc.) 8 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee discuss and recommend Council approval of a phased approach to addressing oversized vehicle impacts. 9 MELISSA McDONOUGH Assistant to the City Manager Melissa.McDonough@PaloAlto.gov 650-329-2533 RHNA and Housing Element Progress