HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2509-5183CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 20, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
16.Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a
Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts,
Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments
in various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt. Public Comment, Staff Presentation
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: October 20, 2025
Report #:2509-5183
TITLE
Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased
Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts, Particularly
Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in various funds;
CEQA status – categorically exempt.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council Approve the Policy and Services Committee
recommendation to:
1. Approve the phased approach (described below) to addressing oversized vehicle
(including recreational vehicle) impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in
vehicles; and
2. Approve amendments to the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Appropriation (requires a 2/3
vote) to resource aspects of the phased approach in the:
a. General Fund by:
i. Increasing the contractual services appropriation for the City Manager’s
Office by $157,000 for resources to support program implementation;
ii. Decreasing the Reserve: Business Tax Revenue for Housing Affordability
by $157,000;
iii. Increasing the contractual services appropriation for the Office of
Transportation by $150,000 for engineering services;
iv. Increasing the contractual services appropriation in the Public Works
Department by $60,000 for street clean-up services;
v. Increasing the contractual services appropriation in the Police
Department by $95,000 for marking and enforcement of vehicles;
vi. Decreasing the Budget Stabilization Reserve by $305,000;
b. Refuse Fund by:
i. Increasing the contractual services appropriation by $245,000 for new
permanent and temporary street cleaning signage; and
ii. Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $245,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report updates information presented to the Policy and Services Committee at its August
25, 2025 meeting as well as reflecting the Committee’s recommendation to the full Council.
This recommendation follows the 2025 Council Priority Objective to present options for
addressing impacts associated with oversized vehicles (OSVs), particularly individuals living in
vehicles. Following the initial report outlining a range of possible strategies, the Policy and
Services Committee (the Committee) reviewed the options, amended the staff proposal, and is
recommending a phased approach for full Council consideration.
The recommended approach reflects a balanced approach to addressing public health, safety,
and neighborhood concerns while also recognizing the complex needs of those living in
vehicles. The proposed phasing begins with Phase 1 enacting regulatory measures and
enhanced street cleanups and sweeping, including coordination with service providers such as
LifeMoves, and appropriating $707,000 in FY 2026 across several funds. This would be followed
by Phase 2, a small-scale pilot of enhanced services, such as mobile pump-outs and increased
outreach. The approach also sets the stage for expanding safe parking on private and
congregation-based lots and, over time, developing a program to limit OSV parking to
designated streets. The Committee was split on limiting OSV parking to designated streets. In a
2-1 vote, the Committee recommended that Phase 2 begin exploring limiting OSV parking to
certain streets, including direction to evenly distribute OSV permitted parking citywide, tie the
OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time (PIT)1 count, explore an OSV permitting program,
and clearly mark where OSV parking is permitted. Subsequent phases include approving items
developed in earlier phases, implementation, and enforcement. Additional one-time and
ongoing resources will be needed in future years to administer all phases of this program and
will be brought forward as part of the annual budget process to allocate funding.
BACKGROUND
Homelessness continues to be one of the most complex and pressing societal issues affecting
communities across California and the nation. In response, the City of Palo Alto has aligned its
local efforts with the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020–2025,
which the City formally endorsed in August 2021.2 Since that time, the City has advanced a
1 The PIT Count is a count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness at a specific point in
time and occurs every other year in January.
2 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/citymanager-
reports-cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12133.pdf ; Council Action Minutes, August 9, 2021
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3354&compileOutputType=
1
range of initiatives to promote housing stability and reduce the impacts of homelessness,
including:
•Strengthening renter protections,
•Enabling and supporting safe parking programs,
•Permitting and beginning construction of the Homekey interim shelter, and
•Supporting affordable housing developments such as Wilton Court Apartments, 231
Grant Avenue, Mitchell Park Place, and projects on city-owned sites like Lot T downtown
and 340 Portage Avenue.
3 That analysis was presented as an informational item on December
9, 2024, and discussed at a Council Study Session on February 10, 2025.4 The session also
included updates on service coordination and enforcement efforts. As a result of that
discussion, Council referred follow-up work to the Policy and Services Committee, and adopted
two related 2025 Council Priority Objectives, asking staff to return as soon as feasible to Council
to determine further action and to bypass extended stakeholder engagement at that time. The
Council Priority Objectives are:5
•Present options to address homelessness impacts, particularly for individuals living in
vehicles, to Policy and Services Committee for prioritization.
•Organize an initial review of sources and methods to raise funding to support new
affordable housing production for future evaluation.
on June 12, 2025, gathering input on housing and services for the
unhoused.6 While no formal action was taken, individual Commissioners supported a wide
3 Council Meeting, December 4, 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-2CuhXvs84
4 Council Staff Report, December 9, 2024
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6549&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=12534; Council Staff Report, February 10, 2025
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6751&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=13091
5This item responds to the first of the two objectives, the second will be referred to Finance Committee, once staff
has identified and evaluated sources and methods. Council Staff Report, May 5, 2025,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=7767&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=14271
6 Human Relations Commission Staff Report, June 12, 2025
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=8147&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=14739
range of ideas, including expanded safe parking, particularly for RVs; incentives and streamlined
processes for below-market-rate housing, addressing family homelessness (e.g., via hotel
vouchers or tiny homes), shelter improvements, continued renter protections, and stronger
partnerships with the tech industry to improve communications access (e.g., phones, Wi-Fi).
7 After discussion, the Committee voted on a split motion to
recommend a phased approach. The full Committee agreed on Phases 1, 3 and 4. In a 2-1 vote,
with Councilmember Veenker voting no, the Committee recommended to, in Phase 2, begin
exploring limiting OSV parking to certain streets, including direction to evenly distribute OSV
permitted parking citywide, tie the OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time count, explore
an OSV permitting program, and clearly mark where OSV parking is permitted. The full motion
text and vote is shown in full on the next page. The full staff report is included as Attachment B.
7 Council Staff Report, August 25, 2025,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=8615&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=15516
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
MOTION SPLIT FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING
MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City
Council:
Phase 2:
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
o Identify non-residential and non-residential adjacent streets where OSV parking would
be permitted, and to the extent possible, evenly distribute those streets across the city
o Tie the number of OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time count
o Explore the possibility of a permitting program for OSV
o Evenly disburse permissible OSV parking spots across the identified streets to avoid
overconcentration and clearly mark on those streets where OSV parking is permitted
MOTION PASSED: 2-1, Veenker no
MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City
Council:
Phase 1: Upon Council approval, staff would:
1. Develop an ordinance to prohibit parking of detached/inoperable vehicles on public streets,
2. Develop an ordinance to prohibit the renting of public parking spaces (“vanlording”),
3. Refine the scope and begin implementation of additional street cleanups and sweeping,
4. 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
5. Implementation and enforcement of these actions would follow.
6. Work with LifeMoves to consider options, such as a buyback or parking program, to accept RV
residents quickly at the Homekey site or other housing options
7. Return to Council for direction for expanded safe parking on privately-owned and congregation-
based parking lots, excepting any safe parking site that requires undedicating parkland
Phase 2: Concurrent of Phase 1 implementation, staff would initiate work on:
1. Design a small-scale enhanced services pilot (e.g., mobile pump outs, additional outreach
workers/hours, garbage pickup, etc.),
Phase 3: Following the completion of related components in Phase 2, Council would:
1. Approve pilot and any related contracts and agreements for small-scale enhanced services pilot,
2. Approve a preferred option for expanded safe parking on privately-owned and congregation-
based parking lots,
3. Identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed and develop necessary ordinances and
program design for “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” approach, and
4. Implementation of these actions would follow.
Phase 4: Following the completion of related components in Phase 3, staff would:
1. Evaluate the enhanced services pilot,
2. Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking, and
3. Obtain related Council approvals for “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” and begin
enforcing new approach.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
ANALYSIS
The recently received 2025 PIT count data shows 418 people experiencing homelessness in Palo
Alto, compared to 206 people in 2023. The City continues to have a higher percentage of its
unsheltered population living in vehicles compared to the County as a whole. Of those
unsheltered in Palo Alto, 73 percent were in vehicles, while 37 percent were in vehicles
countywide. There were 168 vehicles (29 cars, 120 RVs, and 19 vans) counted, 35 of which were
in safe parking.8
As noted at the August Committee meeting, the growing number of people living in vehicles on
public streets poses a health and safety challenge, reducing the on-street parking availability for
other uses (e.g., residents, business employees and visitors), and necessitating outreach
services, street cleaning, and waste disposal. The City has been receiving increased concerns
from residents and the business community about long-term parking of oversized vehicles,
debris and personal belongings obstructing streets and sidewalks, and improper disposal of
human waste. The City Manager’s Office has seen a notable rise in these complaints beginning
in Spring 2025. Other neighboring cities are also seeking a variety of ways to address inhabited
OSVs, as summarized in Attachment A.
This report outlines the phased approach recommended by the Committee, beginning with
some contextual information on state law. Then more detailed information is provided on the
various actions proposed in the phased approach to: (1) reduce the impacts of accommodating
OSV parking demand, (2) strengthen regulations in areas where impacts are occurring while
preventing the impacts elsewhere, and (3) organize activities into phases that account for
implementation timelines and the complexity of the issue.
Please note that one of the Committee actions was to move safe parking expansion from Phase
2 to Phase 1. To reflect the Committee intent of moving safe parking expansion up in the
timeline, staff also moved associated safe parking expansion activities from Phases 3 and 49 to
Phase 1; associated resource implications are also identified. Additionally, upon review of the
motion, staff noted that the amended Phase 2 to “identify non-residential and non-residential
adjacent streets where OSV parking would be permitted” is a revision of Phase 3 item 3
"identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed....” Since this was part of the split motion, if
the full Council chooses to adopt the proposed amended language in Phase 2, staff would
interpret the Phase 3 item 3 language as being the continuation and finalization of the work
begun in Phase 2.
The many items in Phase 1 will trigger the immediate need for staff resources to handle
coordination, administration, and implementation. Procurement, contracting, and/or
8 The County used a new survey methodology in 2025, so comparing to prior years is fundamentally not the same.
The full 2025 PIT Count report is available here: https://osh.santaclaracounty.gov/data-and-reports/point-time-
count.
9 In the Policy and Services Motion this is Phase 3, item 2, but is now considered incorporated under/as part of
Phase 1.
recruitment and hiring for this will likely take several months and may impact the rollout time
for Phase 1.
State Law and Local Parking Regulations Relating to Oversized Vehicles
10 after 72 hours unless the vehicle travels at least five-tenths of a mile.
However, nothing in state or local law prevents a vehicle from moving and re-parking in the
same location. Prior to towing a vehicle believed to be used for shelter, Police Department
personnel and the City’s homeless outreach team collaboratively engage in outreach efforts to
attempt to connect occupants with alternative housing or safe parking options. The Police
Department has primarily focused on abandoned and non-operational OSVs. The Police
Department has successfully collaborated with the City’s homeless outreach team and has not
towed an occupied OSV.
10 The City's ability to tow OSVs is constrained by the limited number of tow companies operating the specialized
equipment necessary for towing OSVs, and by limited local tow yard capacity to store OSVs.
vandalism or theft. In most cases, towing also requires notice and an opportunity to correct the
violation.
Signage and Enforcement Considerations
Parking restrictions, including the increased street sweeping parking restrictions and the
proposed ordinance banning unattached trailer parking, require installing signage to be
enforceable.11 Implementing signage for these items could include use of temporary signs and
focused sign installation in areas of high activity.
12 in 2020 to implement signage relating to its oversized vehicle parking ordinances. In
Palo Alto, estimated costs are $1,900 per block for sign installation by a contractor. As a
hypothetical maximum, with approximately 2,200 blocks and two signs per side of the block,
this equates to roughly 8,800 signs at an estimated cost of $4.2 million if signs needed to be
posted on every block on every street.13 (However, to enforce the recommended ordinance to
prohibit unattached trailers, signage would not be required on every block in the City and
installation could focus on particular areas. On the other hand, state law requires block-level
signage, at minimum, for street sweeping parking restrictions). In addition to costs for
installation, engineering is required for sign and pole placement field verification, and work
order preparation for new street signs and poles (if needed) in public rights of way. For a
Citywide signage program, an additional FTE limited duration equivalent to $244,000-$269,000
per year would be needed. There may also be an impact to the work of existing engineering
staff on items such as development-related traffic control plan review, routine sign upgrades,
traffic signal adjustments, traffic signal upgrades, traffic calming and traffic control device plan
review, and complete streets projects engineering design). For reference, Mountain View’s
implementation required over two traffic engineers working full-time for 9 to 12 months.
14 staff would also lead with outreach workers ahead of
implementing increased street sweeping or any changes to enforcement. Dedicating the
11 In some cases, California cities adopting regulatory actions relating to OSV parking have been sued by advocates
for the unhoused, resulting in legal costs.
12 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=
13 This estimate assumes the cost for one sign to be posted throughout the City - approximately 2,200 blocks in the
City and 2 signs per side per block. If signage will be installed throughout the City it would equate to approximately
8,800 signs. Installation of signs and posts by a contractor is estimated at $4.2 million (8,800 x $475). However, not
every new parking restriction may require signage to this extent.
14 Currently, Police and Public Works coordinate closely with the outreach team during a weekly huddle and as-
needed.
outreach team to this work would likely impact their ability to rotate effectively throughout the
city for contact with other unhoused people not living in these areas.
15
Phased Approach – Actions to Accommodate Some Demand
Expanding Safe Parking on Privately-Owned and Congregation-Based Lots
16
15 The exact staffing and associated cost would depend on the specific regulation(s) adopted.
16 Additional Information on Resources for Safe Parking: Implementation of an expanded safe parking program on
privately-owned lots, including commercial and congregation-based sites, would require substantial staff work.
This includes outreach to congregations, commercial property owners, and surrounding neighborhoods to gauge
interest, identify concerns, and assess willingness to participate; evaluation of potential sites for suitability,
including space requirements for RVs, circulation, access, lighting, sanitation, and safety standards; coordination
with the Human Relations Commission and the Planning and Transportation Commission; and development of
policy options for Council consideration; for example, it could be establishing a pilot program with willing partners
or preparing a draft ordinance with defined conditions for private sites.
One idea proposed at Policy and Services Committee was to consider safe parking or perhaps
OSV storage on airport vacant land, including places leased to car dealerships. Residential use,
including temporary or short-term occupancy, is prohibited on the airport under Section 2.3.1.2
of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Advisory Circular 150/5190-4B. The two staging areas
on airport land total approximately 75,000 square feet over 2 sites and are currently leased for
$0.86/square foot, generating roughly $774,000 annually. If used for unoccupied vehicle
storage, federal grant assurances require that the Airport Enterprise Fund be compensated at
this rate. The Runway Protection Zone overlays one of the sites and both sites are affected by
the Runway 31 approach.
17 Staff could explore expanding this to allow 24-hour parking and possibly
accommodate some oversized vehicles (OSVs). While OSVs aren’t currently prohibited, the
program operator notes these vehicles are hard to manage with the daily movement required
under current hours. Expanding to include OSVs or longer hours would require outreach to
congregations to gauge interest and address neighbor concerns.
Resource Impacts
Exploring these expansion options would require staff time and reprioritizing other work. Costs
depend on the level of expansion and site conditions, especially existing amenities. Additional
funding would be needed for program management and might be needed for leases and
infrastructure. For context, a recent safe parking expansion with existing facilities cost about
$270,000 annually to accommodate 10 additional RV spaces.
Consider Options for Buyback or Parking Program
effective than developing a broad pilot program or ordinance, which tends to be more passive and resource
intensive. If a partner is identified the city could negotiate a site-specific regulatory agreement to advance the
City’s interests in this topic.
17 Safe parking at churches and other religious institutions is regulated at PAMC section 18.42.160.
near term, an ambitious target would be returning to Council with a recommended path
forward and funding request for the Fiscal Year 2027 budget.
Increased Cleaning and Street Sweeping on Selected Streets
18 The street sweeping parking
restrictions may encourage OSV owners to relocate, potentially shifting impacts to more
sensitive areas like retail or residential neighborhoods.
Resource Impacts
18 This list has been updated and amended since the Policy and Services Committee meeting to add portions of
Colorado, San Antonio, Lambert, Olive, and Sheridan. Cost for in-house signage along these streets would be
approximately $80,000 and take a minimum of 6 months with in-house staff operating on mandatory overtime.
The cost for the increased frequency of street sweeping would be $12,000 for weekly, year round sweeping of
these streets. If the increase were to be one side of the street each week, year round there would be no net
increase cost for the sweeping.
sweeping during non-Leaf Season, to sweeping only one side of the street twice per month
year-round, alternating sides each week, then staff anticipates there will be no net increase in
street sweeping cost.
Enhanced Services Relating to Inhabited OSVs
other cities, like Long Beach, saw limited participation. Staff can further explore during Phase 2
how to help OSV occupants appropriately dispose of both their solid waste and liquid waste.
Resource Impacts
The City currently spends approximately $256,000 annually on its contracted outreach
program, which includes two full-time outreach workers and a part-time manager.19
20 the estimated projected additional
annual expense for such service is about $80,000. Providing a larger container for each block,
such as a two cubic yard bin, is another option but would come at a significantly higher cost.
Phased Approach – Actions to Increase Regulation
Prohibit Storage of Detached Trailers/Non-motorized Vehicles on Public Streets
21
19 Currently, the program is funded through a combination of State Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
entitlement funds, City General Fund contributions, and financial support from Stanford University.
20 This number considers all vehicles not in safe parking (168 vehicles – 35 in safe parking). The estimate was
calculated at 133 vehicles for $50.07/month each, totaling $6,659, or $79,912 annual cost.
21 The zoning code (Title 18) includes a prohibition on storing or parking non-operable conveyances on private
The ordinance would apply to all such conveyances, whether inhabited or not. At the Policy and
Services Committee meeting, a Councilmember expressed concern for contractor trailers
retaining the ability to park in public parking spaces. However, a ban on detached trailers will
not impact trailers used by construction crews which already require a City permit for parking.
The prohibition could also include exceptions for loading/unloading and emergency repairs.
Signage would be necessary to enforce this rule, with priorities likely starting in areas most
impacted by detached trailers.
Resource Impacts
Sign installation for enforcement would require some costs for the additional signage22 and
staff from both the Office of Transportation and Public Works Department, similar to other
parking restriction projects.
Prohibit Renting of Public Parking Spaces (“Vanlording”)
23
22 Staff believes that this signage would be less extensive and should cost a lower amount.
23 San Jose’s vanlording ordinance is available here:
https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1363727
Enforcement may be difficult, as identifying vanlords often depends on information from
renters, who may be reluctant to cooperate if the practice is banned. As a result, enforcement
would rely on staff investigations.
Resource Impacts
Implementing a vanlord ban would require staff resources, primarily from the Police
Department and City Attorney’s Office. Staff would need to gather evidence—both online and
in the field—identify the vanlord, and issue warnings or fines. If a vehicle is occupied, the City
would also assess what support services could be offered to the residents. While it is still too
early to determine impact to workloads for Police, to be effective with investigating illegal
renting, Police staff expect one more police officer would need to be resourced – by either
diverting away from other investigations, which is not recommended, or add 1.0 FTE during the
FY 27 budget cycle at approximately $280,000 ongoing.
Limit OSV Parking to Certain Streets with Focused Regulations
24 would help mitigate public health, sanitation, and parking impacts while
providing clearer guidelines for both enforcement and services. These designated streets would
likely be in commercial or industrial areas where residential or school-adjacent impacts are
minimized.25 This targeted approach, paired with the above-mentioned increased services—
regular street sweeping, trash/waste collection/removal, and safety measures—on streets
where OSVs are allowed. Localized parking regulations like red curbs and intersections
clearances could also be implemented to maintain safety and access.
26 though this would reduce the availability for other
users and pose ongoing localized challenges arising from habitation on public rights of way not
24 At Policy and Services, a Councilmember asked what the change in number of OSVs was in Mountain View since
it began enforcing its oversized vehicle restrictions in October 2022. Mountain View counted 208 vehicles in
August 2022 (138 RVs, 35 passenger vehicles, 35 other), 151 vehicles in January 2023 (115 RVs, 21 passenger
vehicles, 15 other vehicles), 148 vehicles in August 2023 (99 RVs, 11 passenger vehicles, 38 other), and 223 vehicles
in July 2024 (143 RVs, 31 passenger vehicles, 49 other). Mountain View had not published its 2025 vehicle count at
the time this report was written.
25 The municipal code already prohibits OSV parking between the hours of 2:00 and 6:00 am on streets located
within residential and public facilities zones. However, to enforce the provision, state law requires local
jurisdictions to install signs adequately informing parkers of the restriction. Moreover, any attempt to formally
designate a subset of non-residential streets on which OSVs may park (i.e., prohibiting OSV parking on all other
streets) would require amending the municipal code.
26 Per the 2025 PIT Count, there were 170 vehicles counted: 29 cars, 122 RVs, and 19 vans.
designed to support the ongoing activities of living.27 In consideration of these localized
challenges, two of three Committee members voted to identify non-residential and “non-
residential-adjacent”28 streets where OSV parking would be permitted, with the goal of
distributing these locations as evenly as possible through the city to avoid overconcentration.29
The number of OSVs allowed to park could be tied to the City’s Point-in-Time (PIT) count,
ensuring that capacity remains responsive to actual need. The Committee also raised the
possibility of a permitting program to help regulate and monitor OSV parking. In addition, all
designated streets could be clearly marked to communicate where OSV parking is allowed,
further supporting enforcement and public understanding.
Resource Impacts
As mentioned in the “Signage and Enforcement Considerations” subsection earlier in this
Analysis section, any citywide parking regulation would require significant signage and
enforcement-related resources. The resource burden is somewhat ameliorated by the phased
nature of the overall recommendation.
Summary of Phased Approach
PHASE ACTION
ESTIMATED
DURATION/
COMPLETION
ESTIMATED COST/
BUDGET TIMING
IMPLICATIONS
All Support program implementation 2 years $314,000 (total over 2
years); some costs can
be prorated
Phase 1
1.1 Develop ordinance to prohibit detached/inoperable
vehicle parking on public streets
3 months –
January 2026
Staff time only
27 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. The estimate analyzed the 14
streets where high concentrations of 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.
28 The municipal code restricts overnight parking of OSVs on streets where the property on at least one side carries
a residential or public facilities zoning designation, but it does not prohibit OSV parking on “residential-adjacent”
streets or include a definition of that term. If Council wants to expand the restriction, it would need to formulate a
definition of “residential-adjacent.”
29 The Councilmember voting against the motion that included this idea was advocating to explore all other options
before pursuing limiting OSV parking to certain streets.
PHASE ACTION
ESTIMATED
DURATION/
COMPLETION
ESTIMATED COST/
BUDGET TIMING
IMPLICATIONS
1.2 Develop an ordinance to prohibit renting public
parking spaces
3 months –
January 2026
Staff time only
1.3 Refine scope & begin implementation of additional
street cleanups and sweeping
3 months – Jan
2026
$548K for FY26; plus an
additional $269K in FY27
for engineering; some
costs can be prorated[1]
1.4 Begin adoption of ordinance(s) (i.e., vanlord,
inoperable vehicles) and contract(s) approval (i.e.,
for street sweeping) on consent calendar
3 months – Jan
2026
Staff time only
1.5.1 Implement & enforce detached/inoperable vehicles
prohibition
Apr/May 2026 Unknown amount for
signage/FY26
enforcement included in
1.3; FY27 additional
$80K/yr
1.5.2 Implement & enforce vanlord (public parking space
rental) prohibition
Apr/May 2026 FY26 enforcement
included in 1.3 and 1.5.2;
FY27 additional $280K/yr
for 1.3 thru 1.5.2; CAO
time dependent on
volume
1.6 Work with LifeMoves [and Santa Clara County] to
consider options (buyback, storage) and to accept
RV residents quickly at Homekey or other housing
6 months –
Apr/May 2026
Unknown - $150,000[2]
for buyback program/
FY27 Budget
1.7 Return to Council for direction on expanding safe
parking on privately-owned and congregational
based lots
If no site
identified, then
9+ months –
August 2026[3]
Staff time only
Phase 2
2.1 Develop small scale enhanced services pilot 5 months - Oct
2026
Staff time only
2.2[4]Begin exploration of limiting OSV parking to certain
streets, including process/criteria for designating
streets, with community engagement
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only
2.2.1 Identify non-residential & non-residential adjacent
streets
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only
2.2.2 Tie the number of OSV permitted parking to the PIT
count
<1 month Staff time only
2.2.3 Explore possibility of OSV permitting program 3+ months –
Aug/Sept 2026
Staff time only
2.2.4 Evenly disburse permissible OSV parking across
identified streets to avoid overconcentration and
mark clearly on those streets where permitted
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only
Phase 3
PHASE ACTION
ESTIMATED
DURATION/
COMPLETION
ESTIMATED COST/
BUDGET TIMING
IMPLICATIONS
3.1 Council approval of enhanced services pilot and
related contracts/agreements
Nov/Dec 2026 $400,000+ one-time
FY 2027 Budget
3.2 Council approval of preferred expanded safe
parking option(s)
Aug/Sept 2026 Staff time only
3.3 Council identification of streets where OSV parking
permitted & develop ordinances and program
design
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only
3.4.1 Implement enhanced services pilot Jan/Feb 2027 Staff time only
3.4.2 Approve preferred option for expanded safe
parking[5]
Late 2026 &
onward
Staff time only
Phase 4
4.1 Evaluate enhanced services pilot Jan/Feb 2028 Staff time only
4.2 Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking.[6]Late 2026 &
onward
$270,000+
annually/Midyear 2026-
2027 Budget
4.3
Council approvals relating to limiting OSV parking
to certain streets.
Jan/Feb 2027 $4.2 million one-time for
citywide signage
FY 2027 Budget
$400,000+ annually
thereafter (this includes
$80K for enforcement for
1.3-4.3)
4.3.1 Implement “limiting OSV parking to certain streets”
and begin enforcement.
3-6 months -
May/Aug 2027
Staff time only
[1] This amount includes $100,000 for new permanent signage, $143,000 for temporary signage if the City wants to
start implementing street cleaning immediately, plus $60,000 for the estimated cost of deep cleaning of the 18
street segments (where OSVs are currently clustered) after the OSVs leave each area for the initial cleaning. Staff
anticipates phasing in this work, starting with a few blocks each week over several months. This allows time for
workers to install signs along nearly 40,000 linear feet of roadway. The sweeping and cleaning work can follow
behind as signs are installed. Additionally, this amount includes $150,000 for engineering analysis, plans, work
orders and inspection related to signage, striping and curb paint throughout the City. It also includes $95,000 for
enforcement support rolled out as PW works through the progressions.
[2] A buyback program in Berkeley applied $150,000 for 21 OSVs. The storage cost for OSVs would likely vary
significantly based on location, security involved, and insurance costs. There are no extant OSV storage lots in Palo
Alto. The nearest that staff is aware of is in the City of San Mateo and the per month vehicle costs were not
available at the time of this report publishing.
[3] Note: this timeframe does not align with the P&S Committee recommendation. The motion called for Safe
Parking expansion to be moved to Phase 1; however, with no specific site identified to date, this effort is currently
not resourced as noted in footnote 16 earlier in this report.
[4] This particular action was part of a split motion that indicated it would be in Phase 2. As parts of this action also
appear in the unanimous motion, where those appear, they are also italicized.
[5] Since expanded safe parking implementation is also part of Phase 4, staff is considering this the initial
implementation steps. Since both proposed expansion options require a willing non-city partner, implementation
will begin with outreach and, if successful, result in permitting (e.g., congregation-based) and/or leasing (e.g.,
privately owned).
[6] See note above.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommended phased approach would require City funding as outlined in the table below
and ongoing staff allocation for the foreseeable future. Although funding sources for the
majority of this work have not yet been identified, a significant General Fund allocation is likely.
Staff will also research and evaluate other funding sources (e.g., grant funding and/or
entitlement opportunities, and Business Tax Revenue for Affordable Housing and Unhoused
Services). The budget appropriations reflected in the recommendations on the first page of this
report are intended to provide the up-front resources required to move forward on immediate
actions, with the expectation that additional appropriations and funding sources will be
identified at the mid-year budget report in early 2026.
In the near term, the significant front-loading of items into Phase 1 will require reallocating
staff resources, will impact other Council priorities, and will require appropriation of a total of
$707,000 in FY 2026: (1) $157,000 to the City Manager’s Office for resources to support
program implementation (2) $305,000 to Public Works for additional street cleaning on
currently impacted street segments and related signage, (3) $150,000 to the Office of
Transportation (pro-rated) for engineering analysis, plans, work orders, and inspections, and (4)
$95,000 to the Police Department for enforcement and towing services. These costs will be
funded by: (1) $157,000 from the Business Tax Revenue for Housing Affordability, (2) $245,000
from the Refuse Fund, and (3) $305,000 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve.
The ongoing costs for these services would impact the General Fund by approximately $0.7 to
$0.8 million ongoing annually. In addition, funding for signage in the Capital Improvement Fund
may need additional support from the General Fund depending on resources available in the
Infrastructure Reserve for capital improvements.
This report focuses on immediate steps to ameliorate the impacts of vehicle dwelling in Palo
Alto. In light of the increasing PIT numbers, however, addressing homelessness in a lasting way
will ultimately require additional housing for the people being helped. Although not covered in
this report, this longer-term effort is important to keep in mind.
Action Funding
Source FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 &
Ongoing
Street Sweeping Signage Refuse Fund $245,000 $0 $0
Clean-up Services General Fund $60,000 $0 $0
Engineering General Fund $150,000 $269,000*$0
Enforcement/Towing General Fund $95,000 $440,000 $440,000
Expanded Safe Parking General Fund $0 $135,000 $270,000
Signage for Additional Parking
Restrictions
Capital Fund $0 $4,200,000*$0
Administration/Implementation Business Tax $157,000 $157,000 $0
Buyback/Storage Program Business Tax $0 $150,000 $0
Enhanced Services Pilot Business Tax $0 $400,000 $0
Total $707,000 $5,751,000 $710,000
General Fund Impact *$305,000 $844,000 $710,000
Business Tax Revenue Support $157,000 $707,000 $0
*Parking Signage work in the Capital Fund may require additional funds to be transferred from the General Fund
depending on resources available in the Infrastructure Reserve. The $4.2 million for signage and $269,000 for
engineering is the estimated maximum cost to sign Citywide; see discussion in the Analysis section under the
Signage and Enforcement Considerations item of this memo. The cost will ultimately vary depending on such
factors as: the number of new parking regulations adopted (and therefore the number of new signs), the
geographic scope of a new parking restriction, and the availability of existing poles/infrastructure for new signs.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff has made some preliminary efforts to gather feedback from the community on the
Committee’s recommendation. This included seeking input from the “RV Dwellers Group” of
service providers, a representative of Stanford University, members of the faith-based
community, City staff, a City Councilmember, and a Human Relations Commission member, at
its regular meeting in September 2025. Attendees discussed how to address and balance needs
and concerns, including:
•Considering extending safe parking near Geng Road site,
•Understanding how many people living in vehicles work in Palo Alto, how many are van
lifers, and noting that there is distrust and fear in this community,
•Concern about people who would not qualify for housing and/or services based on
immigration status, and
•Concern about the health and safety of people living in “vanlord” vehicles.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on Phase 1 provisions about enhanced cleaning, street sweeping, parking signs,
and parking enforcement are categorically exempt under CEQA regulations 15301 (existing
facilities) and 15321 (enforcement actions). Other items in Phase 1 and in later phases require
further Council input and/or approval and CEQA will be addressed as those are approved.
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
Attachment A: Neighboring Cities’ OSV Parking Regulations
The following is a non-exhaustive list of the approaches some of our neighbor cities have taken
to managing the impacts of inhabited Oversized Vehicles (OSVs).
•“Oversized and Lived-In Vehicle Enforcement” (OLIVE) pilot program1:
o The program, funded by a $1.5 million budget addendum, is intended to help address
the environmental and safety issues caused by oversized vehicles, including lived-in
vehicles, parked on city streets. It directs City staff to:
▪Identify areas impacted by the parking of oversized and lived-in vehicles on city
streets
▪Establish temporary tow-away zones to allow cleanup of impacted areas and
encourage vehicles to relocate
▪Analyze the feasibility of installing permanent parking restrictions at select
locations
o 30 sites were identified in FY 2025 and up to 50 will be identified in FY 2026 for
temporary tow-away parking restrictions (approximately one month in duration) to help
facilitate the cleanup and street sweeping of the area and encourage people to move
their vehicles out of the restricted zone. Vehicles that are not voluntarily moved from
tow away zones will be subject to towing and impound. Based on the success of the
temporary restrictions, up to 10 sites will be considered for permanent parking
restrictions.
•Designated “no overnight parking” and “no large vehicle parking” zones. Towing authorized for
violations.2
•Ban on vanlording and on living in vehicles, which went into effect in July 2025.3
Services including safe parking, vehicle buy-back program, biowaste removal, and trash pickups
for lived-in vehicles.4
•Prohibits parking oversize vehicles and detached trailers on residential streets throughout the
city. 5
•Prohibits living in vehicles.6 The City had not been enforcing this ordinance, which was originally
passed in the 1990s, but recently began enforcing it again after a dedicated outreach period.7
•Effective April 2025, OSVs may not park overnight (2-5 am) on any public street in the city.8
•The City also recently updated its 72-hour ordinance and adopted ordinance language to
implement AB 413 (state law that prohibits parking within defined distance of intersections).9
•In late 2024, the Fremont City Council approved municipal code amendments that would:
o Prohibit parking an OSV on any public street within 100 feet of a residential property
line.10
o Amend the City’s 72-hour ordinance to clarify that “Any vehicle that has been parked or
left standing in the same location or parking spot for seventy-two (72) consecutive
hours must be moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet (approximately two-tenths
(2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot
for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure.”11
o The associated staff report12 acknowledged that enforcement would be largely
complaint-based. Staff estimated that substantially expanding parking enforcement
beyond their current model would require several additional FTEs at a total ongoing
expense of about $1.2 million plus additional one-time expenses for equipment and
material.
Sunnyvale
•Sunnyvale plans to expand safe parking. At the end of 2024, the Council passed an ordinance13
that would govern safe parking programs in the city. It also directed staff to pursue
implementing a safe parking pilot program on public land and a general fund grant for nonprofit
or faith-based organizations to provide safe parking on private land.14
San Francisco
•San Francisco recently imposed a citywide two-hour limit on OSV parking. Vehicles that have
applied for and received a “refuge permit” are exempt from enforcement.15 To be eligible for a
permit, applicants must:
o Have been living in a large vehicle in SF as of May 2025 (verified by City staff count)
o Be actively engaging with City services for the unhoused
o Agree to adhere to a “good neighbor policy”
o Allow Public Works to clear debris around the vehicle
o Agree to relinquish the vehicle (via City-run buy-back program or otherwise) and enter
permanent housing or non-congregate interim housing if offered.
•The City has budgeted $13 million for the program over two years. Enforcement is set to start
November 1, 2025.
Cupertino
•City recently passed a first reading16 of an ordinance that would ban overnight OSV parking
throughout the city. Housed city residents would be eligible to apply for up to 20 permits a
year that would allow them to park their OSVs on the street for up to 72 hours at a time.
•The ordinance also bans renting out a vehicle for living or sleeping quarters in the public
right of way.
•At the time this report was written, the ordinance had not yet taken effect.
1 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/parking/vehicle-
abatement/oversized-and-lived-in-vehicle-enforcement
2 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:eab8cf93-9cc5-4caf-a89a-0358319167f0
3 https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1363727
4 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/residents/homelessness-hub/homelessness-hub-faqs
5 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2407/Oversized-Vehicle-Parking
6 https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/10.04.140#(a)
7 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:9f595393-eae3-4d52-b18d-
88cb77eef4f0?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
8 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/MenloPark/html/MenloPark11/MenloPark1124.html#11.24.075
9 https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2024-
meetings/agendas/20241112/l1-20241112-cc-oversized-vehicle-and-parking-ord.pdf
10 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont10/Fremont1005.html#10.05.555
11 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont10/Fremont1005.html#10.05.550
12 https://fremontcityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1980&MediaPosition=&ID=5
285&CssClass=
13 https://ecode360.com/46385883
14 https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7014182&GUID=1ED10C32-1325-4891-ABED-
959D528361C5&G=FA76FAAA-7A74-41EA-9143-F2DB1947F9A5&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
15 https://www.sf.gov/large-vehicle-refuge-permit-program
16 https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7640446&GUID=AA6B4AEF-0865-48BB-ADEB-
056F131B83A5
CITY 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
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.
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.
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.)
Potential Actions to Accommodate Some Demand
A. Expand Safe Parking at Baylands Athletic Center (or Other Dedicated Parkland)
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.
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.
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
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.
.25
Resource Impact
26
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
F. Prohibit Renting of Public Parking Spaces
35
Implementation Considerations
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
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.
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
Implementation Considerations
Resource Impact
43
J. Prohibit Oversized Vehicle Parking Throughout the City
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
$$
Enhance services, with
or without new
regulations
Increased outreach worker staffing to cover
evenings/weekends
Buyback program efficacy and cost not known
Pump-out likely uptake and costs not known
$$-$$$*45
Potential Actions to Increase Regulation
F. Prohibit renting of
public parking spaces
Identifying/investigating ‘vanlords’ can be difficult $
G. Prohibit storage of
detached trailers/
inoperable vehicles on
public streets
Applies equally to all vehicles $
H. Limit OSVs to certain
streets
Identifying adequate parking locations for OSVs $-$$$
*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
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
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
From:Matt Lynch
To:Council, City
Cc:McDonough, Melissa
Subject:Upcoming City Council Discussion on Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts
Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 12:36:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good afternoon:
My name is Matthew Lynch, and I manage Gryphon Stringed Instruments, located on
211 Lambert Ave in Palo Alto.
On behalf of our store, I would like to present the following for public comment at
tonight's City Council meeting regarding OVI:
Gryphon Stringed Instrument has been serving Palo Alto and the greater Bay Area
since 1969, and while we are recognized internationally as a leading purveyor of fine
stringed instruments, we foremost consider the local community to be our greatest
asset.
The derelict RVs on Park Boulevard are of particular concern to those who work at
Gryphon Stringed Instruments because we are a retail business. Although we sell
instruments online through our website, we still depend on sales to customers from
throughout the greater SF Bay Area who drive to the corner of Park & Lambert
to shop for specialty instruments, or to have theirs repaired. Some customers have
expressed surprise and dismay at the trash surrounding these huge ill-kempt
vehicles, not to mention their poor condition, and we hear comments such as: "Is it
safe to walk on that side of the street?", and "What happened to Palo Alto?". The
urban blight that now characterizes the stretch of Park between Page Mill Road and
Lambert Ave discourages customers from surrounding cities, such as Menlo Park and
Los Altos, from coming to Gryphon to shop.
Thank you for time.
Sincerely,
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
-- Matthew Lynch, Retail Sales ManagerGryphon Stringed Instruments211 Lambert AvePalo Alto, Ca 94306888-493-2131 Ext. 7006
From:Eric Chan
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: [echelonpa] RV Situation in Palo Alto
Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 11:07:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi Palo Alto Council Members,
As a property owner and resident of Echelon Community, I request Palo Alto City not to allow
RV parking next to our home, along East Meadow Circle. It is negatively impacting our living
conditions, safety and property value.
Thank you.
Eric Chan - Echelon Community
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:33 PM Colin Swindells <colin.swindells@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Council Members and Neighbors,
A summary of health and economic risks related to the current RV situation are described
below.
This relates to Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on Monday,
October 20, 2025 (Council Chambers & Hybrid @ 5:30 PM):
“16. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a
Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle)
Impacts, Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget
Amendments in various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt.”
I appreciate your upcoming action to address the health and economic risks that are
directly impacting the 254 units of Altaire, Echelon and Vantage communities neighboring
the RVs parked along E Meadow Cir in Palo Alto. Specifically, health concerns arise from
the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure and basic services that come with living in non-
designated areas. Economic concerns include property values, municipal & public
services, local businesses, direct neighbor costs and economic stagnation. For example,
if only considering property tax revenue losses to the City of Palo Alto due to the
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
particular RV situation neighboring our three complexes (Altaire, Echelon and Vantage),
an estimate is $1.5 M - $1.8 M total reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year
(see Example Economic Use Case B below). Presumably, overall economic impacts for
Palo Alto are much higher. I would be happy to update more complete health and
economic impact estimates with council members & neighbors, and appropriate solutions.
Sincerely,
Colin Swindells
3769 Klamath Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Health Risks
Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in
a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of
potential health risks, categorized for clarity.
Summary Challenges: This is a complex public health issue with significant impacts on
both the unhoused individuals living in the RVs and the residents of the surrounding
neighborhood. The health risks are not inherent to the people, but rather stem from the
lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure, and basic services that come with living in non-
designated areas.
1. Environmental Health and Sanitation Risks
This is often the most immediate and visible category of health risks. A high concentration
of RVs without access to proper utilities creates a significant bio-load on the immediate
environment.
Improper Disposal of Human Waste (Black Water): RVs have toilets and black
water holding tanks that need to be emptied regularly. Without legal and accessible
dump stations, occupants may be forced to dump raw sewage into storm drains,
gutters, or onto the ground.
Health Risks: This introduces dangerous pathogens into the environment.
Bacteria: E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, which can cause severe
gastrointestinal illness.
Viruses: Norovirus and Hepatitis A, which are highly contagious and
can be spread through contaminated surfaces or water.
Parasites: Giardia and Cryptosporidium, leading to diarrheal diseases.
Impact: These pathogens can contaminate public sidewalks, wash into local
waterways (creeks, bays), and potentially seep into the soil in parks or green
spaces where children and pets play.
Improper Disposal of Gray Water: This is wastewater from sinks and showers.
While less hazardous than black water, it contains soaps, food particles, and
bacteria that can create foul odors, attract pests, and pollute storm drains.
Accumulation of Solid Waste (Trash): Without regular municipal trash collection,
garbage can pile up in and around the RVs.
Health Risks:
Pest Infestations: Accumulating trash is a breeding ground for rodents
(rats, mice) and insects (flies, cockroaches).
Vector-Borne Diseases: Rodents can carry diseases like Hantavirus
(from droppings), Leptospirosis, and Salmonellosis. Flies can transfer
bacteria from waste to food surfaces.
Hazardous Material Spills: RVs use and store hazardous materials.
Health Risks: Leaks or spills of gasoline, diesel, propane, motor oil, and
battery acid can contaminate the soil and groundwater. Propane tanks pose a
significant fire and explosion risk, especially if they are old, damaged, or
2. Public Health and Communicable Disease Risks
The dense, close-quarters living conditions, combined with a lack of sanitation, can
create an environment where diseases can spread easily, affecting both the RV
occupants and, potentially, the wider community.
Increased Risk of Outbreaks: The unsanitary conditions described above
(especially human waste) create a perfect environment for outbreaks of diseases
like Hepatitis A or Shigellosis, which have been documented in similar
encampment situations in other cities.
Respiratory Illnesses: The constant running of generators for power produces
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5).
Health Risks: Poor air quality can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory
conditions for nearby residents. For RV occupants, there is a severe risk of
carbon monoxide poisoning, which can be fatal, especially in poorly
ventilated vehicles.
Spread of Other Diseases: Lack of access to running water for handwashing and
hygiene facilitates the spread of viruses like influenza and COVID-19, as well as
skin conditions like scabies and lice among the encampment population.
3. Physical Safety and Hazard Risks
The physical presence of a large number of vehicles not designed for permanent street
parking creates numerous safety hazards.
Fire Hazards: This is one of the most significant risks.
Causes: Fires can be started by faulty internal wiring in older RVs, unsafe
heating methods (propane heaters, stoves), cooking accidents, or generator
malfunctions.
Magnified Risk: In a dense cluster of 50 RVs, a fire in one vehicle can
quickly spread to adjacent RVs and potentially to nearby homes, trees, or
parked cars. The presence of propane tanks can lead to explosions,
accelerating the fire's spread and endangering firefighters.
Access Issues: The RVs may block streets or fire hydrants, impeding
emergency vehicle access.
Traffic and Pedestrian Safety:
Blocked Sightlines: RVs parked at intersections can block visibility for
drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, increasing the risk of accidents.
Obstruction of Public Ways: Vehicles parked on sidewalks or in bike lanes
force pedestrians and cyclists into the street, into the path of traffic.
4. Mental and Social Health Impacts
These risks affect both the housed residents and the unhoused occupants.
For Neighborhood Residents:
Stress and Anxiety: Constant noise from generators, fear of crime, concern
over sanitation, and feelings of a loss of neighborhood safety can lead to
chronic stress and anxiety.
Loss of Public Space: Residents may feel unable to use public parks,
sidewalks, or other common areas due to perceived or real safety and
sanitation concerns.
For RV Occupants:
Extreme Stress and Trauma: It's crucial to acknowledge the immense
health risks faced by the unhoused individuals themselves. They live in a
state of constant vulnerability, facing the threat of displacement, harassment,
violence, and theft.
Exacerbation of Health Conditions: Lack of stability, nutrition, and access
to healthcare worsens pre-existing conditions, including physical illnesses,
mental health disorders, and substance use disorders.
Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario:
With a density of 50 RVs in such a small area, all the risks mentioned above would be
significantly magnified.
Environmental Load: The daily output of human waste, gray water, and trash from
50+ people would quickly overwhelm the local environment, creating tangible
biohazard zones.
Air and Noise Pollution: The cumulative noise and fumes from dozens of
generators running simultaneously would create a constant, unhealthy environment
for everyone within that 1000-foot radius and beyond.
Cascading Fire Risk: A fire would be a catastrophic event with a high probability
of spreading to multiple vehicles and structures.
Public Health Emergency Potential: An outbreak of a communicable disease like
Hepatitis A would have a high potential for rapid spread within the encampment
and would require a major intervention from public health departments.
In conclusion, a high concentration of RVs in a residential neighborhood without proper
infrastructure poses serious, multifaceted health risks related to environmental
contamination, communicable disease, fire safety, and public safety. Addressing this
issue effectively requires a public health-led approach that provides safe, sanctioned
locations with sanitation services, coupled with robust outreach to connect the unhoused
occupants with healthcare, housing, and other support services.
Economic Risks
Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in
a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of
potential economic risks, categorized for clarity.
Summary Challenges: Building on the public health risks, the economic risks
associated with a high concentration of illegally parked RVs are significant and can affect
homeowners, local businesses, and the municipal government. These risks are not
caused by the unhoused individuals themselves, but by the circumstances of living in
unmanaged, unsanctioned encampments that lack infrastructure and services.
Example Economic Use Case A: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from
Echelon…
Total Units in Echelon: 75
Conjecture A: $1.75 M average current value (Q4 2025)
Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation
Estimate A: $2.3 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.75 M /
(1 - 25%)]
Estimate B: $43.8 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year
[($2.3 M - $1.75 M) * 75 units]
Estimate C: $438 k total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year
[annual property tax @ 1% property value]
Example Economic Use Case B: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Altaire,
Echelon, and Vantage…
Total Units: 254
Conjecture A: $1.7 M - $2.1 average current value per unit (Q4 2025)
Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation
Estimate A: $2.3 M - $2.8 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation
[$1.7 M / (1 - 25%); $2.1 M / (1 - 25%)]
Estimate B: $152 M - $178 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes
per year [($2.3 M - $1.7 M) * 254 units; ($2.8 M - $2.1 M) * 254 units]
Estimate C: $1.5 M - $1.8 M total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected
per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value]
1. Impact on Real Estate and Property Values
This is often the most direct and significant economic impact for neighborhood residents.
Decreased Property Values: The presence of a large, unsanctioned encampment can
lead to a measurable decline in property values. Factors contributing to this include:
Perceived Decline in Safety and Quality of Life: Potential buyers are often
deterred by visible signs of disorder, sanitation issues, and perceived crime.
Visual Blight: The physical appearance of a large number of dilapidated or poorly
maintained vehicles, along with associated debris, can negatively impact the
aesthetic appeal of a neighborhood.
Noise and Air Pollution: Constant generator noise and exhaust fumes make the
neighborhood less desirable.
Difficulty Selling or Renting Properties:
Longer Market Time: Homes and apartments within the affected area may take
significantly longer to sell or rent.
Reduced Sale Prices and Rental Income: To attract buyers or tenants, property
owners may be forced to lower their asking prices or rent, leading to a direct
financial loss. Landlords may experience higher vacancy rates.
Stifled Home Improvement Investment: Homeowners may become hesitant to invest in
renovations or upgrades, fearing they will not see a return on their investment due to the
declining desirability of the neighborhood.
2. Increased Costs for Municipal and Public Services
The burden on public services translates directly to increased costs for the city, which are
ultimately borne by taxpayers.
Increased Emergency Service Costs: A high-density encampment places a
disproportionate demand on emergency services.
Fire Department: High frequency of calls for fires (vehicle, trash, tent), medical
emergencies, and responses to propane leaks or generator malfunctions. These
calls are resource-intensive.
Police Department: Increased calls for service related to disputes, wellness
checks, theft, and other crime, requiring significant officer time.
Paramedics/EMT: Frequent medical calls for both encampment occupants and
potential issues in the surrounding neighborhood.
Significant Sanitation and Cleanup Costs:
Biohazard Removal: Cleaning up human waste, used needles, and other
biohazardous materials requires specialized crews and equipment, which is far
more expensive than standard trash collection.
Large-Scale Debris Removal: The city often bears the cost of clearing out
abandoned vehicles, accumulated trash, and personal property after an
encampment is cleared. These operations can cost tens or even hundreds of
thousands of dollars per event.
Public Health Response Costs: As mentioned in the health risks, an outbreak of a
communicable disease like Hepatitis A would necessitate a costly public health campaign
for containment, testing, and vaccination.
3. Negative Impact on Local Businesses
Small, local businesses are particularly vulnerable to the economic fallout.
Reduced Revenue:
Loss of Foot Traffic: Customers may avoid shopping in areas they perceive as
unsafe or unpleasant. Difficulty finding parking and navigating blocked sidewalks
can further deter patrons.
Negative Reputation: A business located in or near a large encampment can
suffer from a damaged reputation, driving away both regular and potential new
customers.
Increased Operational Costs:
Security: Businesses may need to hire private security guards or install expensive
surveillance systems.
Cleaning and Repairs: Daily costs for cleaning up litter, human waste, and graffiti
from their storefronts. Costs to repair vandalism or break-ins.
Higher Insurance Premiums: Commercial insurance rates may increase if the
area is deemed higher risk.
Employee-Related Issues: Businesses may struggle to attract and retain employees
who feel unsafe commuting to or working in the area, especially during early morning or
late-night shifts.
4. Direct Financial Costs to Residents
Beyond the impact on property values, residents may face direct, out-of-pocket expenses.
Installation of Security Measures: Many residents will feel compelled to spend money
on security cameras, enhanced lighting, alarms, and stronger fences.
Property Damage: Costs to repair damaged fences, remove graffiti, and replace stolen
items (e.g., packages, items from yards or cars).
Increased Insurance Rates: If the neighborhood experiences a documented increase in
crime or fire incidents, homeowners' insurance premiums could rise for everyone in the
zip code.
5. Broader Economic Stagnation and Disinvestment
If the situation persists, it can lead to long-term economic damage to the neighborhood.
Deterred Investment: Private developers and businesses will be reluctant to invest in a
neighborhood with such visible and unresolved social and sanitation issues. This can halt
new construction, prevent new businesses from opening, and lead to a downward
economic spiral.
Erosion of the Tax Base: A combination of declining property values and businesses
closing or relocating can lead to a reduction in the city's property and sales tax revenue
from that area. This, in turn, can mean less funding for public services, creating a vicious
cycle.
Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario:
In a dense scenario like this, the economic risks are not just potential; they become a sustained
reality.
Market Chill: The local real estate market would likely freeze or see a sharp, localized
crash. It would be difficult to sell a home at a fair market price within that radius.
Budgetary Strain: The cost to the city for services would become a significant, recurring
line item in the municipal budget, potentially diverting funds from other neighborhood
services like park maintenance or library hours.
"Red Zone" for Business: The immediate area would likely become a "no-go" zone for
new business investment, and existing small businesses would be under severe financial
pressure, with a high risk of failure.
In essence, a high concentration of RVs creates a localized economic crisis driven by the failure
to provide basic sanitation, safety, and housing infrastructure. The economic costs demonstrate
the financial consequence of not addressing the root causes of homelessness and the need for
managed, resourced solutions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Echelon Palo
Alto" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
echelonpa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/echelonpa/CAOcXV2HfbUCW7GW%3DQ0-
rD9a%3D3rdXb%3DLhC4ydnXqfJk2LG8ks3A%40mail.gmail.com.
From:Rebecca Sanders
To:Council, City
Subject:Tonight"s discussion of the RV situation
Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 10:19:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing and Honorable Councilmembers:
The staff report is quite nebulous concerning the locations of certain areas where RVs will be
able to congregate and receive services. I suspect Park Boulevard and surrounding streets in
Ventura will be one of the specially designated spots since our neighborhood has been a de
facto "permitted" area for years.
You KNOW how I feel. I want all neighborhoods to share equally in housing our RV
dwellers. I propose a rotation system should be designed whereby RVs are relocated month to
month across the city so that all residents may be equally impacted and equally helpful.
Please don't consign one or two neighborhoods to do the work for the whole city of taking care
of our RV and vehicle dwellers.
Special thanks to Vice Mayor Veenker for calling this out at the Policy and Services Meeting.
Thank you and kind regards,
Becky Sanders
From:June Chang
To:Council, City
Subject:RV vanlording on E Meadow Circle
Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 10:11:28 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable city council members,
The RVs occupying E Meadow Cir. causes health concerns and issues, increases traffic and noises at
the cross street of E Meadow Drive and Fabian Way. Every RV comes with a car and/or a motorcycle,
impacting Echelon, Vantage, and Altaire community.
E Meadow Circle and Fabian way never has street cleaning because of vanlording, not only it looks
trashy but also raises health concerns.
Where are the rights of law abiding residents who moved into this neighborhood, paying taxes, hoping to
build a clean and safe environment for their families? this is undoubtedly a decrease of the quality of life
and the property value of honest Palo Alto residents, we seek to preserve.
Please approve:
- ban vanlording
- redistribution of RVs to other parts and/or RV parks;
- and updated street signage for cleaning.
Much appreciated council member's consideration.
- Jung Chang
from Echelon Community.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Min Zhong
To:Council, City
Cc:Kratt, Ken
Subject:Serious illegal RV parking issue in Palo Alto
Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 9:56:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
I am an owner of the Echelon community in the East Meadow and East Meadow Circle
area. The illegal RV parking situation on public streets around my neighborhood and
beyond in Palo Alto has become a serious public safety, health, environment, and economy
issue. This situation has been seriously affecting the living quality of Palo Alto residents
who are paying property tax, rentals, and utilities to keep Palo Alto a great place to live,
while significantly draining the city budget to maintain those affected areas caused by those
illegal RV campers.
This relates to Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on Monday,
October 20, 2025 (Council Chambers & Hybrid @ 5:30 PM):
“16. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a
Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts,
Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in
various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt.”
I appreciate your positive actions to address the health and economic risks that are directly
impacting the 254 units of Altaire, Echelon and Vantage communities caused by those RVs
parked along E Meadow Cir in Palo Alto. I am certain that you will live up to your voters'
expectations on eliminating all illegal RV parking on public streets in Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Min Zhong
3704 Feather Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Yingxi Liu
To:Council, City; Kratt, Ken
Subject:Please restrict oversized/RV parking on E Meadow Cir (Agenda Item #16, Oct 20)
Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 9:51:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
Adopt Item #16 and immediately prohibit oversized/RV parking on E Meadow Circle and
nearby residential streets. Our block is not equipped for long-term vehicle habitation. The
current concentration has produced ongoing health, fire, and traffic hazards—sewage and
trash, generator fumes and noise, blocked sightlines, and impeded emergency access. Public
safety is non-negotiable.
Act now: post “No Oversized Vehicle Parking” signs, set tow-away hours, enforce
consistently, and publish a 30-day implementation schedule. Pair this with sanctioned,
serviced safe-parking in appropriate zones—compassion requires order.
I acknowledge and support my neighbor Colin Swindells for his detailed analysis; I align with
his findings and request.
No more delays—restore basic standards on E Meadow Circle.
Sincerely,
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Marguerite Poyatos
To:Manu Kumar; peterxuvel@gmail.com; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com
Cc:Steve Wong; Transportation; RevColl; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo R; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester
Wong; Maor Greenberg; Dave Stellman; Gaines, Chantal; Cathi Lerch; Dave Stellman; City Mgr; Moffatt, Pete;
Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley;
McDonough, Melissa; Reifschneider, James; John Lerch; Binder, Andrew; City Attorney; Lauing, Ed; Lydia Kou;
Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com;
Becchetti, Benjamin; Cally Mei
Subject:Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 8:42:29 AM
Attachments:Outlook-THE
image015.png
image018.png
Outlook-3lhybjrb
Outlook-logo 2 PNG.png
image011.png
Outlook-Green Hear
image020.png
image017.png
image021.png
image016.png
image019.png
Attachment A - Neighboring Cities’ OSV Parking Approaches.pdf
Item 16 Staff Report (2).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you, Manu!
I am following up to include Roger & Peter in this email chain. They also are interested in
rectifying this RV/parking situation.
Attached is some information they had provided to us regarding a City Council meeting,
which is scheduled for tonight, as well as parking regulations for neighboring cities.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 9:24 AM Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com> wrote:
Steve and fellow neighbors:
I posted some videos from my drive home yesterday on X for everyone to see what Palo
Alto really looks like.
https://x.com/manukumar/status/1979554824749465636
It is abundantly clear that the City leadership is allowing the City to turn into trash/blight.
The parking regulations have glaring loopholes — just drive around the block and park in a
different spot… maybe we can call it Musical RVs.
The laws/regulations need to be changed to ensure that such abuse of public property is not
allowed altogether.
Regards,
-Manu
Click the card above, or scan the QR code with the camera on your phone.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 8:39 AM Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com> wrote:
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to express concern about the growing number of RVs and motorhomes parked along
the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000 block of Transport Street, and 800-900 block of
Commercial Street in Palo Alto. The situation has gotten completely out of hand and is creating
serious safety, accessibility, and parking issues for the businesses and employees who work in
this area every day.
Many of these large vehicles have been parked for months at a time without moving, in clear
violation of the City’s own parking rule stating that “Any vehicle parked on a public street must be
moved every 72 hours.” It appears this rule is not being enforced, and the problem continues to
worsen week after week.
There are also major safety concerns. Many of these RVs have propane tanks and running
generators outside, which pose fire and explosion risks. They block visibility for drivers and
pedestrians, and the growing number of them has turned these streets into unsafe and
overcrowded areas.
This issue has now reached a point where it’s directly impacting local workers and businesses.
Parking has become extremely limited because RVs and motorhomes occupy most of the
available spaces. In just the past week, we’ve seen even more of them arrive, taking over
additional spots and making the situation worse.
We are asking the City of Palo Alto to take immediate action to enforce existing parking laws and
address this problem before it escalates further. The current situation is unsafe, unfair, and
unsustainable for those who work and operate businesses in this area.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We hope the city will take swift and visible
steps to resolve it.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Wong - President
Phone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.0160
4067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane
<bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong
<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave
Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin
Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr
<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>;
Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com
<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew
Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou
<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
<Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Please. Every one of these pictures is a Safety violation where’s Waldo
Patrick Kelly
From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:22:26 AM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane
<bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong
<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave
Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin
Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr
<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>;
Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com
<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew
Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou
<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
<Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Patrick Kelly
From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 6:37:09 AM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane
<bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong
<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave
Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin
Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr
<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>;
Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com
<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew
Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou
<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
<Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Hasn’t moved in a month. Visibility non existent for pedestrians. Safety issues are on your
shoulders when something happens.
Patrick Kelly
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 8:39:37 AM
To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane
<bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong
<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave
Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin
Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr
<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>;
Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com
<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew
Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou
<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
<Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do
not trust.
I would also like to note that the propane tank I mentioned a couple weeks ago is still
sitting in the street. Is this not a safety hazard? From what I have read, they shouldn't be
allowed to be kept in the street for multiple reasons.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 8:34 AM Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> wrote:
The safety on this street keeps getting worse. No visibility, no concern for environmental
issues. Please help.
Patrick Kelly
From: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:57:53 PM
To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno
<ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor
Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>;
Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin
Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr
<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>;
Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com
<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew
Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou
<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City
Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer
Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
<Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do
not trust.
O.R. Builders Inc.
Xenia Czisch
Osbaldo Romero
President
939 Industrial Ave
Palo Alto, Ca. 94303
Phone: 650.938.2222
Fax: 650.938.2224
Cell: 415.215.6788
From: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:53 PM
To: 'Bill McLane' <bill@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: 'Marguerite Poyatos' <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; 'Ramon Moreno'
<ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; 'Lester Wong' <LWong@wongelectric.com>; 'Maor
Greenberg' <maor@greenberg.construction>; 'Dave Stellman' <davestellman@gmail.com>;
'Patrick Kelly' <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org;
osbaldo@or-builders.com; 'Manu Kumar' <manu@k9ventures.com>; 'Benjamin Becchetti'
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Cathi Lerch' <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>;
'Dave Stellman' <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; 'City Mgr' <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Pete
Moffatt' <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com;
david@paloaltoconcrete.com; 'Steve Wong' <SWong@wongelectric.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com; 'Dan McKinley' <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; 'Melissa
McDonough' <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'James Reifschneider'
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Transportation'
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'John Lerch' <john@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Andrew
Binder' <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Jade Jin' <JJin@wongelectric.com>; 'City
Attorney' <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Ed Lauing' <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>;
'Lydia Kou' <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Vicki Veenker'
<vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'City Council' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Patrick
Burt' <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Greer Stone' <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Julie
Lythcott-Haims' <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
+ Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
Vice President of
Operations
phone: (650) 858-2491
mobile: (650) 804-4225
fax: (650) 858-2494
4047 Transport St
Palo Alto, CA 94303
www.qualitymetalspinning.us
From: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:48 PM
To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>
Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno
<ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor
Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>;
Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org;
osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave
Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt
<pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve
Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley
<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew
Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou
<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City
Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer
Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
I didn’t get my tape measure out, but I’d be willing to bet this is more than 18 inches
from the curb. I believe that’s a violation of California parking laws.
Bill McLane
---------------------------------
Palo Alto Glass, Inc.
4085 Transport Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-494-7000 Office
Xenia Czisch
Vice President of
Operations
phone: (650) 858-2491
mobile: (650) 804-4225
fax: (650) 858-2494
4047 Transport St
Palo Alto, CA 94303
www.qualitymetalspinning.us
www.paloaltoglass.com
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 1:25 PM Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> wrote:
+ staceytomson@qmsshields.com
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:13 PM
To: Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>
Cc: Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg
<maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly
<Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>;
chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar
<manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>;
City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>;
Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong
<SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew
Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia
Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed
Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki
Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Chantal,
Please see the attached images. An enforcement officer went around this morning and
gave out the 72 hour tow notices.
I watched the gentleman with the Raiders RV (in attached image) remove all tow
notices from his vehicles and will not move them. I will be taking pictures of
his vehicles in the next coming days to show that he will be in violation of the
notices. Also, he has a propane tank (also in attached image) that has been sitting in
the street for a few months now. Can that be addressed?
The other picture shows a tow notice sitting in the gutter, which is where many of
these end up. Can there be any enforcement for littering?
As others are stating, I would also hope something can be done for the safety of
pedestrians. As I was walking to my car today, I was almost hit by a car because there
is no visibility for cars coming down the street or pedestrians.
Thank you.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:12 PM Ramon Moreno
<ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing issues caused by
the RV encampments in Palo Alto, which are directly impacting my business and
the safety of my students and their families.
As the owner of the Ramon Moreno School of Ballet, I am dedicated to maintaining
a safe, clean, and welcoming environment for our students and their families.
However, recent circumstances are making that increasingly difficult.
One of the most pressing issues is illegal dumping. Individuals from the RV
encampments have been using my business’s garbage disposal for their personal
waste, resulting in contamination. Because of this, the city has refused to collect the
trash, and I have now been left to clean and dispose of everything myself—at my
own expense. If I don’t, I’ve been informed that I may face additional charges. This
is unacceptable and places an unfair financial and operational burden on my
business. I understand that I am not alone—many neighboring businesses are facing
similar challenges.
Additionally, the presence of these encampments has created ongoing safety
concerns. Several families have shared their discomfort and hesitation about
bringing their children to class, due to the unpredictable and sometimes unsafe
conditions surrounding my studio. This is not just an inconvenience; it poses a
direct risk to the well-being of the children, their families, my staff, and the
reputation of our school.
I would like to know what specific actions the city is taking to address these
challenges. While I understand that this is a complex issue, local businesses should
not be expected to shoulder the consequences alone. The safety of our community
and the ability for small businesses to operate without disruption should be a
priority.
I urge the City of Palo Alto to present a clear and immediate plan of action that
includes:
Proper and reliable waste management enforcement
Increased monitoring and enforcement of local ordinances
Measures to ensure public safety for local families and business owners
Attached to this email are photos documenting the contamination of my garbage
disposal and the resulting conditions. I hope these images convey the seriousness of
the situation and the urgent need for intervention.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to
seeing meaningful steps taken to support the well-being of our local business
community.
Sincerely,
Ramon Moreno
Owner & Director
Ramon Moreno School of Ballet
Please feel free to text or call:
650-304-1909
Thank you,
Ramon Moreno
www.ramonmorenoballet.com
www.facebook.com/pg/RamonMorenoSchool
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:43 PM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>
wrote:
Commercial St. was cleared last night. Thank you for your efforts!
Lester Wong | Vice President
O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455
4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303
Celebrating Our 46th Anniversary 1978 – 2024
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:37:47 PM
To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>
Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly
<Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>;
chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-
builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>;
Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong
<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave
Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete
Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com
<Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com
<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>;
RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley
<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>;
Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin
<JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia
Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker
<vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
The wooden RV seems to be a severe safety issue. A former coworker spoke to
the man living in it a couple years ago and was told there is a wood burning
oven/stove inside the RV, which he uses. Seems like that could be a severe safety
hazard not only for the man residing in it, as well as for the surrounding
RV's/vehicles & businesses if it were ever to catch fire.
We have had to face a number of safety hazards on this street. It is unsafe for
pedestrians. We have had attempted break ins at night. We have been harassed by
people associated with these RV's, as well as loose dogs, just to name a couple
issues. Luckily, police officers do respond and try to help but there will be a time
when they will be too late to prevent injury.
The community officers coming through and putting notices on vehicles is
nowhere near the solution needed for this area. The notices are thrown away and
the vehicles rarely move. I believe this email string started in 2023 and we have
had minimal progress with the actual issues at hand.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:19 PM Maor Greenberg
<maor@greenberg.construction> wrote:
City of palo alto!! please let me know how this is Legal for driving also come
and clean the street as it’s not safe see attached
Maor Greenberg
CEO
maor@greenberg.construction |
650-610-7711
Greenberg.Construction | 650-600-
9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325
908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto
94303
From: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:56:09 AM
To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Marguerite Poyatos
<MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or-
builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti
<lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave
Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete
Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com
<Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com
<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>;
RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley
<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>;
Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin
<JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker
<vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor Greenberg
<maor@greenberg.construction>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
What is it going to take for the city of Palo Alto to catch up to the rest of the
country? A lawsuit when someone in our neighborhood is injured because of
the unsafe conditions that exist here? This email chain alone would be enough
evidence to show the city’s knowledge of the problem and inaction.
With newly enacted laws giving cities the legal right to clean up our public
spaces, local cities like Mountain View, Santa Clara and San Jose have already
begun the process of relocating and housing these people that need it. Why not
Palo Alto? Its not a money issue here, and even if it was, wouldn’t it be less
costly to tow some vehicles and help relocate them to a safer area than to pay
the cost of litigation?
We are asking the city to stop ignoring this issue before it becomes an even
bigger problem.
--
Marguerite Poyatos
Palo Alto Glass, Inc.
4085 Transport Street
Palo Alto CA 94303
(650) 494-7000
(650) 494-7087 (FAX)
Attachment A: Neighboring Cities’ OSV Parking Regulations
The following is a non-exhaustive list of the approaches some of our neighbor cities have taken
to managing the impacts of inhabited Oversized Vehicles (OSVs).
•“Oversized and Lived-In Vehicle Enforcement” (OLIVE) pilot program1:
o The program, funded by a $1.5 million budget addendum, is intended to help address
the environmental and safety issues caused by oversized vehicles, including lived-in
vehicles, parked on city streets. It directs City staff to:
▪Identify areas impacted by the parking of oversized and lived-in vehicles on city
streets
▪Establish temporary tow-away zones to allow cleanup of impacted areas and
encourage vehicles to relocate
▪Analyze the feasibility of installing permanent parking restrictions at select
locations
o 30 sites were identified in FY 2025 and up to 50 will be identified in FY 2026 for
temporary tow-away parking restrictions (approximately one month in duration) to help
facilitate the cleanup and street sweeping of the area and encourage people to move
their vehicles out of the restricted zone. Vehicles that are not voluntarily moved from
tow away zones will be subject to towing and impound. Based on the success of the
temporary restrictions, up to 10 sites will be considered for permanent parking
restrictions.
•Designated “no overnight parking” and “no large vehicle parking” zones. Towing authorized for
violations.2
•Ban on vanlording and on living in vehicles, which went into effect in July 2025.3
Services including safe parking, vehicle buy-back program, biowaste removal, and trash pickups
for lived-in vehicles.4
•Prohibits parking oversize vehicles and detached trailers on residential streets throughout the
city. 5
•Prohibits living in vehicles.6 The City had not been enforcing this ordinance, which was originally
passed in the 1990s, but recently began enforcing it again after a dedicated outreach period.7
•Effective April 2025, OSVs may not park overnight (2-5 am) on any public street in the city.8
•The City also recently updated its 72-hour ordinance and adopted ordinance language to
implement AB 413 (state law that prohibits parking within defined distance of intersections).9
•In late 2024, the Fremont City Council approved municipal code amendments that would:
o Prohibit parking an OSV on any public street within 100 feet of a residential property
line.10
o Amend the City’s 72-hour ordinance to clarify that “Any vehicle that has been parked or
left standing in the same location or parking spot for seventy-two (72) consecutive
hours must be moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet (approximately two-tenths
(2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot
for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure.”11
o The associated staff report12 acknowledged that enforcement would be largely
complaint-based. Staff estimated that substantially expanding parking enforcement
beyond their current model would require several additional FTEs at a total ongoing
expense of about $1.2 million plus additional one-time expenses for equipment and
material.
Sunnyvale
•Sunnyvale plans to expand safe parking. At the end of 2024, the Council passed an ordinance13
that would govern safe parking programs in the city. It also directed staff to pursue
implementing a safe parking pilot program on public land and a general fund grant for nonprofit
or faith-based organizations to provide safe parking on private land.14
San Francisco
•San Francisco recently imposed a citywide two-hour limit on OSV parking. Vehicles that have
applied for and received a “refuge permit” are exempt from enforcement.15 To be eligible for a
permit, applicants must:
o Have been living in a large vehicle in SF as of May 2025 (verified by City staff count)
o Be actively engaging with City services for the unhoused
o Agree to adhere to a “good neighbor policy”
o Allow Public Works to clear debris around the vehicle
o Agree to relinquish the vehicle (via City-run buy-back program or otherwise) and enter
permanent housing or non-congregate interim housing if offered.
•The City has budgeted $13 million for the program over two years. Enforcement is set to start
November 1, 2025.
Cupertino
•City recently passed a first reading16 of an ordinance that would ban overnight OSV parking
throughout the city. Housed city residents would be eligible to apply for up to 20 permits a
year that would allow them to park their OSVs on the street for up to 72 hours at a time.
•The ordinance also bans renting out a vehicle for living or sleeping quarters in the public
right of way.
•At the time this report was written, the ordinance had not yet taken effect.
1 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/parking/vehicle-
abatement/oversized-and-lived-in-vehicle-enforcement
2 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:eab8cf93-9cc5-4caf-a89a-0358319167f0
3 https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1363727
4 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/residents/homelessness-hub/homelessness-hub-faqs
5 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2407/Oversized-Vehicle-Parking
6 https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/10.04.140#(a)
7 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:9f595393-eae3-4d52-b18d-
88cb77eef4f0?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
8 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/MenloPark/html/MenloPark11/MenloPark1124.html#11.24.075
9 https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2024-
meetings/agendas/20241112/l1-20241112-cc-oversized-vehicle-and-parking-ord.pdf
10 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont10/Fremont1005.html#10.05.555
11 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont10/Fremont1005.html#10.05.550
12 https://fremontcityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1980&MediaPosition=&ID=5
285&CssClass=
13 https://ecode360.com/46385883
14 https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7014182&GUID=1ED10C32-1325-4891-ABED-
959D528361C5&G=FA76FAAA-7A74-41EA-9143-F2DB1947F9A5&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
15 https://www.sf.gov/large-vehicle-refuge-permit-program
16 https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7640446&GUID=AA6B4AEF-0865-48BB-ADEB-
056F131B83A5
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: October 20, 2025
Report #:2509-5183
TITLE
Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased
Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts, Particularly
Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in various funds;
CEQA status – categorically exempt.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council Approve the Policy and Services Committee
recommendation to:
1. Approve the phased approach (described below) to addressing oversized vehicle
(including recreational vehicle) impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in
vehicles; and
2. Approve amendments to the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Appropriation (requires a 2/3
vote) to resource aspects of the phased approach in the:
a. General Fund by:
i. Increasing the contractual services appropriation for the City Manager’s
Office by $157,000 for resources to support program implementation;
ii. Decreasing the Reserve: Business Tax Revenue for Housing Affordability
by $157,000;
iii. Increasing the contractual services appropriation for the Office of
Transportation by $150,000 for engineering services;
iv. Increasing the contractual services appropriation in the Public Works
Department by $60,000 for street clean-up services;
v. Increasing the contractual services appropriation in the Police
Department by $95,000 for marking and enforcement of vehicles;
vi. Decreasing the Budget Stabilization Reserve by $305,000;
b. Refuse Fund by:
i. Increasing the contractual services appropriation by $245,000 for new
permanent and temporary street cleaning signage; and
ii. Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $245,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report updates information presented to the Policy and Services Committee at its August
25, 2025 meeting as well as reflecting the Committee’s recommendation to the full Council.
This recommendation follows the 2025 Council Priority Objective to present options for
addressing impacts associated with oversized vehicles (OSVs), particularly individuals living in
vehicles. Following the initial report outlining a range of possible strategies, the Policy and
Services Committee (the Committee) reviewed the options, amended the staff proposal, and is
recommending a phased approach for full Council consideration.
The recommended approach reflects a balanced approach to addressing public health, safety,
and neighborhood concerns while also recognizing the complex needs of those living in
vehicles. The proposed phasing begins with Phase 1 enacting regulatory measures and
enhanced street cleanups and sweeping, including coordination with service providers such as
LifeMoves, and appropriating $707,000 in FY 2026 across several funds. This would be followed
by Phase 2, a small-scale pilot of enhanced services, such as mobile pump-outs and increased
outreach. The approach also sets the stage for expanding safe parking on private and
congregation-based lots and, over time, developing a program to limit OSV parking to
designated streets. The Committee was split on limiting OSV parking to designated streets. In a
2-1 vote, the Committee recommended that Phase 2 begin exploring limiting OSV parking to
certain streets, including direction to evenly distribute OSV permitted parking citywide, tie the
OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time (PIT)1 count, explore an OSV permitting program,
and clearly mark where OSV parking is permitted. Subsequent phases include approving items
developed in earlier phases, implementation, and enforcement. Additional one-time and
ongoing resources will be needed in future years to administer all phases of this program and
will be brought forward as part of the annual budget process to allocate funding.
BACKGROUND
Homelessness continues to be one of the most complex and pressing societal issues affecting
communities across California and the nation. In response, the City of Palo Alto has aligned its
local efforts with the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020–2025,
which the City formally endorsed in August 2021.2 Since that time, the City has advanced a
1 The PIT Count is a count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness at a specific point in
time and occurs every other year in January.
2 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/citymanager-
reports-cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12133.pdf ; Council Action Minutes, August 9, 2021
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3354&compileOutputType=
1
range of initiatives to promote housing stability and reduce the impacts of homelessness,
including:
•Strengthening renter protections,
•Enabling and supporting safe parking programs,
•Permitting and beginning construction of the Homekey interim shelter, and
•Supporting affordable housing developments such as Wilton Court Apartments, 231
Grant Avenue, Mitchell Park Place, and projects on city-owned sites like Lot T downtown
and 340 Portage Avenue.
3 That analysis was presented as an informational item on December
9, 2024, and discussed at a Council Study Session on February 10, 2025.4 The session also
included updates on service coordination and enforcement efforts. As a result of that
discussion, Council referred follow-up work to the Policy and Services Committee, and adopted
two related 2025 Council Priority Objectives, asking staff to return as soon as feasible to Council
to determine further action and to bypass extended stakeholder engagement at that time. The
Council Priority Objectives are:5
•Present options to address homelessness impacts, particularly for individuals living in
vehicles, to Policy and Services Committee for prioritization.
•Organize an initial review of sources and methods to raise funding to support new
affordable housing production for future evaluation.
on June 12, 2025, gathering input on housing and services for the
unhoused.6 While no formal action was taken, individual Commissioners supported a wide
3 Council Meeting, December 4, 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-2CuhXvs84
4 Council Staff Report, December 9, 2024
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6549&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=12534; Council Staff Report, February 10, 2025
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6751&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=13091
5This item responds to the first of the two objectives, the second will be referred to Finance Committee, once staff
has identified and evaluated sources and methods. Council Staff Report, May 5, 2025,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=7767&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=14271
6 Human Relations Commission Staff Report, June 12, 2025
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=8147&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=14739
range of ideas, including expanded safe parking, particularly for RVs; incentives and streamlined
processes for below-market-rate housing, addressing family homelessness (e.g., via hotel
vouchers or tiny homes), shelter improvements, continued renter protections, and stronger
partnerships with the tech industry to improve communications access (e.g., phones, Wi-Fi).
7 After discussion, the Committee voted on a split motion to
recommend a phased approach. The full Committee agreed on Phases 1, 3 and 4. In a 2-1 vote,
with Councilmember Veenker voting no, the Committee recommended to, in Phase 2, begin
exploring limiting OSV parking to certain streets, including direction to evenly distribute OSV
permitted parking citywide, tie the OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time count, explore
an OSV permitting program, and clearly mark where OSV parking is permitted. The full motion
text and vote is shown in full on the next page. The full staff report is included as Attachment B.
7 Council Staff Report, August 25, 2025,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=8615&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=15516
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
MOTION SPLIT FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING
MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City
Council:
Phase 2:
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
o Identify non-residential and non-residential adjacent streets where OSV parking would
be permitted, and to the extent possible, evenly distribute those streets across the city
o Tie the number of OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time count
o Explore the possibility of a permitting program for OSV
o Evenly disburse permissible OSV parking spots across the identified streets to avoid
overconcentration and clearly mark on those streets where OSV parking is permitted
MOTION PASSED: 2-1, Veenker no
MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City
Council:
Phase 1: Upon Council approval, staff would:
1. Develop an ordinance to prohibit parking of detached/inoperable vehicles on public streets,
2. Develop an ordinance to prohibit the renting of public parking spaces (“vanlording”),
3. Refine the scope and begin implementation of additional street cleanups and sweeping,
4. 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
5. Implementation and enforcement of these actions would follow.
6. Work with LifeMoves to consider options, such as a buyback or parking program, to accept RV
residents quickly at the Homekey site or other housing options
7. Return to Council for direction for expanded safe parking on privately-owned and congregation-
based parking lots, excepting any safe parking site that requires undedicating parkland
Phase 2: Concurrent of Phase 1 implementation, staff would initiate work on:
1. Design a small-scale enhanced services pilot (e.g., mobile pump outs, additional outreach
workers/hours, garbage pickup, etc.),
Phase 3: Following the completion of related components in Phase 2, Council would:
1. Approve pilot and any related contracts and agreements for small-scale enhanced services pilot,
2. Approve a preferred option for expanded safe parking on privately-owned and congregation-
based parking lots,
3. Identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed and develop necessary ordinances and
program design for “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” approach, and
4. Implementation of these actions would follow.
Phase 4: Following the completion of related components in Phase 3, staff would:
1. Evaluate the enhanced services pilot,
2. Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking, and
3. Obtain related Council approvals for “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” and begin
enforcing new approach.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
ANALYSIS
The recently received 2025 PIT count data shows 418 people experiencing homelessness in Palo
Alto, compared to 206 people in 2023. The City continues to have a higher percentage of its
unsheltered population living in vehicles compared to the County as a whole. Of those
unsheltered in Palo Alto, 73 percent were in vehicles, while 37 percent were in vehicles
countywide. There were 168 vehicles (29 cars, 120 RVs, and 19 vans) counted, 35 of which were
in safe parking.8
As noted at the August Committee meeting, the growing number of people living in vehicles on
public streets poses a health and safety challenge, reducing the on-street parking availability for
other uses (e.g., residents, business employees and visitors), and necessitating outreach
services, street cleaning, and waste disposal. The City has been receiving increased concerns
from residents and the business community about long-term parking of oversized vehicles,
debris and personal belongings obstructing streets and sidewalks, and improper disposal of
human waste. The City Manager’s Office has seen a notable rise in these complaints beginning
in Spring 2025. Other neighboring cities are also seeking a variety of ways to address inhabited
OSVs, as summarized in Attachment A.
This report outlines the phased approach recommended by the Committee, beginning with
some contextual information on state law. Then more detailed information is provided on the
various actions proposed in the phased approach to: (1) reduce the impacts of accommodating
OSV parking demand, (2) strengthen regulations in areas where impacts are occurring while
preventing the impacts elsewhere, and (3) organize activities into phases that account for
implementation timelines and the complexity of the issue.
Please note that one of the Committee actions was to move safe parking expansion from Phase
2 to Phase 1. To reflect the Committee intent of moving safe parking expansion up in the
timeline, staff also moved associated safe parking expansion activities from Phases 3 and 49 to
Phase 1; associated resource implications are also identified. Additionally, upon review of the
motion, staff noted that the amended Phase 2 to “identify non-residential and non-residential
adjacent streets where OSV parking would be permitted” is a revision of Phase 3 item 3
"identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed....” Since this was part of the split motion, if
the full Council chooses to adopt the proposed amended language in Phase 2, staff would
interpret the Phase 3 item 3 language as being the continuation and finalization of the work
begun in Phase 2.
The many items in Phase 1 will trigger the immediate need for staff resources to handle
coordination, administration, and implementation. Procurement, contracting, and/or
8 The County used a new survey methodology in 2025, so comparing to prior years is fundamentally not the same.
The full 2025 PIT Count report is available here: https://osh.santaclaracounty.gov/data-and-reports/point-time-
count.
9 In the Policy and Services Motion this is Phase 3, item 2, but is now considered incorporated under/as part of
Phase 1.
recruitment and hiring for this will likely take several months and may impact the rollout time
for Phase 1.
State Law and Local Parking Regulations Relating to Oversized Vehicles
10 after 72 hours unless the vehicle travels at least five-tenths of a mile.
However, nothing in state or local law prevents a vehicle from moving and re-parking in the
same location. Prior to towing a vehicle believed to be used for shelter, Police Department
personnel and the City’s homeless outreach team collaboratively engage in outreach efforts to
attempt to connect occupants with alternative housing or safe parking options. The Police
Department has primarily focused on abandoned and non-operational OSVs. The Police
Department has successfully collaborated with the City’s homeless outreach team and has not
towed an occupied OSV.
10 The City's ability to tow OSVs is constrained by the limited number of tow companies operating the specialized
equipment necessary for towing OSVs, and by limited local tow yard capacity to store OSVs.
vandalism or theft. In most cases, towing also requires notice and an opportunity to correct the
violation.
Signage and Enforcement Considerations
Parking restrictions, including the increased street sweeping parking restrictions and the
proposed ordinance banning unattached trailer parking, require installing signage to be
enforceable.11 Implementing signage for these items could include use of temporary signs and
focused sign installation in areas of high activity.
12 in 2020 to implement signage relating to its oversized vehicle parking ordinances. In
Palo Alto, estimated costs are $1,900 per block for sign installation by a contractor. As a
hypothetical maximum, with approximately 2,200 blocks and two signs per side of the block,
this equates to roughly 8,800 signs at an estimated cost of $4.2 million if signs needed to be
posted on every block on every street.13 (However, to enforce the recommended ordinance to
prohibit unattached trailers, signage would not be required on every block in the City and
installation could focus on particular areas. On the other hand, state law requires block-level
signage, at minimum, for street sweeping parking restrictions). In addition to costs for
installation, engineering is required for sign and pole placement field verification, and work
order preparation for new street signs and poles (if needed) in public rights of way. For a
Citywide signage program, an additional FTE limited duration equivalent to $244,000-$269,000
per year would be needed. There may also be an impact to the work of existing engineering
staff on items such as development-related traffic control plan review, routine sign upgrades,
traffic signal adjustments, traffic signal upgrades, traffic calming and traffic control device plan
review, and complete streets projects engineering design). For reference, Mountain View’s
implementation required over two traffic engineers working full-time for 9 to 12 months.
14 staff would also lead with outreach workers ahead of
implementing increased street sweeping or any changes to enforcement. Dedicating the
11 In some cases, California cities adopting regulatory actions relating to OSV parking have been sued by advocates
for the unhoused, resulting in legal costs.
12 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=
13 This estimate assumes the cost for one sign to be posted throughout the City - approximately 2,200 blocks in the
City and 2 signs per side per block. If signage will be installed throughout the City it would equate to approximately
8,800 signs. Installation of signs and posts by a contractor is estimated at $4.2 million (8,800 x $475). However, not
every new parking restriction may require signage to this extent.
14 Currently, Police and Public Works coordinate closely with the outreach team during a weekly huddle and as-
needed.
outreach team to this work would likely impact their ability to rotate effectively throughout the
city for contact with other unhoused people not living in these areas.
15
Phased Approach – Actions to Accommodate Some Demand
Expanding Safe Parking on Privately-Owned and Congregation-Based Lots
16
15 The exact staffing and associated cost would depend on the specific regulation(s) adopted.
16 Additional Information on Resources for Safe Parking: Implementation of an expanded safe parking program on
privately-owned lots, including commercial and congregation-based sites, would require substantial staff work.
This includes outreach to congregations, commercial property owners, and surrounding neighborhoods to gauge
interest, identify concerns, and assess willingness to participate; evaluation of potential sites for suitability,
including space requirements for RVs, circulation, access, lighting, sanitation, and safety standards; coordination
with the Human Relations Commission and the Planning and Transportation Commission; and development of
policy options for Council consideration; for example, it could be establishing a pilot program with willing partners
or preparing a draft ordinance with defined conditions for private sites.
One idea proposed at Policy and Services Committee was to consider safe parking or perhaps
OSV storage on airport vacant land, including places leased to car dealerships. Residential use,
including temporary or short-term occupancy, is prohibited on the airport under Section 2.3.1.2
of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Advisory Circular 150/5190-4B. The two staging areas
on airport land total approximately 75,000 square feet over 2 sites and are currently leased for
$0.86/square foot, generating roughly $774,000 annually. If used for unoccupied vehicle
storage, federal grant assurances require that the Airport Enterprise Fund be compensated at
this rate. The Runway Protection Zone overlays one of the sites and both sites are affected by
the Runway 31 approach.
17 Staff could explore expanding this to allow 24-hour parking and possibly
accommodate some oversized vehicles (OSVs). While OSVs aren’t currently prohibited, the
program operator notes these vehicles are hard to manage with the daily movement required
under current hours. Expanding to include OSVs or longer hours would require outreach to
congregations to gauge interest and address neighbor concerns.
Resource Impacts
Exploring these expansion options would require staff time and reprioritizing other work. Costs
depend on the level of expansion and site conditions, especially existing amenities. Additional
funding would be needed for program management and might be needed for leases and
infrastructure. For context, a recent safe parking expansion with existing facilities cost about
$270,000 annually to accommodate 10 additional RV spaces.
Consider Options for Buyback or Parking Program
effective than developing a broad pilot program or ordinance, which tends to be more passive and resource
intensive. If a partner is identified the city could negotiate a site-specific regulatory agreement to advance the
City’s interests in this topic.
17 Safe parking at churches and other religious institutions is regulated at PAMC section 18.42.160.
near term, an ambitious target would be returning to Council with a recommended path
forward and funding request for the Fiscal Year 2027 budget.
Increased Cleaning and Street Sweeping on Selected Streets
18 The street sweeping parking
restrictions may encourage OSV owners to relocate, potentially shifting impacts to more
sensitive areas like retail or residential neighborhoods.
Resource Impacts
18 This list has been updated and amended since the Policy and Services Committee meeting to add portions of
Colorado, San Antonio, Lambert, Olive, and Sheridan. Cost for in-house signage along these streets would be
approximately $80,000 and take a minimum of 6 months with in-house staff operating on mandatory overtime.
The cost for the increased frequency of street sweeping would be $12,000 for weekly, year round sweeping of
these streets. If the increase were to be one side of the street each week, year round there would be no net
increase cost for the sweeping.
sweeping during non-Leaf Season, to sweeping only one side of the street twice per month
year-round, alternating sides each week, then staff anticipates there will be no net increase in
street sweeping cost.
Enhanced Services Relating to Inhabited OSVs
other cities, like Long Beach, saw limited participation. Staff can further explore during Phase 2
how to help OSV occupants appropriately dispose of both their solid waste and liquid waste.
Resource Impacts
The City currently spends approximately $256,000 annually on its contracted outreach
program, which includes two full-time outreach workers and a part-time manager.19
20 the estimated projected additional
annual expense for such service is about $80,000. Providing a larger container for each block,
such as a two cubic yard bin, is another option but would come at a significantly higher cost.
Phased Approach – Actions to Increase Regulation
Prohibit Storage of Detached Trailers/Non-motorized Vehicles on Public Streets
21
19 Currently, the program is funded through a combination of State Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
entitlement funds, City General Fund contributions, and financial support from Stanford University.
20 This number considers all vehicles not in safe parking (168 vehicles – 35 in safe parking). The estimate was
calculated at 133 vehicles for $50.07/month each, totaling $6,659, or $79,912 annual cost.
21 The zoning code (Title 18) includes a prohibition on storing or parking non-operable conveyances on private
The ordinance would apply to all such conveyances, whether inhabited or not. At the Policy and
Services Committee meeting, a Councilmember expressed concern for contractor trailers
retaining the ability to park in public parking spaces. However, a ban on detached trailers will
not impact trailers used by construction crews which already require a City permit for parking.
The prohibition could also include exceptions for loading/unloading and emergency repairs.
Signage would be necessary to enforce this rule, with priorities likely starting in areas most
impacted by detached trailers.
Resource Impacts
Sign installation for enforcement would require some costs for the additional signage22 and
staff from both the Office of Transportation and Public Works Department, similar to other
parking restriction projects.
Prohibit Renting of Public Parking Spaces (“Vanlording”)
23
22 Staff believes that this signage would be less extensive and should cost a lower amount.
23 San Jose’s vanlording ordinance is available here:
https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1363727
Enforcement may be difficult, as identifying vanlords often depends on information from
renters, who may be reluctant to cooperate if the practice is banned. As a result, enforcement
would rely on staff investigations.
Resource Impacts
Implementing a vanlord ban would require staff resources, primarily from the Police
Department and City Attorney’s Office. Staff would need to gather evidence—both online and
in the field—identify the vanlord, and issue warnings or fines. If a vehicle is occupied, the City
would also assess what support services could be offered to the residents. While it is still too
early to determine impact to workloads for Police, to be effective with investigating illegal
renting, Police staff expect one more police officer would need to be resourced – by either
diverting away from other investigations, which is not recommended, or add 1.0 FTE during the
FY 27 budget cycle at approximately $280,000 ongoing.
Limit OSV Parking to Certain Streets with Focused Regulations
24 would help mitigate public health, sanitation, and parking impacts while
providing clearer guidelines for both enforcement and services. These designated streets would
likely be in commercial or industrial areas where residential or school-adjacent impacts are
minimized.25 This targeted approach, paired with the above-mentioned increased services—
regular street sweeping, trash/waste collection/removal, and safety measures—on streets
where OSVs are allowed. Localized parking regulations like red curbs and intersections
clearances could also be implemented to maintain safety and access.
26 though this would reduce the availability for other
users and pose ongoing localized challenges arising from habitation on public rights of way not
24 At Policy and Services, a Councilmember asked what the change in number of OSVs was in Mountain View since
it began enforcing its oversized vehicle restrictions in October 2022. Mountain View counted 208 vehicles in
August 2022 (138 RVs, 35 passenger vehicles, 35 other), 151 vehicles in January 2023 (115 RVs, 21 passenger
vehicles, 15 other vehicles), 148 vehicles in August 2023 (99 RVs, 11 passenger vehicles, 38 other), and 223 vehicles
in July 2024 (143 RVs, 31 passenger vehicles, 49 other). Mountain View had not published its 2025 vehicle count at
the time this report was written.
25 The municipal code already prohibits OSV parking between the hours of 2:00 and 6:00 am on streets located
within residential and public facilities zones. However, to enforce the provision, state law requires local
jurisdictions to install signs adequately informing parkers of the restriction. Moreover, any attempt to formally
designate a subset of non-residential streets on which OSVs may park (i.e., prohibiting OSV parking on all other
streets) would require amending the municipal code.
26 Per the 2025 PIT Count, there were 170 vehicles counted: 29 cars, 122 RVs, and 19 vans.
designed to support the ongoing activities of living.27 In consideration of these localized
challenges, two of three Committee members voted to identify non-residential and “non-
residential-adjacent”28 streets where OSV parking would be permitted, with the goal of
distributing these locations as evenly as possible through the city to avoid overconcentration.29
The number of OSVs allowed to park could be tied to the City’s Point-in-Time (PIT) count,
ensuring that capacity remains responsive to actual need. The Committee also raised the
possibility of a permitting program to help regulate and monitor OSV parking. In addition, all
designated streets could be clearly marked to communicate where OSV parking is allowed,
further supporting enforcement and public understanding.
Resource Impacts
As mentioned in the “Signage and Enforcement Considerations” subsection earlier in this
Analysis section, any citywide parking regulation would require significant signage and
enforcement-related resources. The resource burden is somewhat ameliorated by the phased
nature of the overall recommendation.
Summary of Phased Approach
PHASE ACTION
ESTIMATED
DURATION/
COMPLETION
ESTIMATED COST/
BUDGET TIMING
IMPLICATIONS
All Support program implementation 2 years $314,000 (total over 2
years); some costs can
be prorated
Phase 1
1.1 Develop ordinance to prohibit detached/inoperable
vehicle parking on public streets
3 months –
January 2026
Staff time only
27 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. The estimate analyzed the 14
streets where high concentrations of 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.
28 The municipal code restricts overnight parking of OSVs on streets where the property on at least one side carries
a residential or public facilities zoning designation, but it does not prohibit OSV parking on “residential-adjacent”
streets or include a definition of that term. If Council wants to expand the restriction, it would need to formulate a
definition of “residential-adjacent.”
29 The Councilmember voting against the motion that included this idea was advocating to explore all other options
before pursuing limiting OSV parking to certain streets.
PHASE ACTION
ESTIMATED
DURATION/
COMPLETION
ESTIMATED COST/
BUDGET TIMING
IMPLICATIONS
1.2 Develop an ordinance to prohibit renting public
parking spaces
3 months –
January 2026
Staff time only
1.3 Refine scope & begin implementation of additional
street cleanups and sweeping
3 months – Jan
2026
$548K for FY26; plus an
additional $269K in FY27
for engineering; some
costs can be prorated[1]
1.4 Begin adoption of ordinance(s) (i.e., vanlord,
inoperable vehicles) and contract(s) approval (i.e.,
for street sweeping) on consent calendar
3 months – Jan
2026
Staff time only
1.5.1 Implement & enforce detached/inoperable vehicles
prohibition
Apr/May 2026 Unknown amount for
signage/FY26
enforcement included in
1.3; FY27 additional
$80K/yr
1.5.2 Implement & enforce vanlord (public parking space
rental) prohibition
Apr/May 2026 FY26 enforcement
included in 1.3 and 1.5.2;
FY27 additional $280K/yr
for 1.3 thru 1.5.2; CAO
time dependent on
volume
1.6 Work with LifeMoves [and Santa Clara County] to
consider options (buyback, storage) and to accept
RV residents quickly at Homekey or other housing
6 months –
Apr/May 2026
Unknown - $150,000[2]
for buyback program/
FY27 Budget
1.7 Return to Council for direction on expanding safe
parking on privately-owned and congregational
based lots
If no site
identified, then
9+ months –
August 2026[3]
Staff time only
Phase 2
2.1 Develop small scale enhanced services pilot 5 months - Oct
2026
Staff time only
2.2[4]Begin exploration of limiting OSV parking to certain
streets, including process/criteria for designating
streets, with community engagement
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only
2.2.1 Identify non-residential & non-residential adjacent
streets
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only
2.2.2 Tie the number of OSV permitted parking to the PIT
count
<1 month Staff time only
2.2.3 Explore possibility of OSV permitting program 3+ months –
Aug/Sept 2026
Staff time only
2.2.4 Evenly disburse permissible OSV parking across
identified streets to avoid overconcentration and
mark clearly on those streets where permitted
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only
Phase 3
PHASE ACTION
ESTIMATED
DURATION/
COMPLETION
ESTIMATED COST/
BUDGET TIMING
IMPLICATIONS
3.1 Council approval of enhanced services pilot and
related contracts/agreements
Nov/Dec 2026 $400,000+ one-time
FY 2027 Budget
3.2 Council approval of preferred expanded safe
parking option(s)
Aug/Sept 2026 Staff time only
3.3 Council identification of streets where OSV parking
permitted & develop ordinances and program
design
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only
3.4.1 Implement enhanced services pilot Jan/Feb 2027 Staff time only
3.4.2 Approve preferred option for expanded safe
parking[5]
Late 2026 &
onward
Staff time only
Phase 4
4.1 Evaluate enhanced services pilot Jan/Feb 2028 Staff time only
4.2 Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking.[6]Late 2026 &
onward
$270,000+
annually/Midyear 2026-
2027 Budget
4.3
Council approvals relating to limiting OSV parking
to certain streets.
Jan/Feb 2027 $4.2 million one-time for
citywide signage
FY 2027 Budget
$400,000+ annually
thereafter (this includes
$80K for enforcement for
1.3-4.3)
4.3.1 Implement “limiting OSV parking to certain streets”
and begin enforcement.
3-6 months -
May/Aug 2027
Staff time only
[1] This amount includes $100,000 for new permanent signage, $143,000 for temporary signage if the City wants to
start implementing street cleaning immediately, plus $60,000 for the estimated cost of deep cleaning of the 18
street segments (where OSVs are currently clustered) after the OSVs leave each area for the initial cleaning. Staff
anticipates phasing in this work, starting with a few blocks each week over several months. This allows time for
workers to install signs along nearly 40,000 linear feet of roadway. The sweeping and cleaning work can follow
behind as signs are installed. Additionally, this amount includes $150,000 for engineering analysis, plans, work
orders and inspection related to signage, striping and curb paint throughout the City. It also includes $95,000 for
enforcement support rolled out as PW works through the progressions.
[2] A buyback program in Berkeley applied $150,000 for 21 OSVs. The storage cost for OSVs would likely vary
significantly based on location, security involved, and insurance costs. There are no extant OSV storage lots in Palo
Alto. The nearest that staff is aware of is in the City of San Mateo and the per month vehicle costs were not
available at the time of this report publishing.
[3] Note: this timeframe does not align with the P&S Committee recommendation. The motion called for Safe
Parking expansion to be moved to Phase 1; however, with no specific site identified to date, this effort is currently
not resourced as noted in footnote 16 earlier in this report.
[4] This particular action was part of a split motion that indicated it would be in Phase 2. As parts of this action also
appear in the unanimous motion, where those appear, they are also italicized.
[5] Since expanded safe parking implementation is also part of Phase 4, staff is considering this the initial
implementation steps. Since both proposed expansion options require a willing non-city partner, implementation
will begin with outreach and, if successful, result in permitting (e.g., congregation-based) and/or leasing (e.g.,
privately owned).
[6] See note above.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommended phased approach would require City funding as outlined in the table below
and ongoing staff allocation for the foreseeable future. Although funding sources for the
majority of this work have not yet been identified, a significant General Fund allocation is likely.
Staff will also research and evaluate other funding sources (e.g., grant funding and/or
entitlement opportunities, and Business Tax Revenue for Affordable Housing and Unhoused
Services). The budget appropriations reflected in the recommendations on the first page of this
report are intended to provide the up-front resources required to move forward on immediate
actions, with the expectation that additional appropriations and funding sources will be
identified at the mid-year budget report in early 2026.
In the near term, the significant front-loading of items into Phase 1 will require reallocating
staff resources, will impact other Council priorities, and will require appropriation of a total of
$707,000 in FY 2026: (1) $157,000 to the City Manager’s Office for resources to support
program implementation (2) $305,000 to Public Works for additional street cleaning on
currently impacted street segments and related signage, (3) $150,000 to the Office of
Transportation (pro-rated) for engineering analysis, plans, work orders, and inspections, and (4)
$95,000 to the Police Department for enforcement and towing services. These costs will be
funded by: (1) $157,000 from the Business Tax Revenue for Housing Affordability, (2) $245,000
from the Refuse Fund, and (3) $305,000 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve.
The ongoing costs for these services would impact the General Fund by approximately $0.7 to
$0.8 million ongoing annually. In addition, funding for signage in the Capital Improvement Fund
may need additional support from the General Fund depending on resources available in the
Infrastructure Reserve for capital improvements.
This report focuses on immediate steps to ameliorate the impacts of vehicle dwelling in Palo
Alto. In light of the increasing PIT numbers, however, addressing homelessness in a lasting way
will ultimately require additional housing for the people being helped. Although not covered in
this report, this longer-term effort is important to keep in mind.
Action Funding
Source FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 &
Ongoing
Street Sweeping Signage Refuse Fund $245,000 $0 $0
Clean-up Services General Fund $60,000 $0 $0
Engineering General Fund $150,000 $269,000*$0
Enforcement/Towing General Fund $95,000 $440,000 $440,000
Expanded Safe Parking General Fund $0 $135,000 $270,000
Signage for Additional Parking
Restrictions
Capital Fund $0 $4,200,000*$0
Administration/Implementation Business Tax $157,000 $157,000 $0
Buyback/Storage Program Business Tax $0 $150,000 $0
Enhanced Services Pilot Business Tax $0 $400,000 $0
Total $707,000 $5,751,000 $710,000
General Fund Impact *$305,000 $844,000 $710,000
Business Tax Revenue Support $157,000 $707,000 $0
*Parking Signage work in the Capital Fund may require additional funds to be transferred from the General Fund
depending on resources available in the Infrastructure Reserve. The $4.2 million for signage and $269,000 for
engineering is the estimated maximum cost to sign Citywide; see discussion in the Analysis section under the
Signage and Enforcement Considerations item of this memo. The cost will ultimately vary depending on such
factors as: the number of new parking regulations adopted (and therefore the number of new signs), the
geographic scope of a new parking restriction, and the availability of existing poles/infrastructure for new signs.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff has made some preliminary efforts to gather feedback from the community on the
Committee’s recommendation. This included seeking input from the “RV Dwellers Group” of
service providers, a representative of Stanford University, members of the faith-based
community, City staff, a City Councilmember, and a Human Relations Commission member, at
its regular meeting in September 2025. Attendees discussed how to address and balance needs
and concerns, including:
•Considering extending safe parking near Geng Road site,
•Understanding how many people living in vehicles work in Palo Alto, how many are van
lifers, and noting that there is distrust and fear in this community,
•Concern about people who would not qualify for housing and/or services based on
immigration status, and
•Concern about the health and safety of people living in “vanlord” vehicles.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on Phase 1 provisions about enhanced cleaning, street sweeping, parking signs,
and parking enforcement are categorically exempt under CEQA regulations 15301 (existing
facilities) and 15321 (enforcement actions). Other items in Phase 1 and in later phases require
further Council input and/or approval and CEQA will be addressed as those are approved.
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
From:Oksana Selavri
To:Council, City; Kratt, Ken
Subject:RV parking situation on East Meadow Circle in Palo Alto
Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 1:12:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
We appreciate your efforts in trying to solve the RV parking situation in the city of Palo Alto
for long term and short term.
I would like to join my neighbor Colin Swindells in our request to please support the interest
and wellbeing of 254 Palo Alto families who are residents in Echelon, Altaire and Vantage
communities.
We have been carrying the burden for the whole city of Palo Alto for a few years now living
next to an expanding RV trailer park (over 40 vehicles) which has significantly affected our
families' quality of life.
We gave our votes for you in hopes of being represented well.
Kindly please ban the RV parking next to our complexes and identify parking lots that are not
affecting any residential areas in Palo Alto for RV overnight stay.
Sincerely,
Oksana
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:David Adams
To:Council, City
Subject:RV parking - Agenda Item 16 Monday 10/20
Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 7:35:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable members of the council,
In Ventura there is a proliferation of no overnight parking and no oversize vehicle parking signs. The
problem is they are ignored and not enforced. Better than spending a million bucks on signs city-wide
would be to run a pilot program in Ventura to see if Mr Shikada's proposal of enforcement actually works.
It would be extremely imprudent of the city council not to run a pilot first.
The proposal to limit RV parking to certain streets would be extremely unfair to those having to live or
work nearby. This proposal should be made dead on arrival.
The proposal to stop sewage getting into the creeks by covering the drains is half baked. So, the sewage
would remain by the curb for up to 2 weeks until it got swept away? Please, we can do better than that.
What is the effect of all this sewage on our creeks? Has anyone tested the water in the creeks and in the
bay recently? I think we should be told.
Incidentally, there's already an ordinance prohibiting non-operable conveyances on public streets. It's in
section 10.34.020 of the municipal code.
Thank you for your consideration.
David Adams
Ventura
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:stephanie wansek
To:Council, City
Subject:Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 16 – Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts
Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 5:51:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers,
I’m writing regarding Agenda Item 16 for the October 20 meeting—the proposed Phased
Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (RV) Impacts.
I live adjacent to East Meadow Circle, an area currently affected by long-term RV
habitation, and I appreciate the City’s effort to balance enforcement with outreach and
service coordination.
My main concern is that, under the proposed phasing, RV habitation could continue
on East Meadow Circle for several more years before any restrictions are enacted.
This corridor directly borders residential properties and, in the case of Echelon, even
overlaps with the complex—one side fronts directly on East Meadow Circle. These are
established, tax-paying residential communities yet this proposed policy framework would
disproportionately affect them compared with single-family neighborhoods, which already
benefit from overnight parking restrictions. As noted by the City’s own studies, industrial
and commercially zoned areas may offer far more appropriate locations for managed RV
habitation.
The phased approach also prolongs very real neighborhood impacts. In my own
experience, I used to walk my dog along East Meadow Circle every morning when only a
few RVs were present and the area felt safe enough. That changed after my dog was
attacked by an unleashed pit-bull mix that came out of an RV. When I reacted,
understandably shaken, the imposing male owner yelled at me. That was more than five
years ago, and I haven’t walked there since. What should be a pleasant, walkable area for
nearby residents has become off-limits to many of us because of ongoing safety, noise, and
sanitation concerns.
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Even from across the street, the constant generator noise and exhaust from RVs is hard to
ignore. When I walk my dog in the evening on my complex grounds, I can smell the fumes
and hear the mechanical hum from multiple units running at once. It’s difficult to reconcile
this with living in a neighborhood that contributes property and city taxes to maintain quiet
streets and good air quality. The persistent pollution and noise simply feel incompatible with
what should be a livable residential environment.
I respectfully ask Council to consider an amendment so that Phase 1 explicitly
excludes residential-adjacent streets from permitted RV habitation and instead
prioritizes relocation to industrial and commercial areas, for example, Corporation
Way, Industrial Avenue, or Transport Street, where management and sanitation can be
more effectively coordinated with LifeMoves or similar partners.
This approach would align Palo Alto with regional precedent. Neighboring cities
including Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and San Jose have already implemented
zone-based restrictions that prohibit RV parking on residential and residential-adjacent
streets, directing long-term habitation to industrial or commercial zones with safe-parking
programs. Menlo Park and San Francisco have adopted citywide overnight bans within the
last year. By comparison, Palo Alto’s phased plan delays full enforcement until at least
2027, which, according to the City’s own regional policy review, creates a “magnet effect”
as vehicles relocate to the least-regulated cities.
An amendment to Phase 1 that excludes residential-adjacent streets from permitted RV
habitation, could help ensure that all residential areas are treated equitably under the City’s
policy framework, while still supporting compassionate, managed alternatives. Thank you
for your attention to this important issue and for the thoughtful work that has gone into
developing the staff proposal.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Wansek
Vantage Resident
East Meadow Circle Area
From:Martin Cuyegkeng
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on 10/20 Policy and Services Committee
Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including
Recreational Vehicle) Impacts
Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 5:47:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
Supporting Colin’s explanation regarding the importance of this matter and thanking you for
your action.
Regarding the City Staff recommendation summarized as a phased, citywide plan to
manage RVs and other oversized vehicles used for habitation on public streets:
Phase 1 (FY 2026 – early implementation)
• Ban detached/inoperable vehicles and “vanlording.”
• Increase sanitation and street cleaning (new signage, enforcement, towing).
• Coordinate with LifeMoves and nonprofits for outreach and relocation.
• Budget: ≈ $707 K across departments.
Phase 2 (planning and pilot)
• Develop a pilot for mobile sanitation and trash pickup.
• Identify which non-residential and “residential-adjacent” streets could allow long-term RV
parking.
Phases 3–4 (long-term implementation)
• Approve and expand safe-parking locations.
• Designate streets where RV habitation is permitted and begin formal enforcement.
Phase 1 is scheduled for FY 2026 (mid-2025 to mid-2026). Phases 2–4 have no set dates
and are expected to extend into 2027 or later.
Can we move toward implementation that prohibits RV / oversized vehicle parking on all
residential and residential-adjacent streets? Instead, direct long-term habitation to industrial
or commercial areas with safe-parking programs which the city has &/or is planning more.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
This seems to be the most balanced approach of not simply banning the vehicles for them to
move to another city, which has arguably been done to us by others such as Menlo Park, while
also recognizing the materially negative impact of the proliferation in these areas.
Furthermore, realistically, any residential or residential-adjacent location chosen will result in valid
concern / impact on the people in that area so better to aim for consistency across the city. Lastly,
this would be similar to the policy that some of our sister cities such as Mountain View and Los
Altos have done.
Thank you.
Martin Cuyegkeng
Trinity Ln, Palo Alto, CA 94303
From: Colin Swindells <colin.swindells@gmail.com>
Subject: [echelonpa] RV Situation in Palo Alto
Date: October 17, 2025 at 1:33:07 PM PDT
To: city.council@paloalto.gov
Dear Council Members and Neighbors,
A summary of health and economic risks related to the current RV situation are
described below.
This relates to Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on
Monday, October 20, 2025 (Council Chambers & Hybrid @ 5:30 PM):
“16. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to
Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including
Recreational Vehicle) Impacts, Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in
Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in various funds; CEQA status –
categorically exempt.”
I appreciate your upcoming action to address the health and economic risks
that are directly impacting the 254 units of Altaire, Echelon and Vantage
communities neighboring the RVs parked along E Meadow Cir in Palo Alto.
Specifically, health concerns arise from the lack of sanitation, safety
infrastructure and basic services that come with living in non-designated areas.
Economic concerns include property values, municipal & public services, local
businesses, direct neighbor costs and economic stagnation. For example, if
only considering property tax revenue losses to the City of Palo Alto due to the
particular RV situation neighboring our three complexes (Altaire, Echelon and
Vantage), an estimate is $1.5 M - $1.8 M total reduced Palo Alto property taxes
collected per year (see Example Economic Use Case B below). Presumably,
overall economic impacts for Palo Alto are much higher. I would be happy to
update more complete health and economic impact estimates with council
members & neighbors, and appropriate solutions.
Sincerely,
Colin Swindells
3769 Klamath Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Health Risks
Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused
occupants living in a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot
radius—here is a breakdown of potential health risks, categorized for clarity.
Summary Challenges: This is a complex public health issue with significant
impacts on both the unhoused individuals living in the RVs and the residents of
the surrounding neighborhood. The health risks are not inherent to the people,
but rather stem from the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure, and basic
services that come with living in non-designated areas.
1. Environmental Health and Sanitation Risks
This is often the most immediate and visible category of health risks. A high
concentration of RVs without access to proper utilities creates a significant bio-
load on the immediate environment.
Improper Disposal of Human Waste (Black Water): RVs have toilets
and black water holding tanks that need to be emptied regularly. Without
legal and accessible dump stations, occupants may be forced to dump
raw sewage into storm drains, gutters, or onto the ground.
Health Risks: This introduces dangerous pathogens into the
environment.
Bacteria: E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, which can cause
severe gastrointestinal illness.
Viruses: Norovirus and Hepatitis A, which are highly
contagious and can be spread through contaminated
surfaces or water.
Parasites: Giardia and Cryptosporidium, leading to diarrheal
diseases.
Impact: These pathogens can contaminate public sidewalks, wash
into local waterways (creeks, bays), and potentially seep into the
soil in parks or green spaces where children and pets play.
Improper Disposal of Gray Water: This is wastewater from sinks and
showers. While less hazardous than black water, it contains soaps, food
particles, and bacteria that can create foul odors, attract pests, and
pollute storm drains.
Accumulation of Solid Waste (Trash): Without regular municipal trash
collection, garbage can pile up in and around the RVs.
Health Risks:
Pest Infestations: Accumulating trash is a breeding ground
for rodents (rats, mice) and insects (flies, cockroaches).
Vector-Borne Diseases: Rodents can carry diseases like
Hantavirus (from droppings), Leptospirosis, and
Salmonellosis. Flies can transfer bacteria from waste to food
surfaces.
Hazardous Material Spills: RVs use and store hazardous materials.
Health Risks: Leaks or spills of gasoline, diesel, propane, motor
oil, and battery acid can contaminate the soil and groundwater.
Propane tanks pose a significant fire and explosion risk, especially
if they are old, damaged, or improperly stored.
2. Public Health and Communicable Disease Risks
The dense, close-quarters living conditions, combined with a lack of sanitation,
can create an environment where diseases can spread easily, affecting both
the RV occupants and, potentially, the wider community.
Increased Risk of Outbreaks: The unsanitary conditions described
above (especially human waste) create a perfect environment for
outbreaks of diseases like Hepatitis A or Shigellosis, which have been
documented in similar encampment situations in other cities.
Respiratory Illnesses: The constant running of generators for power
produces carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate
matter (PM2.5).
Health Risks: Poor air quality can exacerbate asthma and other
respiratory conditions for nearby residents. For RV occupants,
there is a severe risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, which can
be fatal, especially in poorly ventilated vehicles.
Spread of Other Diseases: Lack of access to running water for
handwashing and hygiene facilitates the spread of viruses like influenza
and COVID-19, as well as skin conditions like scabies and lice among
the encampment population.
3. Physical Safety and Hazard Risks
The physical presence of a large number of vehicles not designed for
permanent street parking creates numerous safety hazards.
Fire Hazards: This is one of the most significant risks.
Causes: Fires can be started by faulty internal wiring in older RVs,
unsafe heating methods (propane heaters, stoves), cooking
accidents, or generator malfunctions.
Magnified Risk: In a dense cluster of 50 RVs, a fire in one vehicle
can quickly spread to adjacent RVs and potentially to nearby
homes, trees, or parked cars. The presence of propane tanks can
lead to explosions, accelerating the fire's spread and endangering
firefighters.
Access Issues: The RVs may block streets or fire hydrants,
impeding emergency vehicle access.
Traffic and Pedestrian Safety:
Blocked Sightlines: RVs parked at intersections can block
visibility for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, increasing the risk of
accidents.
Obstruction of Public Ways: Vehicles parked on sidewalks or in
bike lanes force pedestrians and cyclists into the street, into the
path of traffic.
4. Mental and Social Health Impacts
These risks affect both the housed residents and the unhoused occupants.
For Neighborhood Residents:
Stress and Anxiety: Constant noise from generators, fear of
crime, concern over sanitation, and feelings of a loss of
neighborhood safety can lead to chronic stress and anxiety.
Loss of Public Space: Residents may feel unable to use public
parks, sidewalks, or other common areas due to perceived or real
safety and sanitation concerns.
For RV Occupants:
Extreme Stress and Trauma: It's crucial to acknowledge the
immense health risks faced by the unhoused individuals
themselves. They live in a state of constant vulnerability, facing the
threat of displacement, harassment, violence, and theft.
Exacerbation of Health Conditions: Lack of stability, nutrition,
and access to healthcare worsens pre-existing conditions, including
physical illnesses, mental health disorders, and substance use
disorders.
Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario:
With a density of 50 RVs in such a small area, all the risks mentioned above
would be significantly magnified.
Environmental Load: The daily output of human waste, gray water, and
trash from 50+ people would quickly overwhelm the local environment,
creating tangible biohazard zones.
Air and Noise Pollution: The cumulative noise and fumes from dozens
of generators running simultaneously would create a constant, unhealthy
environment for everyone within that 1000-foot radius and beyond.
Cascading Fire Risk: A fire would be a catastrophic event with a high
probability of spreading to multiple vehicles and structures.
Public Health Emergency Potential: An outbreak of a communicable
disease like Hepatitis A would have a high potential for rapid spread
within the encampment and would require a major intervention from
public health departments.
In conclusion, a high concentration of RVs in a residential neighborhood
without proper infrastructure poses serious, multifaceted health risks related to
environmental contamination, communicable disease, fire safety, and public
safety. Addressing this issue effectively requires a public health-led approach
that provides safe, sanctioned locations with sanitation services, coupled with
robust outreach to connect the unhoused occupants with healthcare, housing,
and other support services.
Economic Risks
Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused
occupants living in a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot
radius—here is a breakdown of potential economic risks, categorized for clarity.
Summary Challenges: Building on the public health risks, the economic risks
associated with a high concentration of illegally parked RVs are significant and
can affect homeowners, local businesses, and the municipal government.
These risks are not caused by the unhoused individuals themselves, but by the
circumstances of living in unmanaged, unsanctioned encampments that lack
infrastructure and services.
Example Economic Use Case A: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue
from Echelon…
Total Units in Echelon: 75
Conjecture A: $1.75 M average current value (Q4 2025)
Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation
Estimate A: $2.3 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation
[$1.75 M / (1 - 25%)]
Estimate B: $43.8 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes
per year [($2.3 M - $1.75 M) * 75 units]
Estimate C: $438 k total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected
per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value]
Example Economic Use Case B: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue
from Altaire, Echelon, and Vantage…
Total Units: 254
Conjecture A: $1.7 M - $2.1 average current value per unit (Q4 2025)
Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation
Estimate A: $2.3 M - $2.8 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV
situation [$1.7 M / (1 - 25%); $2.1 M / (1 - 25%)]
Estimate B: $152 M - $178 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto
property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.7 M) * 254 units; ($2.8 M - $2.1 M) * 254
units]
Estimate C: $1.5 M - $1.8 M total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes
collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value]
1. Impact on Real Estate and Property Values
This is often the most direct and significant economic impact for neighborhood
residents.
Decreased Property Values: The presence of a large, unsanctioned
encampment can lead to a measurable decline in property values. Factors
contributing to this include:
Perceived Decline in Safety and Quality of Life: Potential buyers are
often deterred by visible signs of disorder, sanitation issues, and
perceived crime.
Visual Blight: The physical appearance of a large number of
dilapidated or poorly maintained vehicles, along with associated debris,
can negatively impact the aesthetic appeal of a neighborhood.
Noise and Air Pollution: Constant generator noise and exhaust fumes
make the neighborhood less desirable.
Difficulty Selling or Renting Properties:
Longer Market Time: Homes and apartments within the affected area
may take significantly longer to sell or rent.
Reduced Sale Prices and Rental Income: To attract buyers or
tenants, property owners may be forced to lower their asking prices or
rent, leading to a direct financial loss. Landlords may experience higher
vacancy rates.
Stifled Home Improvement Investment: Homeowners may become hesitant
to invest in renovations or upgrades, fearing they will not see a return on their
investment due to the declining desirability of the neighborhood.
2. Increased Costs for Municipal and Public Services
The burden on public services translates directly to increased costs for the city,
which are ultimately borne by taxpayers.
Increased Emergency Service Costs: A high-density encampment places a
disproportionate demand on emergency services.
Fire Department: High frequency of calls for fires (vehicle, trash, tent),
medical emergencies, and responses to propane leaks or generator
malfunctions. These calls are resource-intensive.
Police Department: Increased calls for service related to disputes,
wellness checks, theft, and other crime, requiring significant officer time.
Paramedics/EMT: Frequent medical calls for both encampment
occupants and potential issues in the surrounding neighborhood.
Significant Sanitation and Cleanup Costs:
Biohazard Removal: Cleaning up human waste, used needles, and
other biohazardous materials requires specialized crews and
equipment, which is far more expensive than standard trash collection.
Large-Scale Debris Removal: The city often bears the cost of clearing
out abandoned vehicles, accumulated trash, and personal property after
an encampment is cleared. These operations can cost tens or even
hundreds of thousands of dollars per event.
Public Health Response Costs: As mentioned in the health risks, an
outbreak of a communicable disease like Hepatitis A would necessitate a
costly public health campaign for containment, testing, and vaccination.
3. Negative Impact on Local Businesses
Small, local businesses are particularly vulnerable to the economic fallout.
Reduced Revenue:
Loss of Foot Traffic: Customers may avoid shopping in areas they
perceive as unsafe or unpleasant. Difficulty finding parking and
navigating blocked sidewalks can further deter patrons.
Negative Reputation: A business located in or near a large
encampment can suffer from a damaged reputation, driving away both
regular and potential new customers.
Increased Operational Costs:
Security: Businesses may need to hire private security guards or install
expensive surveillance systems.
Cleaning and Repairs: Daily costs for cleaning up litter, human waste,
and graffiti from their storefronts. Costs to repair vandalism or break-ins.
Higher Insurance Premiums: Commercial insurance rates may
increase if the area is deemed higher risk.
Employee-Related Issues: Businesses may struggle to attract and retain
employees who feel unsafe commuting to or working in the area, especially
during early morning or late-night shifts.
4. Direct Financial Costs to Residents
Beyond the impact on property values, residents may face direct, out-of-pocket
expenses.
Installation of Security Measures: Many residents will feel compelled to
spend money on security cameras, enhanced lighting, alarms, and stronger
fences.
Property Damage: Costs to repair damaged fences, remove graffiti, and
replace stolen items (e.g., packages, items from yards or cars).
Increased Insurance Rates: If the neighborhood experiences a documented
increase in crime or fire incidents, homeowners' insurance premiums could
rise for everyone in the zip code.
5. Broader Economic Stagnation and Disinvestment
If the situation persists, it can lead to long-term economic damage to the
neighborhood.
Deterred Investment: Private developers and businesses will be reluctant to
invest in a neighborhood with such visible and unresolved social and sanitation
issues. This can halt new construction, prevent new businesses from opening,
and lead to a downward economic spiral.
Erosion of the Tax Base: A combination of declining property values and
businesses closing or relocating can lead to a reduction in the city's property
and sales tax revenue from that area. This, in turn, can mean less funding for
public services, creating a vicious cycle.
Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario:
In a dense scenario like this, the economic risks are not just potential; they become a
sustained reality.
Market Chill: The local real estate market would likely freeze or see a sharp,
localized crash. It would be difficult to sell a home at a fair market price within
that radius.
Budgetary Strain: The cost to the city for services would become a
significant, recurring line item in the municipal budget, potentially diverting
funds from other neighborhood services like park maintenance or library hours.
"Red Zone" for Business: The immediate area would likely become a "no-
go" zone for new business investment, and existing small businesses would
be under severe financial pressure, with a high risk of failure.
In essence, a high concentration of RVs creates a localized economic crisis driven by
the failure to provide basic sanitation, safety, and housing infrastructure. The
economic costs demonstrate the financial consequence of not addressing the root
causes of homelessness and the need for managed, resourced solutions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Echelon Palo Alto" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to echelonpa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/echelonpa/CAOcXV2HfbUCW7GW%3DQ0-
rD9a%3D3rdXb%3DLhC4ydnXqfJk2LG8ks3A%40mail.gmail.com.
From:Evan Reade
To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;
Reckdahl, Keith
Cc:Shikada, Ed; savelegalparkingpa@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Say NO to RV parking on our streets
Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 2:34:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dr. Mr. Mayor; Dear City Council Members:
I am resending my letter to you of September 3, 2025 regarding RV parking, as you
will be discussing this matter on October 20 and I am unable to attend in person.
To summarize:
- You should not be incentivizing people to come to Palo Alto to live on our streets
wherever they wish in their RVs, or in any other type of vehicles, for that matter.
- The City should not be spending taxpayer dollars to operate RV parks or other
campgrounds.
- Rather than solving this problem, you are making it worse.
JUST SAY NO to RVs parked on our streets.
Sincerely,
Evan G. Reade
Sharon Ct.
Palo Alto
On Wednesday, September 3, 2025, 01:59:16 PM PDT, Evan Reade <evanreade@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Mayor; Dear City Council Members:
Regarding the recent meeting of the Policy and Services Committee convened to
discuss the subject of RV dwellers parking and living on the streets of Palo Alto:
JUST SAY NO. I take issue with those who refer to the people who occupy these
mobile dwelling units as "residents" of Palo Alto. Clearly, they are not. They do not
have an address in the city. They do not pay taxes in the city. And they have no
right to simply plop themselves down where ever they wish, in front of someone's
business, or someone's home, or next to one of our parks, or anywhere on our
public streets and decide to "reside" there for as long as they wish. They spread
their belongings on public rights of way, they pour their waste into city storm drains,
and they increasingly divert the resources of our public safety professionals. They
are a blight.
A recent newspaper article I read about this issue reported that the number of RV
dwellers in Palo Alto is increasing. Gosh, I wonder why. Could it be they come
because the word is out that they will be tolerated and almost even welcomed
here, unlike in other cities in the region, including San Francisco, which recently
enacted prohibitions against oversized vehicle parking? And I can't believe the
quote attributed to Council Member Lu that he is "a YIMBY on extremely affordable
housing and RV parking throughout the entire community, and would not object to
anything in my neighborhood." I wonder how your neighbors feel about that, Mr.
Lu. You should be protecting the quality of life for those who elected you.
I applaud the Palo Alto Police Department for all they are doing to try to keep
ahead of this growning blight by utilizing laws and ordinances already on the books.
They are working to keep our community safe and clean. I urge Council to do the
same.
Sincerely,
Evan G. Reade
Sharon Ct.
Palo Alto
From:Gabe Molitor
To:Council, City
Subject:Dear city council members this is your friend Gabe molitor and the reason for this mobile cell phone email
message is because I also think that it’s also about the right time that RV owners should be sent to other parts
across the United States and als...
Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 7:58:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Patty Irish
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter Concerning RV parking on the City Street in Palo Alto
Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 3:41:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members,
I think the challenge of RVs on our streets and people having to
use them as "permanent housing" is an impossible situation for
them and for the people who live and work in these areas where
the RVs are parked. It is an endless challenge with no good
solutions.
I believe the best thing for you to do - it may sound impossible
but is really the only thing that will help solve the problem - is:
1. buy or find someone to buy - apartment buildings that will
house about the number of units you will need to offer basic,
supportive housing for those you have living in RVs.
2. partner with a housing group to supply supportive services
3. The City offer an apartment at a subsidized rate to each RV
unit. They need to be told if they do not take the apartment they
will have to leave the City.
4. You offer to purchase their RV
5. if they move to an apartment great. If not they must be
required to leave. (legal now I believe).
I Know this sounds impossible but it has to be possible for people
to live here.
I want to remind you of something the City Council did in 1997-98
building Alma Place for 107 people who were almost homeless. In
fact without Alma Place I think they would have been. But you
built an SRO on Alma for 107 units and very vulnerable people like
those living in RVs today now live lives with dignity as part of this
community. It took real vision then and now to do what seems
impossible. It is needed because we in this area have allowed
housing to become so expensive and scarce.
I ask you to consider the unthinkable to real solutions. Maybe
funders could be found for the buildings. Cities nearby are trying
to do this too. It is a time that calls for extraordinary measures.
Thank you for your consideration,
Patty Irish
In the past I have been staff, I have worked with homeless in LA,
Peninsula Habitat for Humanity staff and Board of Palo Alto
Housing and Stevenson House.
--
Patty Irish
850 Webster St. #628
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-324-7407
650-245-3906 cell
How do you tell a story that has been told the wrong way for so long?
Virus-free.www.avast.com
From:Nancy Noe
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Council, City
Cc:Board
Subject:Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts
Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 10:20:53 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Re Agenda Item 16, the Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Approve a
Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts
Honorable Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers,
The Board of Heart and Home Collaborative would like to thank you for your continuing
efforts to address homelessness in Palo Alto, and to encourage you to adopt the Policy &
Services Committee Recommendation for a phased approach to address the issue of
oversized vehicles as part of your strategy for helping your unhoused population.
Your on-going support for programs like ours and LifeMoves are a critical component in
serving unhoused people in Palo Alto, but as you know there are many more people in
need of housing than current shelters and transitional housing programs are able to
support. Living in RVs on the City streets (and for that matter staying in shelters) are far
from ideal living arrangements, but they provide immediate safe, dry places for people to
sleep at night until better, more permanent accommodations are available.
Forcing the relocation of oversized vehicles when better alternatives are not available does
not create a solution. People simply have to move the vehicles to other inappropriate
locations, or possibly be forced out of their vehicles onto the streets.
We recognize that oversized vehicles used as living spaces can cause negative impacts to
surrounding neighborhoods and applaud the recommendations offered in Phase One that
would improve the sanitary environment for the people living in the vehicles, as well as
addressing the impacts to those living and working nearby.
We believe that the phased approach recommended is well thought out and that dedicating
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
some additional time and resources to find safer, more appropriate parking areas and to
increase other housing alternatives will result in better long-term outcomes for the current
vehicle dwellers and for the broader community.
We therefore urge you to adopt the phased recommendation offered by the Policy and
Services Committee.
Respectfully,
Nancy Noe, Board member
on behalf of Heart & Home Collaborative Board of Directors
From:Manu Kumar
To:Steve Wong
Cc:Transportation; RevColl; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo R; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Maor
Greenberg; Marguerite Poyatos; Dave Stellman; Gaines, Chantal; Cathi Lerch; Dave Stellman; City Mgr; Moffatt,
Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley;
McDonough, Melissa; Reifschneider, James; John Lerch; Binder, Andrew; City Attorney; Lauing, Ed; Lydia Kou;
Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com;
Becchetti, Benjamin; Cally Mei
Subject:Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 9:26:11 AM
Attachments:Outlook-THE
image015.png
image018.png
Outlook-3lhybjrb
Outlook-logo 2 PNG.png
image011.png
Outlook-Green Hear
image020.png
image017.png
image021.png
image016.png
image019.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Steve and fellow neighbors:
I posted some videos from my drive home yesterday on X for everyone to see what Palo Alto
really looks like.
https://x.com/manukumar/status/1979554824749465636
It is abundantly clear that the City leadership is allowing the City to turn into trash/blight.
The parking regulations have glaring loopholes — just drive around the block and park in a
different spot… maybe we can call it Musical RVs.
The laws/regulations need to be changed to ensure that such abuse of public property is not
allowed altogether.
Regards,
-Manu
your phone.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 8:39 AM Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com> wrote:
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to express concern about the growing number of RVs and motorhomes parked along
the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000 block of Transport Street, and 800-900 block of
Commercial Street in Palo Alto. The situation has gotten completely out of hand and is creating
serious safety, accessibility, and parking issues for the businesses and employees who work in this
area every day.
Many of these large vehicles have been parked for months at a time without moving, in clear
violation of the City’s own parking rule stating that “Any vehicle parked on a public street must be
moved every 72 hours.” It appears this rule is not being enforced, and the problem continues to
worsen week after week.
There are also major safety concerns. Many of these RVs have propane tanks and running
generators outside, which pose fire and explosion risks. They block visibility for drivers and
pedestrians, and the growing number of them has turned these streets into unsafe and
overcrowded areas.
This issue has now reached a point where it’s directly impacting local workers and businesses.
Parking has become extremely limited because RVs and motorhomes occupy most of the available
spaces. In just the past week, we’ve seen even more of them arrive, taking over additional spots
and making the situation worse.
We are asking the City of Palo Alto to take immediate action to enforce existing parking laws and
address this problem before it escalates further. The current situation is unsafe, unfair, and
unsustainable for those who work and operate businesses in this area.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We hope the city will take swift and visible steps
to resolve it.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Wong - President
Phone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.0160
4067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane
<bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong
<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman
<davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave
Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt
<pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>;
david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong
<SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley
<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>;
John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing
<Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker
<vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt
<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-
Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
<Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Please. Every one of these pictures is a Safety violation where’s Waldo
Patrick Kelly
From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:22:26 AM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane
<bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong
<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman
<davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave
Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt
<pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>;
david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong
<SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley
<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>;
John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing
<Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker
<vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt
<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-
Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
<Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Patrick Kelly
From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 6:37:09 AM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane
<bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong
<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman
<davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave
Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt
<pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>;
david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong
<SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley
<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>;
John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing
<Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker
<vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt
<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-
Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
<Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Hasn’t moved in a month. Visibility non existent for pedestrians. Safety issues are on your
shoulders when something happens.
Patrick Kelly
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 8:39:37 AM
To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane
<bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong
<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman
<davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave
Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt
<pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>;
david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong
<SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley
<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>;
John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing
<Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker
<vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt
<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-
Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
<Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not
trust.
I would also like to note that the propane tank I mentioned a couple weeks ago is still sitting
in the street. Is this not a safety hazard? From what I have read, they shouldn't be allowed to
be kept in the street for multiple reasons.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 8:34 AM Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> wrote:
The safety on this street keeps getting worse. No visibility, no concern for environmental
issues. Please help.
Patrick Kelly
From: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:57:53 PM
To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno
<ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor
Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>;
Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin
Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr
<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>;
Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com
<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew
Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou
<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
<Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do
not trust.
O.R. Builders Inc.
Osbaldo Romero
President
939 Industrial Ave
Palo Alto, Ca. 94303
Phone: 650.938.2222
Fax: 650.938.2224
Cell: 415.215.6788
From: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:53 PM
To: 'Bill McLane' <bill@paloaltoglass.com>
Xenia Czisch
Vice President of
Operations
phone: (650) 858-2491
mobile: (650) 804-4225
fax: (650) 858-2494
4047 Transport St
Palo Alto, CA 94303
www.qualitymetalspinning.us
Cc: 'Marguerite Poyatos' <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; 'Ramon Moreno'
<ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; 'Lester Wong' <LWong@wongelectric.com>; 'Maor
Greenberg' <maor@greenberg.construction>; 'Dave Stellman' <davestellman@gmail.com>;
'Patrick Kelly' <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org;
osbaldo@or-builders.com; 'Manu Kumar' <manu@k9ventures.com>; 'Benjamin Becchetti'
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Cathi Lerch' <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Dave
Stellman' <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; 'City Mgr' <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Pete Moffatt'
<pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; 'Steve
Wong' <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; 'Dan McKinley'
<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; 'Melissa McDonough'
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'James Reifschneider'
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Transportation'
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'John Lerch' <john@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Andrew
Binder' <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Jade Jin' <JJin@wongelectric.com>; 'City
Attorney' <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Ed Lauing' <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Lydia
Kou' <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Vicki Veenker' <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'City
Council' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Patrick Burt' <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Greer
Stone' <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Julie Lythcott-Haims'
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
+ Staceytomson@qmsshields.com
From: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:48 PM
To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>
Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno
<ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor
Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>;
Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-
builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave
Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt
<pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve
Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley
<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>;
John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder
<Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou
<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
I didn’t get my tape measure out, but I’d be willing to bet this is more than 18 inches from
the curb. I believe that’s a violation of California parking laws.
Bill McLane
---------------------------------
Palo Alto Glass, Inc.
4085 Transport Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Xenia Czisch
Vice President of
Operations
phone: (650) 858-2491
mobile: (650) 804-4225
fax: (650) 858-2494
4047 Transport St
Palo Alto, CA 94303
www.qualitymetalspinning.us
650-494-7000 Office
www.paloaltoglass.com
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 1:25 PM Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> wrote:
+ staceytomson@qmsshields.com
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:13 PM
To: Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>
Cc: Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg
<maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly
<Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>;
chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar
<manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City
Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>;
Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong
<SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew
Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch
<Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing
<Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker
<vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick
Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie
Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Chantal,
Please see the attached images. An enforcement officer went around this morning and
gave out the 72 hour tow notices.
I watched the gentleman with the Raiders RV (in attached image) remove all tow
notices from his vehicles and will not move them. I will be taking pictures of
his vehicles in the next coming days to show that he will be in violation of the notices.
Also, he has a propane tank (also in attached image) that has been sitting in the street for
a few months now. Can that be addressed?
The other picture shows a tow notice sitting in the gutter, which is where many of these
end up. Can there be any enforcement for littering?
As others are stating, I would also hope something can be done for the safety of
pedestrians. As I was walking to my car today, I was almost hit by a car because there is
no visibility for cars coming down the street or pedestrians.
Thank you.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:12 PM Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing issues caused by the
RV encampments in Palo Alto, which are directly impacting my business and the
safety of my students and their families.
As the owner of the Ramon Moreno School of Ballet, I am dedicated to maintaining a
safe, clean, and welcoming environment for our students and their families. However,
recent circumstances are making that increasingly difficult.
One of the most pressing issues is illegal dumping. Individuals from the RV
encampments have been using my business’s garbage disposal for their personal
waste, resulting in contamination. Because of this, the city has refused to collect the
trash, and I have now been left to clean and dispose of everything myself—at my own
expense. If I don’t, I’ve been informed that I may face additional charges. This is
unacceptable and places an unfair financial and operational burden on my business. I
understand that I am not alone—many neighboring businesses are facing similar
challenges.
Additionally, the presence of these encampments has created ongoing safety
concerns. Several families have shared their discomfort and hesitation about bringing
their children to class, due to the unpredictable and sometimes unsafe conditions
surrounding my studio. This is not just an inconvenience; it poses a direct risk to the
well-being of the children, their families, my staff, and the reputation of our school.
I would like to know what specific actions the city is taking to address these
challenges. While I understand that this is a complex issue, local businesses should
not be expected to shoulder the consequences alone. The safety of our community and
the ability for small businesses to operate without disruption should be a priority.
I urge the City of Palo Alto to present a clear and immediate plan of action that
includes:
Proper and reliable waste management enforcement
Increased monitoring and enforcement of local ordinances
Measures to ensure public safety for local families and business owners
Attached to this email are photos documenting the contamination of my garbage
disposal and the resulting conditions. I hope these images convey the seriousness of
the situation and the urgent need for intervention.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to
seeing meaningful steps taken to support the well-being of our local business
community.
Sincerely,
Ramon Moreno
Owner & Director
Ramon Moreno School of Ballet
Please feel free to text or call:
650-304-1909
Thank you,
Ramon Moreno
www.ramonmorenoballet.com
www.facebook.com/pg/RamonMorenoSchool
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:43 PM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>
wrote:
Commercial St. was cleared last night. Thank you for your efforts!
Lester Wong | Vice President
O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455
4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303
Celebrating Our 46th Anniversary 1978 – 2024
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:37:47 PM
To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction
Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly
<Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>;
chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-
builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>;
Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong
<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave
Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete
Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com
<Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com
<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>;
RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>;
James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>;
Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>;
Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia
Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>;
City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt
<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie
Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
The wooden RV seems to be a severe safety issue. A former coworker spoke to the
man living in it a couple years ago and was told there is a wood burning oven/stove
inside the RV, which he uses. Seems like that could be a severe safety hazard not
only for the man residing in it, as well as for the surrounding RV's/vehicles &
businesses if it were ever to catch fire.
We have had to face a number of safety hazards on this street. It is unsafe for
pedestrians. We have had attempted break ins at night. We have been harassed by
people associated with these RV's, as well as loose dogs, just to name a couple
issues. Luckily, police officers do respond and try to help but there will be a time
when they will be too late to prevent injury.
The community officers coming through and putting notices on vehicles is nowhere
near the solution needed for this area. The notices are thrown away and the vehicles
rarely move. I believe this email string started in 2023 and we have had minimal
progress with the actual issues at hand.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:19 PM Maor Greenberg
<maor@greenberg.construction> wrote:
City of palo alto!! please let me know how this is Legal for driving also come
and clean the street as it’s not safe see attached
Maor Greenberg
CEO
maor@greenberg.construction |
650-610-7711
Greenberg.Construction | 650-600-
9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325
908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303
From: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:56:09 AM
To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Marguerite Poyatos
<MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or-
builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>;
Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman
<dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt
<pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com
<Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com
<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>;
RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>;
nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley
<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>;
Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin
<JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia
Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker
<vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor Greenberg
<maor@greenberg.construction>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
What is it going to take for the city of Palo Alto to catch up to the rest of the
country? A lawsuit when someone in our neighborhood is injured because of the
unsafe conditions that exist here? This email chain alone would be enough
evidence to show the city’s knowledge of the problem and inaction.
With newly enacted laws giving cities the legal right to clean up our public
spaces, local cities like Mountain View, Santa Clara and San Jose have already
begun the process of relocating and housing these people that need it. Why not
Palo Alto? Its not a money issue here, and even if it was, wouldn’t it be less
costly to tow some vehicles and help relocate them to a safer area than to pay the
cost of litigation?
We are asking the city to stop ignoring this issue before it becomes an even
bigger problem.
From:Andrew Li
To:Council, City
Subject:Public Comment for 10/20/25 Meeting - Employee Safety Concerns regarding RV Parking
Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 3:42:02 PM
Attachments:image811086.png
LONGFELLOW - LETTER TO PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Please find attached a formal letter from Longfellow Real Estate Partners regarding the
oversized vehicle parking ordinance under consideration at Monday's City Council meeting on
October 20, 2025.
As owner and operator of Palo Alto Labs, Longfellow is writing to express our
support for the Policy and Services Committee's comprehensive approach to
addressing public health, safety, and sanitation concerns related to oversized
vehicle parking in Palo Alto.
Our attached letter outlines specific, documented concerns affecting our tenants and the
surrounding community, as well as the proactive measures we have taken to address these
challenges. We have also included on the final page photographic and documentary
exhibits that supplement the concerns described in our letter.
We appreciate the Council's thoughtful consideration of this complex issue and your
commitment to balancing enforcement with compassionate, long-term solutions. Longfellow
stands ready to support the City's efforts and provide any additional information that may be
helpful as you deliberate on these important matters.
Thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to provide public comment.
Respectfully,
Andrew Li
Property Manager
Longfellow Real Estate Partners, Palo Alto Labs
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
650.613.3965
ali@lfrep.com
Andrew Li
Property Manager
M: 650.613.3965
lfrep.com
Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing on behalf of Longfellow Real Estate Partners, the owner and operator of Palo Alto
Labs, a life sciences campus located at 1800-1850 Embarcadero Road & 2445-2465 Faber
Place, Palo Alto, CA 94303. As commercial property owners with deep investment in this
community, we express our support for the Policy and Services Committee's comprehensive
approach to addressing oversized vehicle parking concerns in Palo Alto.
Our Commitment to Tenant Safety
Longfellow Real Estate is committed to ensuring a safe, accessible, and sanitary environment
for our tenants and the broader Palo Alto community. Over the past several months, we have
observed significant safety and public health concerns on Faber Place and Embarcadero Road,
the public streets directly adjacent to our property. These concerns have escalated to a point
where our tenants, many of whom are scientists, researchers, and healthcare professionals
working to advance critical medical innovations, have expressed legitimate fears about their
daily commute and workplace access.
Documented Safety and Sanitation Concerns
Since August 14th, 2025, we have systematically documented the following issues through the
PaloAlto311 mobile app and direct coordination with the Palo Alto Police Department:
● Pedestrian Safety Hazards: Sidewalk obstructions on Faber Place routinely force
pedestrians, including our employees, into traffic lanes, creating dangerous conditions,
particularly during morning and evening commute hours.
● Public Health and Sanitation Violations: Improper waste disposal, including sewage
dumping into street gutters and storm drains, poses serious public health risks and
contributes to environmental contamination of San Francisco Bay.
● Parking Access Limitations: The concentration of oversized vehicles has reduced
available parking for employees, visitors, and emergency vehicle access to our property.
● Accumulated Refuse: Regular accumulation of trash and debris around parked
vehicles has attracted rodents and created unsanitary conditions in proximity to our life
sciences facilities.
● Safety Incidents: We have documented concerning incidents, including a RV
occupant’s dog biting a vendor working on property, that have heightened tenant anxiety
and safety concerns.
Our Proactive Response
In response to these conditions, Longfellow has taken significant action:
● Expanded security patrol coverage to 24/7, including weekends, with focused monitoring
of exterior common areas and both Faber Place and Embarcadero Road
● Established direct coordination protocols with the Palo Alto Police Department for non-
emergency incident reporting
● Implemented real-time communication channels for tenants to report safety concerns to
our Property Management and Security teams
● Actively engaged with the City's Transportation Department regarding proposed bike
lane infrastructure improvements along Embarcadero and Faber Place
● Consistently reported violations and concerns through the PaloAlto311 mobile app, as
directed by City officials
Why We Support the Proposed Ordinance
We support the Policy and Services Committee's recommended approach because it balances
enforcement of existing public health and safety regulations with a comprehensive, long-term
strategy. Specifically, we support:
1. Enforcement of Existing Regulations: Palo Alto's 72-hour parking ordinances,
sanitation codes, and sidewalk accessibility requirements exist to protect all community
members. Consistent application of these standards is essential for public safety.
2. Ban on Inoperable Vehicles and Unhitched Trailers: Vehicles that cannot be moved
pose safety and environmental hazards and should not occupy public streets indefinitely.
3. Enhanced Street Sweeping and Maintenance: Increased cleaning in impacted areas
will address immediate sanitation concerns while longer-term solutions are developed.
4. Comprehensive Long-Term Solutions: We appreciate the City's parallel work on safe
parking sites, outreach services, and transitional housing options. Enforcement and
compassionate resources are not mutually exclusive, as both are necessary.
Looking Forward
Longfellow Real Estate Partners has invested significantly in Palo Alto because we believe in
this community's future. Our tenants are advancing groundbreaking research in life sciences
that will benefit society for generations to come. They deserve safe access to their workplace,
clean streets, and a professional environment that reflects Palo Alto's status as a world-class
innovation hub.
We recognize that housing affordability is a complex regional challenge, and we support the
City's efforts to develop appropriate resources and designated safe parking areas. However,
these longer-term solutions cannot come at the expense of immediate public health, safety, and
environmental protection.
We respectfully urge the City Council to advance the Policy and Services Committee's
recommendations and to prioritize consistent enforcement of existing municipal codes that
protect all Palo Alto residents and workers.
Thank you for your leadership on this challenging issue and your commitment to ensuring Palo
Alto remains a safe, vibrant community for all.
Respectfully submitted,
Hugh McBride
Director, Property Management
Longfellow Property Management Services CA, Inc.
EXHIBITS: For all exhibits, select this link.
The following exhibits supplement this letter and document the conditions described above:
Exhibit A: VIEW IMAGES HERE documenting sidewalk obstructions on Faber Place forcing
pedestrians into traffic; accumulated trash and refuse around oversized vehicles adjacent to
property (August 2025 – current)
Exhibit B: VIEW IMAGES HERE documenting sewage dumping and improper waste disposal
on Embarcadero Road and Faber Place (August 2025 – current)
Exhibit C: VIEW REPORTS HERE documenting PaloAlto311 incident reports submitted by
Longfellow Property Management team (August 2025 – current)
Exhibit D: Timeline of security incident reports and tenant safety complaints (August 2025 –
current)
From:midtowngary@me.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Council, City
Subject:October 20, 2025 Hearing on RV parking in Palo Alto
Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 2:50:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Palo Alto City Council, October 17, 2025
I am writing as a concerned resident and taxpayer to urge the Council to take action in
addressing the growing issue of long-term RV parking on our city streets. As surrounding
communities have implemented restrictions or outright bans on RV parking, many of these
vehicles—and their associated problems—have migrated into our neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, the results are increasingly visible: blight, trash accumulation, and ongoing
nuisances that negatively impact the quality of life for residents and the appearance of our city.
While I understand that some individuals living in RVs may be facing difficult circumstances,
allowing unrestricted RV parking is not a sustainable or fair solution. The reality is that many
of these vehicles are not properly maintained, leak fluids onto the streets, generate noise and
waste, have expired tags, and contribute to litter and unsanitary conditions. They also take up
valuable parking spaces. This not only degrades property values but quality of life in our city.
Other cities have recognized that uncontrolled RV parking leads to safety hazards, diminished
public spaces, and growing costs for municipal services. As they enact bans or stricter
regulations, our city has become an unintended haven for RV encampments, bringing these
issues to our doorsteps. Without clear restrictions, we risk allowing the problem to grow to an
unmanageable scale.
I respectfully urge the City Council to consider adopting an ordinance that bans RV parking
on city streets and in residential areas. Most taxpaying residents feel the same way and deserve
to have their voices heard. The majority of us work hard to maintain our homes and
neighborhoods, and we expect our city to take reasonable action to preserve the safety,
cleanliness, and character of our community.
Our community deserves clean, safe, and attractive neighborhoods. As taxpayers, we should
not have to shoulder the costs or consequences of lax enforcement and policy gaps that
encourage blight and disorder.
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you for your attention to this important matter and for your continued work to protect
the health, safety, and integrity of our community.
Respectfully,
Gary
From:Colin Swindells
To:Council, City
Cc:Kratt, Ken; "emily yang" via Echelon Palo Alto
Subject:RV Situation in Palo Alto
Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 1:35:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members and Neighbors,
A summary of health and economic risks related to the current RV situation are described
below.
This relates to Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on Monday,
October 20, 2025 (Council Chambers & Hybrid @ 5:30 PM):
“16. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a
Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts,
Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in
various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt.”
I appreciate your upcoming action to address the health and economic risks that are
directly impacting the 254 units of Altaire, Echelon and Vantage communities neighboring
the RVs parked along E Meadow Cir in Palo Alto. Specifically, health concerns arise from
the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure and basic services that come with living in non-
designated areas. Economic concerns include property values, municipal & public services,
local businesses, direct neighbor costs and economic stagnation. For example, if only
considering property tax revenue losses to the City of Palo Alto due to the particular RV
situation neighboring our three complexes (Altaire, Echelon and Vantage), an estimate is
$1.5 M - $1.8 M total reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year (see Example
Economic Use Case B below). Presumably, overall economic impacts for Palo Alto are
much higher. I would be happy to update more complete health and economic impact
estimates with council members & neighbors, and appropriate solutions.
Sincerely,
Colin Swindells
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
3769 Klamath Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Health Risks
Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in a
residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of
potential health risks, categorized for clarity.
Summary Challenges: This is a complex public health issue with significant impacts on
both the unhoused individuals living in the RVs and the residents of the surrounding
neighborhood. The health risks are not inherent to the people, but rather stem from the lack
of sanitation, safety infrastructure, and basic services that come with living in non-
designated areas.
1. Environmental Health and Sanitation Risks
This is often the most immediate and visible category of health risks. A high concentration
of RVs without access to proper utilities creates a significant bio-load on the immediate
environment.
Improper Disposal of Human Waste (Black Water): RVs have toilets and black
water holding tanks that need to be emptied regularly. Without legal and accessible
dump stations, occupants may be forced to dump raw sewage into storm drains,
gutters, or onto the ground.
Health Risks: This introduces dangerous pathogens into the environment.
Bacteria: E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, which can cause severe
gastrointestinal illness.
Viruses: Norovirus and Hepatitis A, which are highly contagious and can
be spread through contaminated surfaces or water.
Parasites: Giardia and Cryptosporidium, leading to diarrheal diseases.
Impact: These pathogens can contaminate public sidewalks, wash into local
waterways (creeks, bays), and potentially seep into the soil in parks or green
spaces where children and pets play.
Improper Disposal of Gray Water: This is wastewater from sinks and showers.
While less hazardous than black water, it contains soaps, food particles, and bacteria
that can create foul odors, attract pests, and pollute storm drains.
Accumulation of Solid Waste (Trash): Without regular municipal trash collection,
garbage can pile up in and around the RVs.
Health Risks:
Pest Infestations: Accumulating trash is a breeding ground for rodents
(rats, mice) and insects (flies, cockroaches).
Vector-Borne Diseases: Rodents can carry diseases like Hantavirus
(from droppings), Leptospirosis, and Salmonellosis. Flies can transfer
bacteria from waste to food surfaces.
Hazardous Material Spills: RVs use and store hazardous materials.
Health Risks: Leaks or spills of gasoline, diesel, propane, motor oil, and
battery acid can contaminate the soil and groundwater. Propane tanks pose a
significant fire and explosion risk, especially if they are old, damaged, or
improperly stored.
2. Public Health and Communicable Disease Risks
The dense, close-quarters living conditions, combined with a lack of sanitation, can create
an environment where diseases can spread easily, affecting both the RV occupants and,
potentially, the wider community.
Increased Risk of Outbreaks: The unsanitary conditions described above
(especially human waste) create a perfect environment for outbreaks of diseases like
Hepatitis A or Shigellosis, which have been documented in similar encampment
situations in other cities.
Respiratory Illnesses: The constant running of generators for power produces
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5).
Health Risks: Poor air quality can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory
conditions for nearby residents. For RV occupants, there is a severe risk of
carbon monoxide poisoning, which can be fatal, especially in poorly
ventilated vehicles.
Spread of Other Diseases: Lack of access to running water for handwashing and
hygiene facilitates the spread of viruses like influenza and COVID-19, as well as skin
conditions like scabies and lice among the encampment population.
3. Physical Safety and Hazard Risks
The physical presence of a large number of vehicles not designed for permanent street
parking creates numerous safety hazards.
Fire Hazards: This is one of the most significant risks.
Causes: Fires can be started by faulty internal wiring in older RVs, unsafe
heating methods (propane heaters, stoves), cooking accidents, or generator
malfunctions.
Magnified Risk: In a dense cluster of 50 RVs, a fire in one vehicle can quickly
spread to adjacent RVs and potentially to nearby homes, trees, or parked cars.
The presence of propane tanks can lead to explosions, accelerating the fire's
spread and endangering firefighters.
Access Issues: The RVs may block streets or fire hydrants, impeding
emergency vehicle access.
Traffic and Pedestrian Safety:
Blocked Sightlines: RVs parked at intersections can block visibility for drivers,
cyclists, and pedestrians, increasing the risk of accidents.
Obstruction of Public Ways: Vehicles parked on sidewalks or in bike lanes
force pedestrians and cyclists into the street, into the path of traffic.
4. Mental and Social Health Impacts
These risks affect both the housed residents and the unhoused occupants.
For Neighborhood Residents:
Stress and Anxiety: Constant noise from generators, fear of crime, concern
over sanitation, and feelings of a loss of neighborhood safety can lead to
chronic stress and anxiety.
Loss of Public Space: Residents may feel unable to use public parks,
sidewalks, or other common areas due to perceived or real safety and
sanitation concerns.
For RV Occupants:
Extreme Stress and Trauma: It's crucial to acknowledge the immense health
risks faced by the unhoused individuals themselves. They live in a state of
constant vulnerability, facing the threat of displacement, harassment, violence,
and theft.
Exacerbation of Health Conditions: Lack of stability, nutrition, and access to
healthcare worsens pre-existing conditions, including physical illnesses, mental
health disorders, and substance use disorders.
Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario:
With a density of 50 RVs in such a small area, all the risks mentioned above would be
significantly magnified.
Environmental Load: The daily output of human waste, gray water, and trash from
50+ people would quickly overwhelm the local environment, creating tangible
biohazard zones.
Air and Noise Pollution: The cumulative noise and fumes from dozens of
generators running simultaneously would create a constant, unhealthy environment
for everyone within that 1000-foot radius and beyond.
Cascading Fire Risk: A fire would be a catastrophic event with a high probability of
spreading to multiple vehicles and structures.
Public Health Emergency Potential: An outbreak of a communicable disease like
Hepatitis A would have a high potential for rapid spread within the encampment and
would require a major intervention from public health departments.
In conclusion, a high concentration of RVs in a residential neighborhood without proper
infrastructure poses serious, multifaceted health risks related to environmental
contamination, communicable disease, fire safety, and public safety. Addressing this issue
effectively requires a public health-led approach that provides safe, sanctioned locations
with sanitation services, coupled with robust outreach to connect the unhoused occupants
with healthcare, housing, and other support services.
Economic Risks
Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in a
residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of
potential economic risks, categorized for clarity.
Summary Challenges: Building on the public health risks, the economic risks associated
with a high concentration of illegally parked RVs are significant and can affect homeowners,
local businesses, and the municipal government. These risks are not caused by the
unhoused individuals themselves, but by the circumstances of living in unmanaged,
unsanctioned encampments that lack infrastructure and services.
Example Economic Use Case A: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Echelon…
Total Units in Echelon: 75
Conjecture A: $1.75 M average current value (Q4 2025)
Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation
Estimate A: $2.3 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.75 M / (1
- 25%)]
Estimate B: $43.8 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year
[($2.3 M - $1.75 M) * 75 units]
Estimate C: $438 k total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year
[annual property tax @ 1% property value]
Example Economic Use Case B: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Altaire,
Echelon, and Vantage…
Total Units: 254
Conjecture A: $1.7 M - $2.1 average current value per unit (Q4 2025)
Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation
Estimate A: $2.3 M - $2.8 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation
[$1.7 M / (1 - 25%); $2.1 M / (1 - 25%)]
Estimate B: $152 M - $178 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes
per year [($2.3 M - $1.7 M) * 254 units; ($2.8 M - $2.1 M) * 254 units]
Estimate C: $1.5 M - $1.8 M total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per
year [annual property tax @ 1% property value]
1. Impact on Real Estate and Property Values
This is often the most direct and significant economic impact for neighborhood residents.
Decreased Property Values: The presence of a large, unsanctioned encampment can
lead to a measurable decline in property values. Factors contributing to this include:
Perceived Decline in Safety and Quality of Life: Potential buyers are often
deterred by visible signs of disorder, sanitation issues, and perceived crime.
Visual Blight: The physical appearance of a large number of dilapidated or poorly
maintained vehicles, along with associated debris, can negatively impact the
aesthetic appeal of a neighborhood.
Noise and Air Pollution: Constant generator noise and exhaust fumes make the
neighborhood less desirable.
Difficulty Selling or Renting Properties:
Longer Market Time: Homes and apartments within the affected area may take
significantly longer to sell or rent.
Reduced Sale Prices and Rental Income: To attract buyers or tenants, property
owners may be forced to lower their asking prices or rent, leading to a direct financial
loss. Landlords may experience higher vacancy rates.
Stifled Home Improvement Investment: Homeowners may become hesitant to invest in
renovations or upgrades, fearing they will not see a return on their investment due to the
declining desirability of the neighborhood.
2. Increased Costs for Municipal and Public Services
The burden on public services translates directly to increased costs for the city, which are
ultimately borne by taxpayers.
Increased Emergency Service Costs: A high-density encampment places a
disproportionate demand on emergency services.
Fire Department: High frequency of calls for fires (vehicle, trash, tent), medical
emergencies, and responses to propane leaks or generator malfunctions. These
calls are resource-intensive.
Police Department: Increased calls for service related to disputes, wellness checks,
theft, and other crime, requiring significant officer time.
Paramedics/EMT: Frequent medical calls for both encampment occupants and
potential issues in the surrounding neighborhood.
Significant Sanitation and Cleanup Costs:
Biohazard Removal: Cleaning up human waste, used needles, and other
biohazardous materials requires specialized crews and equipment, which is far more
expensive than standard trash collection.
Large-Scale Debris Removal: The city often bears the cost of clearing out
abandoned vehicles, accumulated trash, and personal property after an encampment
is cleared. These operations can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars
per event.
Public Health Response Costs: As mentioned in the health risks, an outbreak of a
communicable disease like Hepatitis A would necessitate a costly public health campaign
for containment, testing, and vaccination.
3. Negative Impact on Local Businesses
Small, local businesses are particularly vulnerable to the economic fallout.
Reduced Revenue:
Loss of Foot Traffic: Customers may avoid shopping in areas they perceive as
unsafe or unpleasant. Difficulty finding parking and navigating blocked sidewalks can
further deter patrons.
Negative Reputation: A business located in or near a large encampment can suffer
from a damaged reputation, driving away both regular and potential new customers.
Increased Operational Costs:
Security: Businesses may need to hire private security guards or install expensive
surveillance systems.
Cleaning and Repairs: Daily costs for cleaning up litter, human waste, and graffiti
from their storefronts. Costs to repair vandalism or break-ins.
Higher Insurance Premiums: Commercial insurance rates may increase if the area
is deemed higher risk.
Employee-Related Issues: Businesses may struggle to attract and retain employees who
feel unsafe commuting to or working in the area, especially during early morning or late-
night shifts.
4. Direct Financial Costs to Residents
Beyond the impact on property values, residents may face direct, out-of-pocket expenses.
Installation of Security Measures: Many residents will feel compelled to spend money on
security cameras, enhanced lighting, alarms, and stronger fences.
Property Damage: Costs to repair damaged fences, remove graffiti, and replace stolen
items (e.g., packages, items from yards or cars).
Increased Insurance Rates: If the neighborhood experiences a documented increase in
crime or fire incidents, homeowners' insurance premiums could rise for everyone in the zip
code.
5. Broader Economic Stagnation and Disinvestment
If the situation persists, it can lead to long-term economic damage to the neighborhood.
Deterred Investment: Private developers and businesses will be reluctant to invest in a
neighborhood with such visible and unresolved social and sanitation issues. This can halt
new construction, prevent new businesses from opening, and lead to a downward
economic spiral.
Erosion of the Tax Base: A combination of declining property values and businesses
closing or relocating can lead to a reduction in the city's property and sales tax revenue
from that area. This, in turn, can mean less funding for public services, creating a vicious
cycle.
Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario:
In a dense scenario like this, the economic risks are not just potential; they become a sustained
reality.
Market Chill: The local real estate market would likely freeze or see a sharp, localized
crash. It would be difficult to sell a home at a fair market price within that radius.
Budgetary Strain: The cost to the city for services would become a significant, recurring
line item in the municipal budget, potentially diverting funds from other neighborhood
services like park maintenance or library hours.
"Red Zone" for Business: The immediate area would likely become a "no-go" zone for
new business investment, and existing small businesses would be under severe financial
pressure, with a high risk of failure.
In essence, a high concentration of RVs creates a localized economic crisis driven by the failure
to provide basic sanitation, safety, and housing infrastructure. The economic costs demonstrate
the financial consequence of not addressing the root causes of homelessness and the need for
managed, resourced solutions.
From:Loren Brown
To:Council, City
Subject:10-20-2025 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 20: OSV Parking
Date:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 4:22:20 PM
Attachments:CPA 10-20-25 Mtg Agenda Item 20 OSV Parking.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
10-15-2025
Dear City Council Members,
On behalf of business and property owners located on streets where OSVs have congregated in significant numbers,
I present the attached presentation for your consideration. We request that City Staff’s recommendations to City
Council associated with this Agenda Item number be modified to significantly mitigate the negative impacts of
OSVs parking on these streets.
Thank you.
ADDRESSING OVERSIZED VEHICLE (OSV) IMPACTS IN PALO ALTO
Presenter:
Melissa McDonough,
Assistant to the City Manager
OCTOBER 20, 2025 Paloalto.gov
TITLE 40 FONT BOLD
Subtitle 32 font
October 20, 2025
•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.
•Incorporates compassion, community livability and public safety.
PURPOSE / OVERVIEW OF COUNCIL ITEM
Paloalto.gov
3
How We Got Here
FEB 2025 Council study session on housing and homelessness
MAY 2025 Council Priority Objectives Adopted
JUN 2025 Human Relations Commission (HRC) Feedback
JUL 2025 Growing concern, anecdotal increase in vehicle dwellers
AUG 2025 Policy & Services Committee considers approaches to
address impacts
4
BASELINE INFORMATION
2025 Point-in-Time Count:
418 unhoused individuals
•73% in vehicles in Palo Alto (compared to 37% in vehicles countywide)
•168 vehicles (29 cars, 120 RVs, 19 vans)
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
5
Key Elements of P&S Recommendation
•Advance an ordinance to prohibit detached/inoperable vehicles on public streets
•Advance an ordinance to prohibit vanlording
•Advance implementation in a phased approach, including:
•Phase 1: street cleanups,consider buyback program, expand safe parking options
•Phase 2: Design a small-scale enhanced services pilot;begin exploration of limiting OSV
parking to certain streets, including considering a permit program
•Phase 3: Approve enhanced services pilot;approve preferred option for expanded safe
parking;identify streets for the limiting OSV parking to certain streets
•Phase 4: Evaluate enhanced services pilot;implement expanded safe parking;Council
approval and implementation for limiting OSV parking to certain streets
6
Additional Pilot Program for Consideration
Following up on P&S Committee recommendation to explore an OSV parking permit
program, staff is currently evaluating:
•Temporary pilot program to permit OSVs to park on one or a limited number of
streets where are OSVs currently parking; ordinance would be required
•Limit to a monthly (or other short duration) permit, requiring valid vehicle
registration only
•Permit renewal would require no citations for parking or other regulations
•Could be advanced with Phase 1
7
Phased Approach
•Accommodates some OSV parking demand while increasing regulation to manage impacts
•Sequencing frontloads a considerable body of new work and will require both new
resources and reprioritizing staff work
•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
4
PHASE ACTION ESTIMATED DURATION ESTIMATED COST
All Support program implementation 2 years $314K (total over 2 years), some prorate
some
Phase 1
1.1 Develop ordinance to prohibit detached/inoperable
vehicle parking on public streets
3 months –Jan 2026 Staff time only
1.2 Develop an ordinance to prohibit renting public
parking spaces
3 months –Jan 2026 Staff time only
1.3 Refine scope & begin implementation of additional
street cleanups and sweeping
3 months –Jan 2026 $548K FY26; +$269K FY27; can prorate
some
1.4 Begin adoption of ordinance(s) and contract(s)
approval on consent calendar
3 months –Jan 2026 Staff time only
1.5.1 Implement & enforce detached/inoperable vehicles
prohibition
Apr/May 2026 Unknown amount for signage, enforcement
included in 1.3 FY26; +$80K enforcement
FY27
1.5.2 Implement & enforce vanlord (public parking space
rental) prohibition
Apr/May 2026 enforcement included in 1.3, 1.5.2 FY26; +
$280K enforcement FY 27
1.6 Work with LifeMoves [and Santa Clara County] to
consider options (buyback, storage) to accept RV
residents quickly at Homekey or other housing
6 months –Apr/May 2026 Unknown -$150,000 FY27
1.7 Return to Council for direction on expanding safe
parking on privately-owned & congregational lots
If no site identified, then
9+ months –Aug 2026
Staff time only
10
PHASE ACTION ESTIMATED DURATION ESTIMATED COST
Phase 2
2.1 Develop small scale enhanced services pilot 5 months –Oct 2026 Staff time only
2.2 Begin exploration of limiting OSV parking to certain streets,
including process/criteria for designating streets, with
community engagement
6+ months –Nov/Dec
2026
Staff time only
2.2.1 Identify non-residential & non-residential adjacent streets 6+ months –Nov/Dec
2026
Staff time only
2.2.2 Tie the number of OSV permitted parking to the PIT Count <1 month Staff time only
2.2.3 Explore possibility of OSV permitting program 3+ months –Aug/Sep 2026 Staff time only
2.2.4 Evenly disburse permissible OSV parking across identified
streets to avoid overconcentration and mark clearly on those
streets where permitted
6+ months –Nov/Dec
2026
Staff time only
Note: Italicized text was part of a split motion. As some of these items also appeared elsewhere in the unanimous motion, where those
appear, they are also italicized.
11
PHASE ACTION ESTIMATED DURATION ESTIMATED COST
Phase 3
3.1 Council approval of enhanced services pilot and related
contracts/agreements
Nov/Dec 2026 $300,000-$400,000+ FY27
3.2 Council approval of preferred expanded safe parking option(s)Aug/Sept 2026 Staff time only
3.3 Council identification of streets where OSV parking permitted &
develop ordinances and program design
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only
3.4.1 Implement enhanced services pilot Jan/Feb 2027 Staff time only
3.4.2 Implement expanded safe parking (initial steps)Late 2026 & onward Staff time only
Note: Italicized text appeared in an earlier phase as part of a split motion.
12
PHASE ACTION ESTIMATED DURATION ESTIMATED COST
Phase 4
4.1 Evaluate enhanced services pilot Jan/Feb 2028 Staff time only
4.2 Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking June/July 2026 onward $270,000+ Midyear 26-27
4.3 Council approvals relating to limiting OSV parking to certain
streets
Jan/Feb 2027 $4.2 million one-time for
citywide signage FY27;
$400,000+ annually
thereafter
4.3.1 Implement “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” and begin
enforcement
3-6 months –
May/Aug 2027
Staff time only
Recommendation
1.Approve the phased approach to addressing oversized vehicle (including recreational vehicle) impacts, particularly
relating to individuals living in vehicles; and
2.Approve amendments to the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Appropriation to resource aspects of the phased approach in the:
a.General Fund by:
i.Increasing the contractual services appropriation for the City Manager’s Office by $157,000 for resources to
support program implementation;
ii.Decreasing the Reserve: Business Tax Revenue for Housing Affordability by $157,000;
iii.Increasing the contractual services appropriation for the Office of Transportation by $150,000 for engineering
services;
iv.Increasing the contractual services appropriation in the Public Works Department by $60,000 for street clean-
up services;
v.Increasing the contractual services appropriation in the Police Department by $95,000 for marking and
enforcement of vehicles;
vi.Decreasing the Budget Stabilization Reserve by $305,000
b.Refuse Fund by:
i.Increasing the contractual services appropriation by $245,000 for new permanent and temporary street
cleaning signage; and
ii.Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $245,000.9
Melissa McDonough
Assistant to the City Manager
Melissa.McDonough@PaloAlto.gov
650-329-2533