HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2510-5346CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 08, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
4.Adoption of Emergency and Regular Ordinances Prohibiting Unattached Trailer Parking
and Vanlording and a Resolution Amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule Imposing
Penalties; CEQA status – not a project. Public Comment
8
4
4
2
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Attorney
Meeting Date: December 8, 2025
Report #:2510-5346
TITLE
Adoption of Emergency and Regular Ordinances Prohibiting Unattached Trailer Parking and
Vanlording and a Resolution Amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule Imposing Penalties;
CEQA status – not a project.
RECOMMENDATION
As directed by the City Council on October 20, 2025, staff recommends Council adopt the
following legislation to prohibit unattached trailer parking and vanlording throughout Palo Alto:
1. An emergency ordinance and regular ordinance amending PAMC section 10.44.020 to
prohibit unattached trailer parking, with limited exceptions (Attachments A and D);
2. An emergency ordinance and regular ordinance prohibiting vanlording (Attachments B and
E); and
3. A resolution amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule to add penalties for the
ordinances above (Attachment C).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October 20, 2025, the City Council directed staff to return with two emergency ordinances to
address parking of certain oversized vehicles (OSVs) on City streets: an ordinance to prohibit
parking unattached trailers throughout the City and an ordinance to prohibit vanlording, the
practice of renting out OSVs for human habitation on public streets. The attached emergency
ordinances, which require 4/5 approval for adoption (6 votes), will go into effect immediately
upon adoption. The regular ordinances are substantively identical, and are included as a standard
practice to ensure enactment of the Council’s policy direction in the event that the emergency
ordinances are not adopted or are challenged.
Enforcement of the ordinance prohibiting the parking of unattached trailers includes citations
and towing, and can begin once signs are posted.1 Enforcement of the vanlording ordinance
includes citations and fines, as this ordinance targets landlords and not vehicle dwellers.
1 Additionally, the ordinance addressing unattached trailer parking also includes a clean-up provision authorizing
the City to tow where OSVs are prohibited from parking between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m., when appropriately signed.
8
4
4
2
These ordinances are part of Phase 1 strategies to address concerns relating to OSVs. Other
elements of Phase 1 are also underway. These include: increasing street cleanups and sweeping
of impacted streets, considering a buyback and/or storage option to accept OSV residents quickly
at housing, recruiting new safe parking on privately-owned and congregation-based parking lots,
and working with an Ad Hoc Committee to recommend details on increased enforcement and
other related items (e.g., evaluating ”Phase 2” activities such as considering limiting OSVs to
certain streets, creating permits, and developing an enhanced services pilot). Street cleanups and
sweeping will begin on initial impacted street segments in December, with additional streets
anticipated each week, excepting Christmas and New Year’s, until all currently impacted streets
are covered by spring 2026. The remaining issues are being worked on by the Ad Hoc with staff
support and an expected February report back to Council.
BACKGROUND
Safe Parking Capacity: The total countywide capacity is 332 spots (104 car spaces, 228
OSV spaces).
Towing Practice: While enforcement via towing and citation had been occurring
previously, in June of 2025, the Police Department assigned a dedicated supervisor to its
8
4
4
2
special enforcement detail and prioritized OSV-related issues. As a result, staff has
increased OSV-related enforcement activity in the form of more citations issued for
parking and nuisance violations and more tows. The dedicated staff have also assumed
responsibility for addressing Palo Alto 311 and other citizen inquiries on OSV issues. In
parallel, the Police Department has enhanced its collaboration with the City’s Homeless
Outreach Team, in the interest of connecting those cited with resources that can obviate
the need for towing in some cases.
Estimated Budget for Services and Enforcement:
Table 1: Estimated Budget for Services and Enforcement
TOTAL
ENFORCEMENT
TOTAL
SERVICE TOTAL
ADMINISTRATION $157,000 $157,000 $314,000
STREET SWEEPING $245,000 $- $245,000
CLEANING $60,000 $- $60,000
ENGINEERING $419,000 $- $419,000
ENFORCEMENT/ TOWING $975,000 $- $975,000
EXPANDED SAFE PARKING* $- $405,000 $405,000
SIGNAGE FOR PARKING
RESTRICTIONS**
$4,200,000 $- $4,200,000
BUYBACK STORAGE $- $150,000 $150,000
ENHANCED SERVICES $- $400,000 $400,000
TOTAL $6,056,000 $1,112,000 $7,168,000
* Note that the safe parking estimates assume adding 22 RV spaces.
**The $4.2 million for signage is the estimated maximum cost to sign Citywide. The cost will
ultimately vary depending on factors including 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.
ANALYSIS
Unattached Trailer Parking Prohibited
Unattached trailers will no longer be able to park on City streets under the attached emergency
and regular ordinances. There are very limited exceptions, including for trailers that have City-
issued construction permits.
State law requires that the City post signs giving notice of this new restriction before enforcing
it. The penalties for violation are citation (including fine) and towing of the trailer. Towing results
in additional fees for the owner to retrieve the trailer.
8
4
4
2
This ordinance also conforms the existing parking restriction that prohibits OSVs from parking
from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. in certain residential or public facility zones to state law requirements. First,
California courts have clarified that state law requires signs to be posted for this parking
restriction to be enforceable. Accordingly, a provision in the City‘s current ordinance specifying
that no signs are necessary has been deleted. Second, state law requires that local law authorize
towing as an enforcement measure for this parking restriction, and this ordinance makes towing
authorization explicit. Towing enforcement may begin when signs are updated to give notice that
violators are subject to tow. Staff anticipates updating signage beginning in December, with
anticipated completion for currently impacted street segments by spring 2026. The Police
Department will begin enforcement two weeks after the signs are installed. This allows the Police
Department to conduct direct outreach to ensure those affected are aware of the code update
and are subject to tow.
Vanlording Prohibited
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
3
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
4
ahead of the new ordinances and to help them understand the new ordinances, timeline, and
the accompanying enforcement. Additionally, staff has updated the broader community through
3 See Minutes from the October 20, 2025 Council Meeting, available at
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=16271&compileOutputType
=1
4 LifeMoves, the City’s contracted outreach provider, has a focused outreach plan related to the pending opening
of the Homekey interim housing shelter. A high level overview of this plan is included as Attachment F.
8
4
4
2
community updates via City communications channels and individual responses to residents and
business owners who have written or called with concerns or queries relating to the impacts of
OSVs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0290188_20251119_ms29
Ordinance No. _____
Emergency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Prohibi ng
Parking of Detached Trailers and Other Non-Motorized Vehicles on Public
Streets
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declara ons. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Sec on 22507 of the California Vehicle Code authorizes the City to regulate the parking
of vehicles on City streets.
B. The City has experienced a prolifera on of detached trailers and other non-motorized
vehicles parked on public streets and an associated increase in reports of public health,
safety and aesthe c concerns.
C. Street parking is a limited resource within the City. Storage of detached trailers and
other non-motorized vehicles on public streets consumes limited parking supply and
impedes the use of the public streets for temporary parking.
D. Detached non-motorized vehicles that cannot be moved on a regular basis impede
street sweeping and other clean-up opera ons and restrict views of motorists, cyclists
and pedestrians.
E. Inhabited non-motorized vehicles can lead to unauthorized gray and black water
disposal with the poten al for illegal discharges of sep c waste, wastewater, fuels, or
trash from such vehicles into City streets, gu ers, or storm drains due to their inability to
move to access authorized disposal sites. This is par cularly hazardous to the public
health because Palo Alto’s storm drain system flows directly into the San Francisco Bay.
The City has an obliga on under federal, state, and regional regula ons to keep
pollutants out of the storm drain system.
F. Detached trailers and other non-motorized vehicles cannot be easily or quickly moved in
an emergency and may therefore cause safety hazards.
G. This ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure to preserve the public peace,
health, and safety by mi ga ng the public health concerns associated with unauthorized
waste disposal and impeded street cleaning and the public safety concerns associated
with detached nonmotorized vehicles.
SECTION 2. Sec on 10.44.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows (addi ons underlined, dele ons struck through):
10.44.020 Standing or parking, two a.m. to six a.m.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0290188_20251119_ms29
(a) No person shall, between the hours of two a.m. and six a.m. of any day, unless
authorized by a hardship permit issued pursuant to Sec on 10.44.021 or a construc on or
maintenance permit issued pursuant to Sec on 10.40.045, park upon streets or alleys located
within a residen al zone or public facility zone any of the following vehicles:
(1) Oversized vehicles;
(2) Trailers;
(3) Camper shells;
(4) Tow trucks as defined by California Vehicle Code Sec on 615;
(5) Special construc on equipment as defined by California Vehicle Code Sec on
565.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this sec on, no signs or markings are necessary to
give effect to the restric ons and prohibi ons contained in this sec on. No person shall park or
leave standing a non-motorized vehicle upon any public street or highway.
(1) For the purposes of this subsec on, “non-motorized vehicle” means any trailer,
camp trailer, semitrailer or trailer coach as defined by the California Vehicle
Code. “Non-motorized vehicle” does not include any bicycle, scooter, or
micromobility device.
(2) This subsec on shall not apply to a nonmotorized vehicle that is a ached to a
vehicle capable of moving the nonmotorized vehicle in a lawful manner upon
the street, carries a hardship permit issued pursuant to Sec on 10.44.021 or a
construc on or maintenance permit issued pursuant to Sec on 10.40.045, is
ac vely being loaded or unloaded, or is undergoing emergency repairs.
(c) Where not inconsistent with the U.S. Cons tu on or other applicable law, vehicles
parked in viola on of this sec on are subject to tow.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the applica on to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or applica on and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are
hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 4. Effec ve Date. This ordinance shall be effec ve immediately upon
adop on by four-fi hs of the council members present.
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
0290188_20251119_ms29
SECTION 5. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a
project within the meaning of sec on 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) because it has no poten al for resul ng in physical change in the environment, either
directly or ul mately. Alterna vely, it is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines sec on
15308 as a regulatory ac on for the protec on of the environment.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City A orney City Manager
____________________________
Chief Transporta on Official
____________________________
Chief of Police
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0290190_20251119_ms29
Ordinance No. _____
Emergency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Prohibi ng
Rental of Vehicles for Human Habita on
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declara ons. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. The prac ce of ren ng out recrea onal vehicles or other oversized vehicles for use as living
or sleeping quarters, known as “vanlording,” is a growing concern in many ci es, including
the City of Palo Alto.
B. Recrea onal vehicles used for vanlording are parked on public streets, occupying valuable
and limited street parking spaces.
C. Allowing vanlords to rent out vehicles in the public right of way facilitates private profit-
taking from the use of a public resource.
D. The prac ce of vanlording is unlicensed and unregulated and therefore o en associated
with unregistered, poorly maintained, and inadequately insured vehicles.
E. Vanlords offer renters a place to stay without responsibly addressing health and safety
issues that can arise when inhabited vehicles are parked on public streets. These issues
include improper waste disposal, unsanitary condi ons, illegal parking, tapping into or
blocking fire hydrants or other u lity infrastructure, and the crea on of fires.
F. The ren ng out of vehicles for human habita on is not currently regulated. Unlike
tradi onal landlords and property management en es, vanlords are not explicitly subject
to laws that require the upkeep and maintenance of rental housing. Accordingly, those who
rent from them are not protected by laws that secure tenants’ rights or even basic
habitability standards.
G. With this ordinance, the City Council intends to prohibit vanlording within the City of Palo
Alto.
H. This ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure to preserve the public peace, health,
and safety by addressing the public health and safety impacts of vanlording, including fire
safety and sanita on impacts to nearby residents, businesses, and pedestrians.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.06 Rental of Vehicles for Human Habita on is hereby added to
Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to read as follows:
9.06.010 Rental of recrea onal vehicles for living or sleeping quarters – Prohibi on.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0290190_20251119_ms29
No person shall rent, lease, let out, or otherwise loan any oversized vehicle which is
subsequently u lized for living or use as sleeping quarters on any street, alley, or city-owned or
city-controlled premises in exchange for money, goods, or services.
For the purposes of this Chapter, “oversized vehicle” means any vehicle exceeding seven feet in
height or exceeding twenty feet in overall length or exceeding seven feet in width (including any
load or accessory thereon other than antennas), provided that this defini on shall not apply to
vehicles which exceed these dimensions solely because of modifica ons required to
accommodate a disability and the vehicle is lawfully displaying a disabled placard or license.
It shall not be necessary to prove that the person who rented, leased, let out, or otherwise
loaned any vehicle which was subsequently u lized for living or sleeping quarters intended or
knew that the vehicle would be used for living or use as sleeping quarters on any street, alley, or
city-owned premises.
9.06.020 Rental of recrea onal vehicles for living or sleeping quarters – Adver sements
prohibited.
No person shall adver se for rent, lease, let out, or loan in any newspaper, or through any other
medium including online, social media, or other pla orms, any oversized vehicle available for
the purpose of u lizing the vehicle for living or use as sleeping quarters on any street, alley, or
city-owned or city-controlled premises.
9.06.030 Rental of Vehicles in the Public Right of Way
It shall be unlawful for any person who deals in or whose business involves the rental or
leasing of vehicles, including recrea onal vehicles (RVs) or other oversized vehicles, to park,
store, or leave standing any such vehicles, whether occupied or vacant, on any street, alley, or
other public right-of-way during the conduct of such business. This prohibi on does not apply to
a vehicle owned only for personal use and not involved in the business of rental or leasing of
vehicles, if otherwise legally parked.
9.06.050 Rental of Space in the Public Right of Way
No person or en ty other than the City of Palo Alto and any of its departments or designees or
other appropriate public en ty shall have the authority to sell, lease, license, permit, reserve or
facilitate the reserving of any street, way, alley, highway, road, parkway, parking space or other
public right of way or City-controlled parking lot in the City of Palo Alto without wri en
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
0290190_20251119_ms29
authoriza on from the City. Any person who purports to sell, lease, license, permit, reserve or
facilitate reserving of space in the public right of way via a wri en or oral agreement of any
kind, with or without compensa on, is in viola on of this sec on.
9.06.060 Enforcement
Each day in which a viola on of this Chapter occurs shall cons tute a separate viola on of this
Chapter. Each vehicle in viola on of this Chapter shall cons tute a separate viola on of this
Chapter. Viola ons are enforceable through any penalty available by law, including those
specified in Title 1 of this Code.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the applica on to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or applica on and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are
hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 4. Effec ve Date. This ordinance shall be effec ve immediately upon
adop on by four-fi hs of the council members present.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4
0290190_20251119_ms29
SECTION 5. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a
project within the meaning of sec on 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) because it has no poten al for resul ng in physical change in the environment, either
directly or ul mately.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Assistant City A orney ____________________________
Chief of Police
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 1
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating the
Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain
Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Administrative Penalties. The administrative penalty schedule for violations of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code established by Resolution No. 10260 is hereby amended and
restated to read as follows (edited sections underlined, deleted sections in strikethrough):
Standard penalty unless otherwise indicated below. $50
Second violation within 36 month period 150% of listed penalty
(unless otherwise specified)
Third & subsequent violations within 36 month period. 200% of listed penalty
(unless otherwise specified)
Delinquency penalty. 10% per month, simple interest, on
delinquent amount
4.04.020 License or permit required. 300
4.04.100 Display of license or permit. 300
4.10.045 License fees for pushcart vendors. 300
4.10.050 Regulations for solicitors and peddlers. 350
4.10.055 Identification cards for solicitors. 250
4.10.057 Regulations for pushcart vendors. 300
4.10.070 License required - circus etc. 300
4.10.120 Arcade prohibited. 250
4.10.200 Pawn brokers prohibited. 250
4.10.230 Daily report of second hand dealers. 250
4.10.240 Maintaining reports - second hand dealers. 250
4.10.260 Failure to make report - second hand dealers. 250
4.10.270 Second hand goods held for inspection. 250
4.18.040 Unlawful dog or cat kennel. 250
4.30.010 Soliciting without a permit. 250
4.30.100 Conduct of solicitations. 250
4.32.020 Soliciting without a permit. 250
4.32.060 Investigation of records of solicitor. 250
4.32.090 Acts required during solicitation. 250
4.32.100 Restriction of solicitation. 250
4.32.110 Hours of solicitation. 250
4.34.020 Permit required - closing out sale. 250
4.39.030 Audible alarms. 250
4.39.040 Limitation on automatic dialing devices. 250
4.39.060 Registration of alarm. 250
4.39.110 Alarm violations. 100
4.42.020 Certificate of public convenience. 1000
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 2
4.42.085 Controlled substance and alcohol testing. 500
4.42.090 Taxi owners permit. 5000
4.42.100 Taxi drivers permit expired. 250
4.42.130(b) Taxi drivers permit not displayed. 250
4.42.190 Taximeters. 500
4.42.200 Taxi cab operating regulations. 250
4.42.210(a) Interference with inspection. 500
4.42.210(b) Inspection of vehicles. 500
4.42.220 Operating regulations. 500
4.42.230 Maintenance of vehicles. 500
4.51.030 License required - bingo. 250
4.51.050 Minors restricted - bingo. 50
4.51.080 Staffing and operations - bingo. 250
4.51.110 Physical presence required - bingo. 250
4.52.020 License required - billiards and bowling. 1000
4.52.040 Minors restricted - billiards and bowling. 250
4.52.060 Offensive conduct - billiards and bowling. 250
4.52.070 Interference w/emerg. Access -billiards/bowling. 250
4.54.060 CAMTC cert. required - massage tech. 250
4.54.080(a) Permit required - massage establishment. 1000
4.54.080(b)-(d) Prohibited conduct – massage establishment 250
4.54.130 Failure to amend massage estab. permit 100
4.54.140 Massage establishment facilities. 250
4.55.030 License required - adult entertainment. 1000
4.56.030 License required - hot tub and sauna. 1000
4.56.120 Business name - hot tub and sauna. 250
4.57.020 Permit required - firearms sales. 1000
4.57.095 Firearms dealers – business and security. 500
4.58.020 Minors restricted - narcotics paraphernalia shop. 750
4.58.030 Regulations - narcotics paraphernalia shop. 750
4.59.010 Pet shop requirements. 250
4.59.020 Pet shop sanitation. 250
4.59.030 Pet shop food. 250
4.59.040 Pet shop notification. 250
4.59.050 Pet shop - sale of dangerous or wild animals. 250
4.59.070 Dead animals. 250
4.59.080 Permit required - pet shop and kennel. 250
4.59.090 Permit required - grooming shop. 250
4.59.095 Sales of kittens and puppies. 250
4.59.100 Sales of raccoons. 250
4.59.105 Sales of rabbits, chicks, ducklings. 250
4.60.030 Business registration required 250
4.60.060 Business registry application required 250
4.60.120(a) Business registry fee delinquency 50% of registry fee if 1-30 days late
100% of fee or 31+ days late
5.12.010 Permit required - refreshment stand. 250
5.20.030 Discarding solid waste. 250
5.20.040 Accumulation of garbage. 250
5.20.050 Unauthorized bins, boxes, containers-first violation. 500
Second and subsequent violations. 1000
5.20.080 Number of containers required. 250
5.20.090 Collection of recyclable materials. 250 for Commercial Premises
50 for Residential Premises
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 3
5.20.100 Collection of compostable materials. 250 for Commercial Premises
50 for Residential Premises
5.20.105 Contamination of containers. 250 for Commercial Premises
50 for Residential Premises
5.20.108 Multifamily properties/Commercial premises. 250
5.20.109 Requirements for special events. 100
5.20.111 Self-haul in violation of code 100
5.20.120 Improper container condition. 250
5.20.130 Maintenance of bins and boxes- first violation. 250
Second and subsequent violations. 500
5.20.160 Spillage or leakage of solid waste. 250
5.20.180 No accumulation of solid waste. 250
5.20.190 No burning, burial, or dumping of solid waste. 250
5.20.200 Hazardous waste. 500
5.20.220 Scavenging prohibited. 100
5.30.020 Polystyrene & Non-Recyclable Plastic. 500
5.30.025(a)-(d) Limitation on use of Disposable Foodware items 100
and other Disposable products.
5.30.025(e) Prohibition of third-party vendors providing utensils 350
or condiments unless requested by customer.
5.35.020 Bags at retail establishments. 500
5.35.030 Bags at supermarkets. 500
6.08.020(b) Interference with animal control officer. 250
6.16.010 No dog license. 50
6.16.080 Number of dogs allowed. 100
6.16.100 Leash Law. 100
6.20.010 Animals at large. 100
6.20.020 Animals on unenclosed premises. 100
6.20.030 Animals kept in enclosures. 100
6.20.035 Tying animals to bicycle racks or trees. 100
6.20.040 Nuisance on sidewalk. 100
6.20.045 Animal waste removal - first offense. 25
6.20.045 Animal waste removal - second offense. 50
6.20.045 Animal waste removal - third offense. 125
6.20.055 Animals in vehicles. 250
6.20.060 Bees close to property line. 100
6.20.080 Permit required - livestock. 100
6.20.090 Maintaining birds, goats, pigs and rabbits. 100
6.20.110 Number of cats kept. 100
6.20.120 Permit required - breeding animals. 100
6.20.130 Cat or dog in heat. 100
6.20.140 Barking dogs. 100
6.20.150 Vaccination required - animals. 100
6.20.160 Sanitary enclosures. 100
6.20.170 Slaughter of animals. 500
6.24.020 Permit required - construction of stable. 250
6.24.050 Maintenance of stable. 250
6.28.040 Possession of dangerous or wild animals. 500
6.32.010 Keeping diseased animals. 500
6.32.020 Confining animals with rabies. 500
6.32.050 Dead animals in public. 500
6.36.010 Sales of certain animals. 250
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 4
8.04.020 Unauthorized removal of public trees 5000 per tree or reproduction cost
up to 10,000, whichever is greater
8.04.020(a) Failure to comply with permit 500 per tree
for work on public trees.
8.04.020(a) Damage to public trees 150 per inch diameter of damaged
tree part
8.04.020(b) Fasten a sign, wire, or injurious material 250 per tree
to any public tree.
8.04.020(c) Excavate or pave near public trees 500 per tree
8.04.080 Interference with tree enforcement. 500
8.08.010 Weeds as public nuisance. 250
8.10.040 Failure to disclose protected tree 500 per tree
8.10.050 Unauthorized removal of protected tree 5000 per tree or reproduction cost
up to 10,000, whichever is greater
8.10.055 Failure to comply with tree replacement. 750 per tree
8.10.070 Failure to care for protected trees. 500 per tree
8.10.080(b) Failure to comply with development conditions. 500 per condition
9.04.010 Open container in business district. 100
9.04.020 Open container in City parking lot. 100
9.04.030 Open container near liquor store. 100
9.04.040 Social host. First violation 250
Second violation 500
Third & subsequent violation 1000
9.06 (All sections) Vanlording prohibited 500
9.07.020 Safe Storage of Firearms 1000
9.08.010 Discharge of firearms/fireworks. 1000
9.09.010(a) Urinating/defecating on street or public place. 250
9.09.010(b) Igniting or maintaining outdoor fire. 250
9.10.030 Residential property noise limits. 100
9.10.040 Commercial property noise limits. 100
9.10.050 Public property noise limits. 100
9.10.060(b) Construction noise signs. 250
9.10.060(c) Construction noise. 250
9.10.060(d) Construction equipment noise. 100
9.10.060(e) Residential power equipment noise. 100
9.10.060(f) Leaf blower noise- first violation. 250
Leaf blower noise- second violation 500
Leaf blower noise- third and subsequent violation 1000
9.10.060(g) Street sweeping noise. 100
9.10.060(h) Refuse collection noise. 100
9.10.060(i) Safety device noise. 100
9.10.060(k) Public parking lot cleaning noise. 100
9.10.060(l) Business district street cleaning noise. 100
9.12.010 Loudspeakers. 150
9.14.020 Smoking prohibited - enclosed places. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.025 Smoking prohibited – unenclosed areas. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.030 Smoking prohibited - city cars. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 5
9.14.035 Smoking prohibited – public parks and public events 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.040 Smoking prohibited - child care facilities. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.050 Smoking prohibited – commercial areas
and public events. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.080 Location of tobacco vending machines. 1000
9.14.090 Display of tobacco products. 500
9.14.100 Failure to post “No Smoking” signs. 50
9.22.010 Impersonating public officials. 500
9.26.020 False representation as police officer. 250
9.28.010 Hotel guest register required. 250
9.28.020 Use of false name by hotel guest. 50
9.40.020 Landing aircraft at other than airport. 1000
9.44.010 Solicitation prohibited - public parking lot. 100
9.48.010 Displaying goods on sidewalk. 50
9.48.025 Sitting or lying on University Avenue sidewalks. 100
9.48.030 Operation of sidewalk elevator. 500
9.48.040 Throwing rubbish on streets. 250
9.48.050 Obligation to clean sidewalk. 200
9.50.010 Graffiti prohibited on public property. 500
9.56.030 Abatement of public nuisance. 500 unless otherwise specified
9.56.030(a)(5) Thirty-five foot site triangle. 200
9.56.030(a)(8) Foliage/branch obstruction. 200
9.56.030(a)(10) Excessive planting strip vegetation height. 150
9.60.030 Blocking entrances to City Hall. 500
9.60.050 Placing signs or climbing on City Hall. 500
9.60.060 Bicycles and skateboards at City Hall. 50
9.60.070 Alcoholic beverages prohibited - City Hall. 100
9.64.010 Overnight use of community facilities 250
9.74.030 Discrimination in housing. 250
9.78.020 Mosquito breeding places. 500
9.79.100 News rack violations. 100
12.08.010 Permit required - public right of way. 500
12.08.100 Removal of City Engineer monuments. 500
12.11.010 Building parklet on public right-of-way without 1000
permit
12.11.060 Violation of Chapter 12.11, permit, or regulations 500
12.12.010 Building on public easement without or in violation 1000
of encroachment permit
12.12.020 Failure to obtain or violation of commercial 500
sidewalk encroachment permit
12.16.030 Overhead wires in underground districts. 500
12.16.090 Property owner responsibility. 500
12.20.010 Utility rules and regulations 500 unless otherwise specified
12.20.010 Emergency water conservation regulations 100 (2nd violation in 1 year: $250;
(Reso. Nos. 9509, 9460, 9449) 3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
12.20.020 Providing false information to City Utilities. 500
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 6
12.32.010 Water use regulation. 100
15.04.070 Violations of Uniform Fire Code. 500 unless otherwise specified
16.04.050 Violations of California Building Code as amended. 500 unless otherwise specified
16.05.040 Violations of California Mechanical Code as amended500
16.06.050 Violations of California Residential Code as amended.500
16.08.040 Violations of California Plumbing Code as amended. 500
16.09.200 Violations of Sewer Use Ordinance 1000
16.10.020 Construction of private sewer system. 750
16.10.050 Permit required - private sewage system. 500
16.11 (All Sections) Violations of the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Ordinance 1000
16.13 (All Sections) Violations of the Food Facilities Ordinance 1000
16.14.040 Violations of California Green Building 500
Standards Code as amended
16.14.260 Failure to meet diversion requirements. $150 per ton of waste not
diverted or $3000, whichever is
greater
16.14.370 Failure to meet diversion requirements. $150 per ton of waste not
diverted or $3000, whichever is
greater
16.16.060 Violations of California Electrical Code as amended. 500
16.17.020 Violations of California Energy Code as amended. 500
16.18.020 Violations of International Pool and Spa Code as 500
amended
16.20.020 Design review required - signs. 500
16.20.090 Prohibited signs. 250
16.20.100 Prohibited locations - signs. 250
16.20.110 Fuel price signs required. 250
16.20.210 Non-compliance with sign ordinance. 250
16.20.230 Abandoned signs. 250
16.20.250 Parking of advertising vehicles. 250
16.24.080 Fence violation. 250
16.28.060 Permit required - excavation and grading. 500
16.28.330 Protection of adjacent property. 500
16.28.340 Deposits of earth, rock, etc. 500
16.32.010 Permit required - moving a building. 250
16.36.050 Curb painting without a permit. 100
16.36.060 House numbering required. 100
16.38.020 Certificate of occupancy – community housing. 500
16.40.040 Dangerous and substandard buildings. 500
16.40.090 Non-compliance with order of building official. 500
16.40.180 Interference with repair or demolition work. 500
16.42.090 Failure to submit seismic report. 250
16.45.070 Failure to pay fee - Stanford Research Park. 250
16.46.060 Failure to pay fee - San Antonio - West Bayshore. 250
16.47.050 Failure to pay housing impact fee. 250
16.49.050 Exterior alteration of downtown historic structures 10000
or a significant structure outside the downtown
without or in violation of permit
16.49.060 Demolition of a significant downtown building 10000
without or in violation of permit
16.49.070 Demolition of a contributing downtown structure 10000
or significant structure outside the downtown
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 7
without or in violation of permit
16.49.080 Maintenance of downtown historic structure. 10000
16.49.090 Demolition of downtown historic structure. 10000
16.52.070 Construction - flood hazards. 500
16.59.090 Failure to pay fee- Citywide Transportation Impact. 250
16.60.090 Failure to pay fee- Charleston/Arastradero. 250
16.62.020 Maintenance of expired building permit 200 for 31st through 60th day
400 for 61st through 120th day
800 for 121st day and thereafter
16.66 (All Sections) Violations of Hauled Liquid Waste 1000
Ordinance
17.04.020 Violations of hazardous materials storage. 500, unless otherwise specified
17.04.030 Specific obligation - hazardous materials. 500
17.10.010 General obligation - underground storage tanks. 750 unless otherwise specified
17.10.040 Permit required - underground storage. 500
17.10.140 Financial responsibility - underground storage. 500
17.10.150 Monitoring underground storage tanks. 1000
17.10.170 Unlawful abandonment - underground storage tanks.1000
17.12.010 Permit required - hazardous materials storage. 750
17.12.020 New hazardous materials storage facilities. 750
17.12.060 Hazardous materials storage facilities. 750
17.16.010 Hazardous materials management plan. 250
17.20.010 Hazardous materials inventory statement. 250
17.24.010 Hazardous materials discharge report. 750
17.32.010 Permit required - storage of hazardous materials. 1000
18.01.080 Violation of zoning laws. 500
18.16.060(d)Hotel stay in excess of 30 days. 200
18.38.020 Planned Community zoning (unless otherwise 500
specified in PC ordinance) 2500 beginning the 181st day
following notice of violation
Violations of Ordinance 5069 shall be subject to the penalties listed above except that the penalty
for violations of Sections 4(b)(1),
(2), (6), and (7) of Ordinance 5069
shall not be subject to the
penalties above or to the
escalators for second, third and
subsequent violations, but shall be
$2157 per day, for each and every
day that a grocery store is not in
operation within College Terrace
Centre in accordance with the
terms of Ordinance 5069. (The City
Council intends to adjust this
penalty amount periodically in
future updates to this
administrative penalty schedule to
account for periodic increases in
the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers.) In calculating
the penalties for such violations,
the City will allow for a grace
period for any daily violations that
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 8
do not exceed six (6) cumulative
months in any five (5) year period.
However, this grace period was
previously applied to violations
from 1/10/18 through 7/10/18, so
there is no entitlement to any
further grace period prior to
1/10/23.
18.42.060(a)Incompatibility of home occupations. 200
18.42.060(b) Employees of home occupation. 200
18.42.060(c) On site advertising of home occupation. 200
18.42.060(d) Floor area of home occupation. 200
18.42.060(e) Traffic related to home occupation. 200
18.42.060(f) Home occupation as nuisance. 200
18.42.060(g) Outdoor storage related to home occupation. 200
18.42.070 Servicing vehicles in residential zone. 250
18.52.050 Transportation demand management conditions 1000
4000 beginning the 181st day
following notice of violation
18.84.200 Temporary uses. 250
22.04.030 Compliance with park regulations. 46 for violation of regulation R1-6
requiring payment of Foothills Park
entry fee; 250 for violation of all
other Park & Open Space
Regulations.
22.04.040 Failure to obtain use permit. 300
22.04.150(b) Entry at unapproved location - Foothills Park 50
22.04.150(c) Person in park after hours - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.150(d) Speed limit 20MPH - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.150(e) Vehicles in Foothills Park after hours. 100
22.04.150(f) Skateboards and motorcycles - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.150(g) Smoking on trails - Foothills Park. 1000
22.04.150(h) Fires in Foothills Park. 1000
22.04.150(i) Use of trails - Foothills Park. 100
22.04.150(l) Unleashed dog - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.155 Restraint of dogs in City parks. 250
22.04.160 Permit required - sales in parks. 250
22.04.170 Violation of park use permit. 250
22.04.180 Sound in parks. 250
22.04.190 Unauthorized golf and other games in parks. 250
22.04.200 Unauthorized models and kites in parks. 100
22.04.210 Parking in parks. 100
22.04.215 Launch and takeout from ramp or dock. 250
22.04.220 Bicycle not permitted on trails. 250
22.04.230 Dumping in park. 1000
22.04.240 Interference with park use permit. 250
22.04.250 Park regulations . 250 unless otherwise specified
22.04.260 Discharge of weapons in park. 500
22.04.270 Removal of flora or fauna. 500
22.04.280 Removal of turf or soil. 500
22.04.290(a) Damaging, defacing, etc., property. 1000
22.04.290(b) Marking, writing or printing on property. 1000
22.04.290(c) Attaching sign, etc., without permit. 500
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 9
22.04.290(d) Entering, etc., structure after posted hours. 250
22.04.290(e) Bringing portable tables without a permit. 100
22.04.300 Unlawful fire in city park. 1000
22.04.310 Enid Pearson Arastradero, Esther Park closure. 250
22.04.315 Byxbee Park and Baylands closed. 250
22.04.320 Parks closed. 250
22.04.321(a)Skateboarding in park after hours. 50
22.04.322 Trespass at Rinconada Park pool. 50
22.04.330 Alcohol in Cogswell Park. 250
22.04.331 Alcohol in Lytton Plaza. 250
22.04.332 Alcohol in Johnson Park. 250
22.04.333 Alcohol in Boulware Park. 250
22.04.334 Alcohol in Scott St. Minipark. 250
22.04.335 Alcohol in Greer Park. 250
22.04.336(a)Alcohol in Rinconada Park. 250
22.04.337 Alcohol in Mitchell Park. 250
22.04.338 Alcohol in Robles Park. 250
22.04.339 Alcohol in Hopkins Park. 250
22.04.340 Vehicles in park. 250
22.04.341 Alcohol in El Palo Alto Park. 250
22.04.342 Alcohol in Heritage Park. 250
22.04.343 Alcohol in Pardee Park. 250
22.04.350 Consumption of alcoholic beverage in vehicles. 250
22.04.360 Open container in park - alcoholic beverage. 250
22.04.370 Reckless driving in park. 250
22.04.380 Unlawful riding and towing in parks. 250
22.04.390 Duck pond. 100
SECTION 2. Municipal Code Civil Penalties. The civil penalty schedule for violations of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code established by Resolution No. 10260 is hereby restated to read as follows*:
Standard penalty unless otherwise indicated below. $46
10.36.020 No parking in parkways. 46
10.36.030(a)Storage on the street (72 hours). 86
10.36.040(a)(1)Vehicle for sale on street. 46
10.36.040(a)(2)Repairing vehicle on street. 46
10.36.050 Not w/in 18” of left curb--One-way street. 46
10.36.090 Removal of chalk markings. 111
10.40.020(a)(1)Parking violation – red curb. 46
10.40.020(a)(4)Parking violation – green curb. 46
10.40.020(a)(5)Parking violation – blue curb. 308
10.40.020(b)Parking in violation of sign (except blue curb). 46
10.40.020(b)Unlawful disabled parking - signs (blue curb). 308
10.40.040(b)Commercial vehicle double parking. 46
10.40.050 Unlawful parking in yellow loading zone. 46
10.40.060 Unlawful parking in passenger loading zone. 46
10.40.070 Unlawful alley parking. 46
10.40.100(g)Parking in a bus zone. 46
10.44.010(b)Overtime parking (limited time zone). 41
10.44.010(c)Additional violation of time limited or no 44
parking zones.
10.44.020(a)Oversized vehicle parking in residential or 46
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 10
public facilities zones 2am-6am.
10.44.040(b)Not in space marking. 46
10.44.050(b)Parking violation--temporary sign. 46
10.44.060 Dealers--parking for sale or repair. 46
10.44.070(b)Parking in violation of posted sign. 46
10.44.080 Vehicle obstruction of roadway or lot. 46
10.44.090 Unattended vehicle, engine running. 111
10.45.110 Parking in on-street valet parking space. 46
10.46.110 Overtime residential parking permit (CT) 53
10.48.030 Truck route violation. 211
10.50.100(a)Violation of posted RPP permit sign 53
10.60.070(c)Permit not properly displayed. 41
10.60.070(d)Overtime permit parking in City lot. 41
10.60.070(e)Parking without permit in permit area. 46
22.04.150(e)In Foothills Park after hours. 111
22.04.210 Parking in parks. 111
Late payment penalty. 35
Collection cost penalty. 35% of listed penalty
*All penalties include state-mandated assessments pursuant to Gov’t. Code 76000, S.B 1407(2008), and
Government Code 76000.3 (S.B. 857, 2008) totaling $12.50.
SECTION 3. Vehicle Code Civil Penalties. The civil penalty schedule for violations of the
California Vehicle Code established by Resolution No. 10260 is hereby restated to read as
follows*:
5200 No front license plate. $78
(If corrected within 31 days) 10 (state mandated)
5204(a) No registration tabs on license plate. 78
(If corrected within 31 days) 10 (state mandated)
21113(a) Parking on public grounds. 46
22500(a) Parking in an intersection. 46
22500(b) Parking in a crosswalk. 46
22500(d) Parking w/in 15 feet--fire station driveway. 46
22500(e) Blocking driveway. 46
22500(f) Parking on sidewalk. 46
22500(g) Parking or stopping--excavation site, etc. 46
22500(h) Double parking on roadway. 46
22500(i) Parking in a bus zone. 261
22500(l) Parking in front of accessible curb. 303
22500.1 Parking in a fire lane (public or private). 46
22502 Right hand wheels not w/in 18” of rt. curb. 46
22505(b) Parking on state highway violation. 46
22507.8(a-b)Unlawful parking in handicapped space. 303
22507.8(c)(1-2)Straddling Lines/Cross hatched, disabled. 303
22511.57(a) Parking/standing of vehicle in disabled parking $753
stall or space with invalid license/placard.
22511.57(b) Unauthorized use of license/placard for vehicle $753
parking/standing in disabled parking stall or space.
22511.57(c) Parking/standing of vehicle in disabled parking $753
stall or space with counterfeit, forged, altered or
mutilated license/placard for disabled.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
148_20251124_ts24 11
22514 Parking within 15 feet of fire hydrant. 46
22515 Unattended vehicle, engine running. 111
22516 Person locked in vehicle. 111
22521 Parking within 7 1/2 feet of railroad tracks. 46
22522 Parking near sidewalk access ramp. 303
22523(a) Unlawful abandonment of vehicle on highway. 131
22523(b) Abandoned vehicle--public/private property. 131
22526 Entering/blocking intersection – anti-gridlock. 131
22951 No street, alley parking--patron vehicles. 46
*All penalties include state-mandated assessments pursuant to Gov’t. Code 76000, S.B 1407(2008), and
Government Code 76000.3 (S.B. 857, 2008) totaling $12.50.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental
assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required.
SECTION 5. The changes made in this Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
________________________________ ________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_______________________________ ________________________________
City Attorney or Designee City Manager
________________________________
Chief of Police
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0290189_20251119_ms29
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Prohibiting Parking of
Detached Trailers and Other Non-Motorized Vehicles on Public Streets
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Section 22507 of the California Vehicle Code authorizes the City to regulate the parking
of vehicles on City streets.
B. The City has experienced a proliferation of detached trailers and other non-motorized
vehicles parked on public streets and an associated increase in reports of public health,
safety and aesthetic concerns.
C. Street parking is a limited resource within the City. Storage of detached trailers and other
non-motorized vehicles on public streets consumes limited parking supply and impedes
the use of the public streets for temporary parking.
D. Detached non-motorized vehicles that cannot be moved on a regular basis impede street
sweeping and other clean-up operations and restrict views of motorists, cyclists and
pedestrians.
E. Inhabited non-motorized vehicles can lead to unauthorized gray and black water disposal
with the potential for illegal discharges of septic waste, wastewater, fuels, or trash from
such vehicles into City streets, gutters, or storm drains due to their inability to move to
access authorized disposal sites. This is particularly hazardous to the public health
because Palo Alto’s storm drain system flows directly into the San Francisco Bay. The City
has an obligation under federal, state, and regional regulations to keep pollutants out of
the storm drain system.
F. Detached trailers and other non-motorized vehicles cannot be easily or quickly moved in
an emergency and may therefore cause safety hazards.
SECTION 2. Section 10.44.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows (additions underlined, deletions struck through):
10.44.020 Standing or parking, two a.m. to six a.m.
(a) No person shall, between the hours of two a.m. and six a.m. of any day, unless authorized
by a hardship permit issued pursuant to Section 10.44.021 or a construction or maintenance
permit issued pursuant to Section 10.40.045, park upon streets or alleys located within a
residential zone or public facility zone any of the following vehicles:
(1) Oversized vehicles;
(2) Trailers;
(3) Camper shells;
(4) Tow trucks as defined by California Vehicle Code Section 615;
(5) Special construction equipment as defined by California Vehicle Code Section 565.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0290189_20251119_ms29
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, no signs or markings are necessary to give
effect to the restrictions and prohibitions contained in this section. No person shall park or
leave standing a non-motorized vehicle upon any public street or highway.
(1) For the purposes of this subsection, “non-motorized vehicle” means any trailer,
camp trailer, semitrailer or trailer coach as defined by the California Vehicle Code.
“Non-motorized vehicle” does not include any bicycle, scooter, or micromobility
device.
(2) This subsection shall not apply to a nonmotorized vehicle that is attached to a
vehicle capable of moving the nonmotorized vehicle in a lawful manner upon the
street, carries a hardship permit issued pursuant to Section 10.44.021 or a
construction or maintenance permit issued pursuant to Section 10.40.045, is actively
being loaded or unloaded, or is undergoing emergency repairs.
(c) Where not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution or other applicable law, vehicles parked in
violation of this section are subject to tow.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day
after the date of its adoption.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
0290189_20251119_ms29
SECTION 5. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a
project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either
directly or ultimately. Alternatively, it is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section
15308 as a regulatory action for the protection of the environment.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Chief Transportation Official
____________________________
Chief of Police
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0290191_20251119_ms29
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Prohibi ng Rental of Vehicles for
Human Habita on
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declara ons. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. The prac ce of ren ng out recrea onal vehicles or other oversized vehicles for use as
living or sleeping quarters, known as “vanlording,” is a growing concern in many ci es,
including the City of Palo Alto.
B. Recrea onal vehicles used for vanlording are parked on public streets, occupying
valuable and limited street parking spaces.
C. Allowing vanlords to rent out vehicles in the public right of way facilitates private profit-
taking from the use of a public resource.
D. The prac ce of vanlording is unlicensed and unregulated and therefore o en associated
with unregistered, poorly maintained, and inadequately insured vehicles.
E. Vanlords offer renters a place to stay without responsibly addressing health and safety
issues that can arise when inhabited vehicles are parked on public streets. These issues
include improper waste disposal, unsanitary condi ons, illegal parking, tapping into or
blocking fire hydrants or other u lity infrastructure, and the crea on of fires.
F. The ren ng out of vehicles for human habita on is not currently regulated. Unlike
tradi onal landlords and property management en es, vanlords are not explicitly
subject to laws that require the upkeep and maintenance of rental housing. Accordingly,
those who rent from them are not protected by laws that secure tenants’ rights or even
basic habitability standards.
G. With this ordinance, the City Council intends to prohibit vanlording within the City of
Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.06 Rental of Vehicles for Human Habita on is hereby added to
Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to read as follows:
9.06.010 Rental of recrea onal vehicles for living or sleeping quarters – Prohibi on.
No person shall rent, lease, let out, or otherwise loan any oversized vehicle which is
subsequently u lized for living or use as sleeping quarters on any street, alley, or city-owned or
city-controlled premises in exchange for money, goods, or services.
For the purposes of this Chapter, “oversized vehicle” means any vehicle exceeding seven feet in
height or exceeding twenty feet in overall length or exceeding seven feet in width (including any
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0290191_20251119_ms29
load or accessory thereon other than antennas), provided that this defini on shall not apply to
vehicles which exceed these dimensions solely because of modifica ons required to
accommodate a disability and the vehicle is lawfully displaying a disabled placard or license.
It shall not be necessary to prove that the person who rented, leased, let out, or otherwise
loaned any vehicle which was subsequently u lized for living or sleeping quarters intended or
knew that the vehicle would be used for living or use as sleeping quarters on any street, alley, or
city-owned premises.
9.06.020 Rental of recrea onal vehicles for living or sleeping quarters – Adver sements
prohibited.
No person shall adver se for rent, lease, let out, or loan in any newspaper, or through any other
medium including online, social media, or other pla orms, any oversized vehicle available for
the purpose of u lizing the vehicle for living or use as sleeping quarters on any street, alley, or
city-owned or city-controlled premises.
9.06.030 Rental of Vehicles in the Public Right of Way
It shall be unlawful for any person who deals in or whose business involves the rental or
leasing of vehicles, including recrea onal vehicles (RVs) or other oversized vehicles, to park,
store, or leave standing any such vehicles, whether occupied or vacant, on any street, alley, or
other public right-of-way during the conduct of such business. This prohibi on does not apply to
a vehicle owned only for personal use and not involved in the business of rental or leasing of
vehicles, if otherwise legally parked.
9.06.050 Rental of Space in the Public Right of Way
No person or en ty other than the City of Palo Alto and any of its departments or designees or
other appropriate public en ty shall have the authority to sell, lease, license, permit, reserve or
facilitate the reserving of any street, way, alley, highway, road, parkway, parking space or other
public right of way or City-controlled parking lot in the City of Palo Alto without wri en
authoriza on from the City. Any person who purports to sell, lease, license, permit, reserve or
facilitate reserving of space in the public right of way via a wri en or oral agreement of any
kind, with or without compensa on, is in viola on of this sec on.
9.06.060 Enforcement
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
0290191_20251119_ms29
Each day in which a viola on of this Chapter occurs shall cons tute a separate viola on of this
Chapter. Each vehicle in viola on of this Chapter shall cons tute a separate viola on of this
Chapter. Viola ons are enforceable through any penalty available by law, including those
specified in Title 1 of this Code.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the applica on to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or applica on and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are
hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 4. Effec ve Date. This ordinance shall be effec ve on the thirty-first day
a er the date of its adop on.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4
0290191_20251119_ms29
SECTION 5. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a
project within the meaning of sec on 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) because it has no poten al for resul ng in physical change in the environment, either
directly or ul mately.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Assistant City A orney ____________________________
Chief of Police
November 24,2025
LifeMoves Palo Alto Outreach Plan
LifeMoves, the City of Palo Alto’s contracted outreach provider and the region’s
largest nonprofit addressing homelessness, delivers street-based engagement,
shelter, and supportive services with the goal of helping as many Palo Altans as
possible move toward housing stability and ensuring those most in need are
prioritized and ready for HomeKey when it opens. LifeMoves’ Outreach focuses on
engaging the highest-need individuals in Palo Alto, including those with high
VI-SPDAT 1 scores, those known to service providers, and RV dwellers. Key
strategies include:
● Targeted outreach to individuals with high vulnerability scores.
● Supporting clients to enroll in Here4You 2 if they are not already registered.
● Encouraging clients already enrolled to ensure that their Palo Alto
connection was shared with the hotline.
● For Palo Altans historically resistant to services outside of Palo Alto, explore
the HomeKey site as an option to increase engagement and enrollment.
Focus Areas:
● Highest vulnerability individuals
● High-profile cases in the City
● RV dwellers
What We’ve Done So Far
● Identified individuals who are willing to give up RVs once they receive
placement at HomeKey.
● Connected individuals who identify as Palo Altans to Here4You.
● Conducted continuous outreach to RV dwellers, providing information on
available services and supports.
2 Here4You is the 24-hour hotline and entry point for any shelter bed in Santa
Clara County, including Palo Alto Homekey.
1 An assessment that measures vulnerability to prioritize housing and services.
2550 Great America Way, Suite 201
Santa Clara, CA 95054
650.685.5880
www.lifemoves.org
● Focused engagement on individuals most visible to the City.
● Collaborated closely with the Palo Alto Police Department, particularly
regarding RVs scheduled for towing and repeat public nuisance cases.
● Maintained strong partnerships with other service providers to ensure
coordinated support for community members by coordinating closely with Abode
Services, Peninsula Healthcare, and Bill Wilson Center to identify, engage, and
support individuals for HomeKey.
How Outreach is Currently Going
Outreach is progressing with positive engagement from clients. Many individuals
are responsive to support offers and enrollment opportunities. Continued
coordination with City and partners is helping address challenges with engagement
and documentation readiness.
Next Steps
● Continue communication and coordination with the City and provider
partners, and collaborate with the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing
to align on referral criteria, prioritization, and client readiness.
● Prepare clients for the HomeKey launch in early 2026, including enrollment,
documentation, and service connection support.
● Increase targeted outreach efforts as the program launch approaches.
Provider Partner Coordination
LifeMoves is actively working with partners to align outreach, share information, and
support clients:
● Partnering with Peninsula Healthcare Connection to identify individuals with
significant health needs.
● Coordinating with Move Mountain View and The Karat School Project to
identify families living in RVs and other potential program candidates.
● Ensuring that individuals affected by the Downtown Streets Team closure
have been incorporated into OSC for continued engagement.
2550 Great America Way, Suite 201
Santa Clara, CA 95054
650.685.5880
www.lifemoves.org
From:Taly Katz
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Vote YES Tonight — We Need Action on Trailers & Vanlords
Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 11:23:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Subject: Please Vote YES Tonight — We Need Action on Trailers & Vanlords
Council Members,
I’m writing to urge a strong YES vote on the trailer and vanlord ordinances tonight. What’s
happening on our streets has simply gone too far. I truly feel for the people living in these
vehicles, but compassion cannot mean letting our public streets turn into unmanaged, unsafe
encampments.
What began as a temporary situation has grown into something completely out of control.
With no enforcement, these areas have effectively become low-cost housing zones by default,
bringing serious sanitation, safety, and parking problems into our neighborhoods. Residents
and businesses have been living with the consequences for years, and it’s not fair to ask the
community to keep tolerating conditions that clearly aren’t working and break the law!
Supporting these ordinances is not about being heartless — it’s about finally taking the first
real step to restore order, address the impacts we’re all feeling, and push for solutions that
belong in appropriate, regulated spaces, not on public streets.
Please vote YES tonight. Palo Alto desperately needs this change.
Thank you for listening and for taking this issue seriously.
Sincerely,
Taly Katz
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Fw: December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #4: Unattached Trailer Parking and Vanlording
Date:Sunday, December 7, 2025 5:48:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
CORRECTION TO LETTER ON AGENDA ITEM #4
Paragraph #3 regarding San Francisco and San Jose should haveused the connective "or" instead of "and" as shown below inbold, italic, underscored type in that paragraph.
From: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2025 1:37 AM
To: City Council Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #4: Unattached Trailer Parking and
Vanlording
DECEMBER 8, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #4: UNATTACHED TRAILER PARKING AND VANLORDING
I urge you to amend the proposed ordinances to include anamendment to the definition of "Residential zone" in Palo AltoMunicipal Code (PAMC) Section 10.44.015(a)(4) that is neededwhether or not you adopt the rest of the proposed ordinances,because "residential zone" also includes Planned Community Zone(PC) Districts, including those PC Districts that are alsoPlanned Home Zone (PHZ) Districts, because they are primarilyresidential, including Greenhouses I and II on San AntonioRoad, Bridge Housing on Fabian Way, and Stevenson House onCharleston Road, as well as other housing developmentselsewhere in the city, including Lytton Gardens, Webster Woods,and Channing House, plus the new housing planned for the SanAntonio Road corridor.
PAMC Section 10.44.015(a)(4) should read: "Residential Zone"means all lands located within the following zoning districts:RE, R1, R2, RMD, RM-20, RM-30, and RM-40, and those PC zoningdistricts where a majority of the Gross Floor Area isresidential, including but not limited to PC zoning districtsthat are PHZ Zoning Districts; where one side of a street islocated within one of these districts, then the portion of theopposite side of the street directly across from theresidential district shall also be included in the definitionof a residential zone;
San Francisco and San Jose have required those housed invehicles on the street to either move into housing provided, orgo to jail, or move out of those cities. Many of thoseindividuals move to Palo Alto.
So do vehicle dwellers from our neighboring cities of Menlo
Park and Mountain View.
Simply checking the address history of drivers licenses andvehicle registrations would allow you to set a priority whenthere is limited space available in Palo Alto for people livingin vehicles.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herr Borock
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #4: Unattached Trailer Parking and Vanlording
Date:Sunday, December 7, 2025 5:37:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
DECEMBER 8, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #4: UNATTACHED TRAILER PARKING AND VANLORDING
I urge you to amend the proposed ordinances to include anamendment to the definition of "Residential zone" in Palo AltoMunicipal Code (PAMC) Section 10.44.015(a)(4) that is neededwhether or not you adopt the rest of the proposed ordinances,because "residential zone" also includes Planned Community Zone(PC) Districts, including those PC Districts that are alsoPlanned Home Zone (PHZ) Districts, because they are primarilyresidential, including Greenhouses I and II on San AntonioRoad, Bridge Housing on Fabian Way, and Stevenson House onCharleston Road, as well as other housing developmentselsewhere in the city, including Lytton Gardens, Webster Woods,and Channing House, plus the new housing planned for the SanAntonio Road corridor.
PAMC Section 10.44.015(a)(4) should read: "Residential Zone"means all lands located within the following zoning districts:RE, R1, R2, RMD, RM-20, RM-30, and RM-40, and those PC zoningdistricts where a majority of the Gross Floor Area isresidential, including but not limited to PC zoning districtsthat are PHZ Zoning Districts; where one side of a street islocated within one of these districts, then the portion of theopposite side of the street directly across from theresidential district shall also be included in the definitionof a residential zone;
San Francisco and San Jose have required those housed invehicles on the street to either move into housing provided, orgo to jail, and move out of those cities. Many of thoseindividuals move to Palo Alto.
So do vehicle dwellers from our neighboring cities of MenloPark and Mountain View.
Simply checking the address history of drivers licenses andvehicle registrations would allow you to set a priority whenthere is limited space available in Palo Alto for people livingin vehicles.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herr Borock
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto RV Count Update (as of 12/3/25)
Date:Sunday, December 7, 2025 12:40:21 PM
Attachments:RV Inventory_03Dec25.xlsx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council,
In advance of tomorrow’s (12/8) Council Meeting I thought I would provide you with my latest (Bob’s PTT) count of the RVs on Plao Alto streets. I wanted to take this snapshot before the street sweeping
commenced in the E. Embarcadero corridor. I’m sure we all will be interested in the outcome of the street sweeping to see if it has any long rage impacts or it is just another inconvenience like the 72 hour
regulation.
It is unfortunate to note that number of streets that RVs (OSVs) reside on has increased from 21 to 23 (see yellow cells). Hopefully, current street sweeping actions will not just move the RVs to additional Palo
Alto streets and closer to residents. I have already cautioned the manager of an apartment complex that borders the north edge of Greer Park (Amarillo Ave.) about the RV that has begun parking there.
Here are a few photos from yesterday (except photo #1)…
East Embarcadero before street sweeping
East Embarcadero after street sweeping
E. Embarcadero after street sweeping - - Imaging riding your bike down this street unimpeded
E. Embarcadero
Faber Place - - Earning for the Street Sweeper
Faber Place - - Just one small example
Palo Alto On Street RV Count
Street Segment RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs
10/21/25 &11/2 &11/10 &11/19 &12/3
10/22/2025 11/3 11/11 11/20
1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17
2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 7 8 8
3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 52 52 56 53
4 East Meadow At Intersection with Fabian Way 0 0 0 0 1
5 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 2 1 1 1
6 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 12 12 11 11
7 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 12 13 13 15
8 Commercial St.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.12 14 14 15 15
9 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 10 10 10 10
10 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 12 12 12 13
11 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 5 5 6 6
12 Amarillo Ave.Bordering North Edge of Greer Park 0 0 0 0 1
13 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 13 12 15 8
14 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 13 10 10 11
15 Faber Pl.Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.25 23 23 23 25
200 193 188 197 195
16 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 3 3 4
17 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 1 1 2
18 Ash St.Between Oregon Expressway & Olive Ave.1 1 2 0 0
19 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 4 4 6 4
20 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 2 2
21 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 6
22 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 1 1
23 Matadero Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.0 1 1 1
20 18 19 19 19
Total:220 211 207 216 214
San Antonio Rd.East of 101 (PA/MV Border)7
Yellow RVs on New Street
Ventura Area
C:\Users\stavera\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\05N9IUBJ\RV Inventory_03Dec25 12/8/2025 12:43 PM
From:Dave Wills
To:Clerk, City
Cc:Kratt, Ken; Council, City
Subject:OSVs
Date:Saturday, December 6, 2025 9:29:45 AM
Dear City Council,
I wrote to you last August (copied below) regarding OSVs. My personal safety concern is on
Embarcadero East. Since that time and since the police have started to enforce the 72 hour
limit there, things have improved. There are fewer OSVs parked. Most (but not all) of the
curbs on either side of driveways have been painted red. This was a complaint I, and probably
others, made because the OSVs blocked the view of the sidewalk and bike lane from drivers'
view. Also, it appears all of the vehicles for sale and with expired plates have been removed.
My thanks to the police department for making Embarcadero safer. But there is more to do.
There are still RVs with expandable sides which extend into the bike lane.
Since I sent my previous email I learned of Cupertino's latest law on OSVs. You probably
already know, but here are some links:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/09/17/cupertino-rv-parking-ban-homelessness/amp/
https://share.google/spAeB3DYBbMbAlmuH
Just one quote from Cupertino councilmember Ray Wang: ?If you?re the last city with (a ban),
you?re the one left holding the bag.? Please don't let Palo Alto become the dumping ground
for OSVs
I've also learned that Sunnyvale is preparing to implement similar bans.
You'll see in the email below that I suggested a permit solution. The city already issues
permits for residential parking so adding OSV parking permits should not be difficult. And, it
gives the city a way to move out abusers (OSV users who dump trash and waste, or create
threatening environments) while allowing acceptable neighbors. A permit system may
incentivize RV residents to keep their own neighborhoods clean and safe. Should you create a
permit process for OSVs, please also consider ways to deny permits to those who abuse it.
Thanks for reading my email.
Regards,
Dave Wills
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:25:22 -0700
To: city.clerk@paloalto.gov
From: Dave Wills
Subject: Policy and Services Committee Meeting - OSV
Cc: Ken.Kratt@paloalto.gov, City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Dear Policy and Services Committee,
At the meeting Monday you indicated you wanted to hear potential solutions.
Here are my proposed near-term solutions:
1. ENFORCE THE LAWS AS THEY STAND NOW.
I think it's great that the PAPD shows compassion for both residents and visitors.
They must always act as humans, not as storm troopers. On the other hand,
showing compassion for transient residents in illegally parked vehicles because
they live in the vehicles means they are not showing compassion for the residents
and businesses who are highly impacted by the illegally parked vehicles.
In my opinion, it is not the PAPD's job to decide which group, residents,
temporary residents or transients, should have priority when it comes to law
enforcement.
2. Consider implementing code as currently used by Menlo Park and Mountain
View. This includes a ban of on-street parking of OSVs as well as height
limitations. I understand from Ms. Veenker's statement that Palo Alto might be
afraid of law suits. Being afraid of law suits is not a valid reason for doing what's
right for the residents.
3. Consider banning overnight parking or putting parking time limits in problem
areas.
4. Consider implementing parking permits as used in some neighborhoods. The
location, number of vehicles, size of vehicles, length of permit, or even other
conditions such as how closely OSVs are permitted to park near driveways and
streets could be restricted by the permit.
I believe City staff and your committee have considered some of these already.
Regardless of what near-term solutions you choose and the Council implements,
those will be useless unless the PAPD enforces the laws. (See Item 1. above.)
The problems have gotten significantly worse in the past 2 years, in my opinion
largely because the PAPD does not enforce the laws.
In conclusion, I will re-state something I said in a previous email to your
committee.
Never sacrifice pubic safety for OSV parking. As I have said and others
iterated on Monday, this is certainly happening now.
Thanks for reading my email.
Dave Wills
From:Chris Schremp
To:Council, City
Cc:Christine Schremp
Subject:IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS
Date:Saturday, December 6, 2025 7:48:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Palo Alto City Council Members:
We are writing to express our profound dissatisfaction with the escalating crisis of illegally
parked recreational vehicles (RVs), oversized vehicles, and trailers currently plaguing our
city streets. This situation is unacceptable and demands immediate, decisive
intervention.
These illegal encampments are concentrated on, but not limited to, streets such as East
Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, E. Embarcadero Rd, Commercial St, Portage Ave, and
Sheridan Ave.
Failure to Enforce Existing Law
We formally demand the immediate and rigorous enforcement of all current municipal
codes, specifically:
1.
Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020: This code explicitly prohibits standing or
parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. within any residential or public facility
zone. The current lack of enforcement is an abject failure of municipal responsibility,
effectively permitting this illegal activity to flourish.
2.
All other applicable ordinances governing vehicle size, duration of parking, and
use of public rights-of-way as residences.
The Current Crisis: Public Health and Safety Risk
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
The City Council must recognize this as a severe public health and safety threat, not a
mere parking issue. With well over 200 vehicles now documented, the impacts on tax-
paying residents and families are critical:
Public Health Hazard: Illegal dumping of sewage and trash directly onto public
streets and storm drains poses an undeniable environmental and biological risk.
Safety and Egress: Vehicles are frequently parked in a manner that obstructs clear
lines of sight, impedes traffic flow, and blocks ingress/egress for both residents'
driveways and emergency vehicles.
Strain on City Services: These non-resident, non-taxpaying dwellers are illegally
utilizing Palo Alto’s public services while the City exhibits a damaging pattern of
relaxed enforcement and regulatory inaction.
Demand for Immediate Legislative and Enforcement Action
The time for deliberation is over. We require two simultaneous actions:
1.
Immediate, Zero-Tolerance Enforcement: Activate the Palo Alto Police Department
to begin issuing citations and initiating towing procedures for all vehicles in violation
of PAMC 10.44.020, effective immediately.
2.
Rapid Enactment of New Legislation: Should the existing codes prove insufficient,
we demand that the City Council immediately prioritize and enact stringent new
ordinances that explicitly and definitively prevent the use of city streets for residency
and prohibit the long-term parking of oversized and recreational vehicles.
WE WILL NOT TOLERATE the continued erosion of our neighborhood safety, health, and
quality of life due to the City's unwillingness to act.
We demand a public, concrete plan of action—complete with timelines for enforcement and
new legislation—within seven (7) days of the submission of this letter.
TAKE ACTION NOW.
Sincerely,
Christopher & Christine Schremp
3721 Ortega Ct
617-840-7622 (cell)
From:JEANETTE BALDWIN
To:Council, City
Cc:John Schafer; Loren Brown
Subject:STOP OSVs from parking in Palo Alto Business Parks
Date:Friday, December 5, 2025 5:16:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Council People.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email. I'll try to keep it brief. I have addressed the council
before, and I cannot stress enough how dangerous it is for oversized vehicles to be on the street.
My business is located at the intersection of Embarcadero Rd and Faber, where Faber is already
a narrow street. These large vehicles, along with their subsequent trash, parking cones, pop-outs,
and general filth, prevent people from using the sidewalks to access the baylands. As a result,
pedestrians are forced to walk/bike in the middle of the road, creating a significant risk for serious
accidents. The city is aware of the danger and has blocked off their area adjacent to Embarcadero
Way to ensure their drivers have the visibility they need. In addition to the health and safety risks,
these vehicles also hinder delivery trucks from entering or exiting our lot. We are experiencing
delays with tow trucks, parts orders, and oil deliveries, which are negatively impacting our
business and creating additional liabilities as we try to manage our daily operations.
This is not the time to go into the ridiculous amount of money the council is willing to devote to this
problem, but it should be seriously reconsidered. Simply enforcing the already existing laws would
alleviate all the angst and fix the problems. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.
Best regards,
--
Jeanette Baldwin
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Joe Montelongo
To:Council, City
Subject:Faber Place RV encampment
Date:Friday, December 5, 2025 1:44:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To whom it may concern,
We are writing in regard to the RV’s that have overtaken our street. This has been an
ongoing issue for years that has impacted our business and the well being of our
employees, customers, and any civilian who comes down the street. The RVs block
driveways, dispose of waste in the bushes, attempt to steal water from local business,
empty pet waste on properties, intimidate us, and most importantly, stick out way to far.
There have been many instances where people pulling in/out of driveways or civilians on
bikes were involved in near accidents because there is no view to see oncoming foot
traffic or vehicles. We are worried that someone could be seriously injured or worse.
Something has to be done to restore our street, PLEASE DO SOMETHING.
On behalf of Mathews Carlsen,
Joe Montelongo
joe@mathewscarlsen.com
Mathews-Carlsen Body Works
2480 Faber Place
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-856-6200
fax 650-352-9011
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Peter Giles
To:Council, City
Subject:Growing concern
Date:Friday, December 5, 2025 7:44:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Honorable Mayor Lauing and members of council,
Please add my name to constituents expressing concern over growing numbers of non-residents dwelling on our
quiet, clean streets in aging recreational vehicles. This situation cries out for a solution.
Thank you for serving our city and carrying both visions and burdens. Please move this burden up in your
priorities.
Peter Giles
786 east Meadow Drive
Palo Alto since 1978
From:Gary Holl
To:Dave Stellman
Cc:Council, City; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; tbullman@pacamgroup.com;
davstellman@gmail.com; Steve Wong; marguerite@paloaltoglass.com; manu@k9ventures.com;
patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com; osbaldo@or-builders.com; xenia@qmsshields.com; bill@paloaltoglass.com;
RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com; lwong@wongelectric.com; cathi@lerchconstruction.com;
maor@greenberg.construction; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com;
nancy@drewmaran.com; danmck@scientific-equipment.com; john@lerchconstruction.com;
staceytomson@gmsshields.com; cmei@wongelectric.com; dma@wongelectric.com; jin.wong@gmail.com;
mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org; clahlouh@gatorbio.com; knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org;
etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org; nellickson@gmail.com; shayes236@gmail.com; vic52@victor-aviation.com;
woodgood@pacbell.net; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com; peterxuvel@gmail.com; Loren Brown
Subject:Re: STOP Recreational Vehicles (OSVs) From Parking in Palo Alto Business Parks
Date:Friday, December 5, 2025 7:34:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please remove me from this e-mail distribution list!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
Gary H.
On Dec 4, 2025, at 4:24 PM, Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com> wrote:
Agenda Item 4 – Full Agreement with Lauren Brown’s Email
Regarding Oversized Vehicles in Business Districts
To: City Council Palo Alto
Date: December 4, 2025
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to fully agree with the email sent by Lauren Brown
on December 1, 2025, regarding Oversized Vehicle (OSV)
parking in Palo Alto’s business districts, and to express my
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
strong support for the concerns and positions outlined in his
correspondence.
As a property owner/former business operator in Palo Alto, I
have personally witnessed the same long-term problems
described in his letter: constant OSV, trailer and
abandoned/stored vehicle parking, lack of actual enforcement OF
EXISTING LAWS, and the negative impact this has on our
property conditions and business operations.
While I appreciate that the City Council voted on October 20,
2025, to adopt certain OSV restrictions, the measures proposed in
Agenda Item 4 for the December 8, 2025 Council meeting are not
enough to address the ongoing and severe impacts OSVs
continue to have on our business districts. Allowing OSVs to
remain parked for up to 72 hours (in practice always much
longer) will not meaningfully improve the situation. It will
simply perpetuate the cycle of musical chairs and make real
enforcement impossible.
I strongly support the positions advocated in Lauren Brown’s
email, including:
1. A complete ban on OSV parking in Palo Alto business
districts. Surrounding cities have done it, why can’t we?
1. Recognition that OSV parking is incompatible with
commercial zoning and business operations.
2. Ensuring that business districts are not the new city-
preferred location for OSV parking within Palo Alto.
3. Relocating any City-sanctioned OSV parking to areas not
adjacent to residential or commercial developments.
4. A reassessment of the fairness of collecting business taxes
from districts adversely affected by OSV encampments.
How is this fair and what exactly are we paying these fees
for??
5. Protection of the rights and investments of property owners
and business operators who can’t simply move their
locations. They can be moved, we can’t.
6. I respectfully urge the Council to go beyond the minimal
measures currently proposed in Agenda Item 4 and take real
action to resolve this long-standing issue. Palo Alto’s
business districts cannot survive unless OSV parking is fully
prohibited and enforcement is strong.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for taking
seriously the concerns of those who work, invest, and employ
people in Palo Alto. Please add this letter to the public record for
the December 8, 2025 City Council meeting under Consent
Calendar – Agenda Item 4.
Sincerely,
Dave Stellman - and many others
Transport Street
On Dec 1, 2025, at 5:53 PM, Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com>
wrote:
12-01-2025
Dear Palo Alto Business District Property Owner or Business,
I am writing you because you have recently corresponded with the
City of Palo Alto in opposition to Oversized Vehicles (OSVs)
parking on the public streets in front of or adjacent to your properties
or place of business. If you do not want to receive further
correspondence from me, please send a reply email stating,
“UNSUBSCRIBE” (or equal message), and I will remove you from
my email distribution list.
I represent the property owners of two commercial properties located
on Park Blvd. For the past seven years, our properties have suffered
as a result of continuously-parked OSVs in front of or adjacent to our
properties, as well as a lack of OSV parking enforcement by the City
of Palo Alto. It is difficult for us to keep our tenants happy and we
have experienced difficulty in the leasing of our buildings. I am
enlisting your help to create a larger and stronger voice that can be
used to lobby City Staff and City Council to better serve our
collective business interests.
As you may know, the Palo Alto City Council voted to implement
certain restrictions on OSV parking at their October 20, 2025
meeting. Measures adopted included:
1. Prohibit unattached trailer parking.
2. Prohibit the practice of OSV "vanlording".
3. Add financial penalties for the above items.
4. Install signage on streets to reflect the above items.
5. Implement enforcement of unattached trailer parking and
vanlording by the police department.
6. Increase enforcement of the existing 72-hour OSV parking
restriction and the 2-6 AM OSV parking restriction in residential
areas.
On December 8, 2025, the City Council will vote to approve
additions/modifications to the City’s Municipal Code, which reflect
the above. You may access the City Council packet on the City’s
website or by clicking here:
paloalto.gov
See Agenda Item 4 (pages 8-39).
This item is on the Consent Calendar. As such, there will be no
discussion of this item during the City Council meeting. If you wish
to speak to this item at the City Council Meeting, you must do so in
the Public Comment Opportunity at the very beginning of the
meeting - Refer to Consent Calendar Item 4.
As of November 22, 2025, there were approximately 186 OSVs (or
other types of mobile residences) parked primarily in five Palo Alto
Business Districts. These five business districts are:
1. Embarcadero Road/Faber Place/Embarcadero Way: On or about
November 22, 2025, there were 48 OSVs parked on these three
streets.
2. Elwell Court and Corporation Way: On or about November 22,
2025, there were 24 OSVs parked on these two streets.
3. Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue/Olive Avenue /Sheridan
Avenue/Portage: On or about November 22, 2025, there were 18
OSVs parking on these five streets.
4. Fabian Way/East Meadow Circle: On or about November 22,
2025, there were 43 OSVs parked on these two streets.
5. San Antonio Road/Transport Street, Commercial Street, and
Industrial Avenue: On or about June 13, 2025, there were 43 OSVs
parked on these four streets.
The above numbers total 176 OSVs. There are a couple of other
streets where some additional OSVs park (i.e., Colorado Avenue).
I have driven down the streets in all of the above-listed 5 business
districts and observed virtually NO signage restricting OSV parking.
Park Blvd. does have signage that theoretically prohibits OSV
parking between 2-6 AM, however, the enforcement of this
restriction by the police department has been abysmal over the past
seven years. The City’s enforcement of its 72-hour OSV parking
restriction has likewise been abysmal - judging by how many OSVs
are still parked in the five business districts.
It is my opinion that the actions being considered by the City Council
are not strong enough. These actions will ultimately prove to be
largely ineffective in eliminating OSV parking in these five business
districts. OSV parking in these five business districts must be
ELIMINATED (not just reduced) because parked OSVs are not
compatible with business district interests. Parked OSVs in Palo Alto
business districts have decimated these business districts by lowering
property values, creating an inhospitable commercial business
environment, destroying the ability to lease properties, increasing
safety hazards to building occupants and visiting clientele, etc. Our
business districts instead have the appearance of a dilapidated RV
park.
The actions taken by the City Council will still allow OSVs to park
up to 72 hours in our respective business districts. If some time for
the police department to come out and cite violators is considered,
plus the time it will take to tow a vehicle will likely mean that OSVs
can still park up to a week in any one location. When the OSVs do
decide to move, all they have to do is simply relocate to another street
in these five business districts (i.e., a musical chairs situation). In
effect, the new measures taken by the City will result in no tangible
improvement to our business districts.
I advocate for our group to adopt certain positions with respect to the
City of Palo Alto:
1. No OSV parking in these five Palo Alto business districts (impose
new restrictions and enforce the restrictions).
2. OSV parking in these five Palo Alto business parks is
incompatible with business district interests.
3. Our five Palo Alto business districts should not be the sole parking
location of OSVs (i.e., if the City is going to allow OSVs to park in
Palo Alto at all, also allow OSVs to park everywhere else (i.e., in old
Palo Alto residential neighborhoods, in front of City Hall, on
University Avenue, etc.).
4. If the City wants to allow OSV parking on public streets, relocate
OSV parking where there are no adjacent residential or business
developed properties.
5. No collection of business tax on properties located in these five
business districts by the City of Palo Alto until OSV parking in these
five business districts is eliminated.
6. Business District zoning ordinances never intended to allow a
residential presence to inundate adjacent streets.
7. The rights of Property Owners and Businesses (who have fixed
locations and cannot easily move) should have greater protections
than transient OSVs that can be located elsewhere.
HERE IS HOW YOU CAN HELP:
1. Write an email or letter to the City Council in advance of the
December 8, 2025 City Council meeting. At a minimum,
ADVOCATE THAT OSV PARKING NEEDS TO BE BANNED
ENTIRELY FROM PALO ALTO BUSINESS DISTRICTS. Include
other arguments that you may have. Reference December 8, 2025
City Council Meeting Agenda Item 4 on all correspondence.
Ways To Send a Public Letter:
For strong public engagement, we encourage public
participation through Council correspondence. To submit a
public letter to the City Council, we recommend sending by
email for prompt and direct communication. If you wish to
correspond through mail, please send it to the City Clerk's
Office.
Send email to City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Send mail with the following address:
Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
2. Come to the December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting (in person
or by ZOOM) and speak to Consent Calendar Agenda Item 4.
Meeting starts at 7:20 PM. Public Comments are scheduled to start
at 7:20 PM.
3. Forward this email to your adjacent property owners and
businesses. Ask them if they will join in our cause and either
correspond with City Council or speak at City Council. Please have
them contact me and I will add them to the email distribution list.
We may not be able to change the current trajectory of the City for
their Phase I implementation of OSV parking measures, but we can
send the City a strong message that they will ultimately need to take
action that entirely bans OSV parking in our business districts.
Thank you,
Loren Brown
From:Christian Bailey
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Must Act Now on RV Street Encampments
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 7:24:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council Members,
Our city is being overwhelmed by more than 200 RVs that now line East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, E.
Embarcadero, Commercial St, Portage Ave, Sheridan Ave, and many others. The situation has deteriorated for
years, and Palo Alto is now seen as the most accommodating option for non-resident, non-taxpaying RV dwellers.
The result is predictable: numbers have doubled, and with them the growing problems—trash and sewage dumping,
blocked driveways, loss of parking for residents and businesses, and a visible decline in the integrity of our streets.
We already have laws on the books that prohibit oversized vehicles, trailers, and similar equipment from parking
between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. in residential and public-facility zones (PAMC 10.44.020). These can be enforced today.
Inaction where authority already exists is unacceptable.
Additional legislation for commercial zones is urgent. I cycle with our four children to the Bay Trail and now have
to pass many trailers sometimes receiving strange looks. The children feel that our neighborhood is not at all like the
Palo Alto that we moved to years ago.
The ordinance before you on Monday, December 8 (Agenda Item 4) addressing vanlording and detached trailers is a
step, but it is not enough without consistent enforcement. Residents are watching closely. I intend to organize
actively around this issue, because the current trajectory is untenable for those of us who actually live and pay taxes
here.
Palo Alto cannot afford further delay. Enforce existing law. Pass stronger measures where needed. Restore the
safety, cleanliness, and usability of our streets.
Regards,
Christian Bailey
3722 Grove Ave, Palo Alto
From:Dave Stellman
To:Council, City
Cc:Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; tbullman@pacamgroup.com; midtowngary@me.com;
davstellman@gmail.com; Steve Wong; marguerite@paloaltoglass.com; manu@k9ventures.com;
patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com; osbaldo@or-builders.com; xenia@qmsshields.com; bill@paloaltoglass.com;
RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com; lwong@wongelectric.com; cathi@lerchconstruction.com;
maor@greenberg.construction; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com;
nancy@drewmaran.com; danmck@scientific-equipment.com; john@lerchconstruction.com;
staceytomson@gmsshields.com; cmei@wongelectric.com; dma@wongelectric.com; jin.wong@gmail.com;
mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org; clahlouh@gatorbio.com; knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org;
etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org; nellickson@gmail.com; shayes236@gmail.com; vic52@victor-aviation.com;
woodgood@pacbell.net; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com; peterxuvel@gmail.com; Loren Brown
Subject:Re: STOP Recreational Vehicles (OSVs) From Parking in Palo Alto Business Parks
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 4:24:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Agenda Item 4 – Full Agreement with Lauren Brown’s Email Regarding
Oversized Vehicles in Business Districts
To: City Council Palo Alto
Date: December 4, 2025
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to fully agree with the email sent by Lauren Brown on
December 1, 2025, regarding Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking in Palo
Alto’s business districts, and to express my strong support for the concerns
and positions outlined in his correspondence.
As a property owner/former business operator in Palo Alto, I have
personally witnessed the same long-term problems described in his letter:
constant OSV, trailer and abandoned/stored vehicle parking, lack of actual
enforcement OF EXISTING LAWS, and the negative impact this has on
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
our property conditions and business operations.
While I appreciate that the City Council voted on October 20, 2025, to
adopt certain OSV restrictions, the measures proposed in Agenda Item 4 for
the December 8, 2025 Council meeting are not enough to address the
ongoing and severe impacts OSVs continue to have on our business
districts. Allowing OSVs to remain parked for up to 72 hours (in practice
always much longer) will not meaningfully improve the situation. It will
simply perpetuate the cycle of musical chairs and make real enforcement
impossible.
I strongly support the positions advocated in Lauren Brown’s email,
including:
1. A complete ban on OSV parking in Palo Alto business districts.
Surrounding cities have done it, why can’t we?
1. Recognition that OSV parking is incompatible with commercial
zoning and business operations.
2. Ensuring that business districts are not the new city-preferred location
for OSV parking within Palo Alto.
3. Relocating any City-sanctioned OSV parking to areas not adjacent to
residential or commercial developments.
4. A reassessment of the fairness of collecting business taxes from
districts adversely affected by OSV encampments. How is this fair and
what exactly are we paying these fees for??
5. Protection of the rights and investments of property owners and
business operators who can’t simply move their locations. They can be
moved, we can’t.
6. I respectfully urge the Council to go beyond the minimal measures
currently proposed in Agenda Item 4 and take real action to resolve
this long-standing issue. Palo Alto’s business districts cannot survive
unless OSV parking is fully prohibited and enforcement is strong.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for taking seriously the
concerns of those who work, invest, and employ people in Palo Alto.
Please add this letter to the public record for the December 8, 2025 City
Council meeting under Consent Calendar – Agenda Item 4.
Sincerely,
Dave Stellman - and many others
Transport Street
On Dec 1, 2025, at 5:53 PM, Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com> wrote:
12-01-2025
Dear Palo Alto Business District Property Owner or Business,
I am writing you because you have recently corresponded with the City of Palo
Alto in opposition to Oversized Vehicles (OSVs) parking on the public streets in
front of or adjacent to your properties or place of business. If you do not want to
receive further correspondence from me, please send a reply email stating,
“UNSUBSCRIBE” (or equal message), and I will remove you from my email
distribution list.
I represent the property owners of two commercial properties located on Park
Blvd. For the past seven years, our properties have suffered as a result of
continuously-parked OSVs in front of or adjacent to our properties, as well as a
lack of OSV parking enforcement by the City of Palo Alto. It is difficult for us to
keep our tenants happy and we have experienced difficulty in the leasing of our
buildings. I am enlisting your help to create a larger and stronger voice that can be
used to lobby City Staff and City Council to better serve our collective business
interests.
As you may know, the Palo Alto City Council voted to implement certain
restrictions on OSV parking at their October 20, 2025 meeting. Measures adopted
included:
1. Prohibit unattached trailer parking.
2. Prohibit the practice of OSV "vanlording".
3. Add financial penalties for the above items.
4. Install signage on streets to reflect the above items.
5. Implement enforcement of unattached trailer parking and vanlording by the
police department.
6. Increase enforcement of the existing 72-hour OSV parking restriction and the
2-6 AM OSV parking restriction in residential areas.
On December 8, 2025, the City Council will vote to approve
additions/modifications to the City’s Municipal Code, which reflect the above.
You may access the City Council packet on the City’s website or by clicking
here:
paloalto.gov
See Agenda Item 4 (pages 8-39).
This item is on the Consent Calendar. As such, there will be no discussion of this
item during the City Council meeting. If you wish to speak to this item at the City
Council Meeting, you must do so in the Public Comment Opportunity at the very
beginning of the meeting - Refer to Consent Calendar Item 4.
As of November 22, 2025, there were approximately 186 OSVs (or other types of
mobile residences) parked primarily in five Palo Alto Business Districts. These
five business districts are:
1. Embarcadero Road/Faber Place/Embarcadero Way: On or about November
22, 2025, there were 48 OSVs parked on these three streets.
2. Elwell Court and Corporation Way: On or about November 22, 2025, there
were 24 OSVs parked on these two streets.
3. Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue/Olive Avenue /Sheridan Avenue/Portage: On or
about November 22, 2025, there were 18 OSVs parking on these five streets.
4. Fabian Way/East Meadow Circle: On or about November 22, 2025, there
were 43 OSVs parked on these two streets.
5. San Antonio Road/Transport Street, Commercial Street, and Industrial
Avenue: On or about June 13, 2025, there were 43 OSVs parked on these four
streets.
The above numbers total 176 OSVs. There are a couple of other streets where
some additional OSVs park (i.e., Colorado Avenue).
I have driven down the streets in all of the above-listed 5 business districts and
observed virtually NO signage restricting OSV parking. Park Blvd. does have
signage that theoretically prohibits OSV parking between 2-6 AM, however, the
enforcement of this restriction by the police department has been abysmal over
the past seven years. The City’s enforcement of its 72-hour OSV parking
restriction has likewise been abysmal - judging by how many OSVs are still
parked in the five business districts.
It is my opinion that the actions being considered by the City Council are not
strong enough. These actions will ultimately prove to be largely ineffective in
eliminating OSV parking in these five business districts. OSV parking in these
five business districts must be ELIMINATED (not just reduced) because parked
OSVs are not compatible with business district interests. Parked OSVs in Palo
Alto business districts have decimated these business districts by lowering
property values, creating an inhospitable commercial business environment,
destroying the ability to lease properties, increasing safety hazards to building
occupants and visiting clientele, etc. Our business districts instead have the
appearance of a dilapidated RV park.
The actions taken by the City Council will still allow OSVs to park up to 72 hours
in our respective business districts. If some time for the police department to
come out and cite violators is considered, plus the time it will take to tow a
vehicle will likely mean that OSVs can still park up to a week in any one location.
When the OSVs do decide to move, all they have to do is simply relocate to
another street in these five business districts (i.e., a musical chairs situation). In
effect, the new measures taken by the City will result in no tangible improvement
to our business districts.
I advocate for our group to adopt certain positions with respect to the City of Palo
Alto:
1. No OSV parking in these five Palo Alto business districts (impose new
restrictions and enforce the restrictions).
2. OSV parking in these five Palo Alto business parks is incompatible with
business district interests.
3. Our five Palo Alto business districts should not be the sole parking location of
OSVs (i.e., if the City is going to allow OSVs to park in Palo Alto at all, also
allow OSVs to park everywhere else (i.e., in old Palo Alto residential
neighborhoods, in front of City Hall, on University Avenue, etc.).
4. If the City wants to allow OSV parking on public streets, relocate OSV
parking where there are no adjacent residential or business developed properties.
5. No collection of business tax on properties located in these five business
districts by the City of Palo Alto until OSV parking in these five business districts
is eliminated.
6. Business District zoning ordinances never intended to allow a residential
presence to inundate adjacent streets.
7. The rights of Property Owners and Businesses (who have fixed locations and
cannot easily move) should have greater protections than transient OSVs that can
be located elsewhere.
HERE IS HOW YOU CAN HELP:
1. Write an email or letter to the City Council in advance of the December 8,
2025 City Council meeting. At a minimum, ADVOCATE THAT OSV
PARKING NEEDS TO BE BANNED ENTIRELY FROM PALO ALTO
BUSINESS DISTRICTS. Include other arguments that you may have. Reference
December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 4 on all correspondence.
Ways To Send a Public Letter:
For strong public engagement, we encourage public participation through
Council correspondence. To submit a public letter to the City Council, we
recommend sending by email for prompt and direct communication. If you
wish to correspond through mail, please send it to the City Clerk's Office.
Send email to City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Send mail with the following address:
Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
2. Come to the December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting (in person or by
ZOOM) and speak to Consent Calendar Agenda Item 4. Meeting starts at 7:20
PM. Public Comments are scheduled to start at 7:20 PM.
3. Forward this email to your adjacent property owners and businesses. Ask
them if they will join in our cause and either correspond with City Council or
speak at City Council. Please have them contact me and I will add them to the
email distribution list.
We may not be able to change the current trajectory of the City for their Phase I
implementation of OSV parking measures, but we can send the City a strong
message that they will ultimately need to take action that entirely bans OSV
parking in our business districts.
Thank you,
Loren Brown
From:Mike Leaffer
To:Council, City
Subject:PROLIFERATION of RVs on PALO ALTO STREETS
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 2:05:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Having been a lifetime resident of Palo Alto, the decline in safety and quality of life in recent
years has been disturbing in Palo Alto. Some of this can be directly attributed to the 200+ RVs
that are destroying our Palo Alto neighborhoods.
Besides the visual blight and degradation of our neighborhoods and property values, these
RVs are a safety hazard for bicyclists and pedestrians and other cars as they cause visual blind
spots and leave little to no room to pass. There are no proper sewage hookups available,
leading to continual illegal waste dumping into city sewers and streets making areas unsafe
and unhealthy for children and pedestrians. In addition, the RV dwellers are illegally dumping
their garbage at nearby apartments, condos and small businesses.
These RVs are taking up needed parking from residents and businesses. In fact, I can no longer
even shop at some nearby businesses and restaurants because it has become near impossible
to find convenient parking.
There needs to be enforcement of the current laws. All RVs need to be outlawed, not just
those that are unattached and being rented by van lords as the RV dwellers are non-residents,
non-taxpaying dwellers who are creating problems that have been quickly escalating.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Lynda Lumish
To:Council, City
Subject:RV parking
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 10:32:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
To the City Council-
I understand you will be discussing the parked RVs in Palo Alto. I hope you will be able to do something to remove
them. When I go for a walk, I avoid the blocks with the RVs, and that is getting harder to do. I don’t feel safe
walking next to the line up of them. The trash starts to pile up and blocks the sidewalk. When I meet friends to walk
at Shore line, I have a hard time parking because the area is filled with parked RVs. Walking around Palo Alto used
to be a beautiful thing to do, now I don’t notice the trees and homes- just the RVs. I hope you will be able to clear
our streets.
Thank you,
Lynda Lumish
From:Jeanie T Stephens
To:Council, City
Subject:RV parking in south PA
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 9:27:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council,
I understand that RVs can create a problem for local residents. I also understand that we need the RV owners to
work at our businesses and provide services. I think we must provide some accommodation to both.
I like the solution of providing space with facilities for RV owners to park that is not on local streets, or on limited
streets. Like small KOA campgrounds. I believe this has been tried with mixed results. Maybe a mixed solution of
some approved street locations and some larger areas.
We are building empty, expensive apartments all over the area! With a shrinking number of professional and
administrative jobs available! Can’t space be allocated somewhere to help house people that support our services.
I realize this requires oversight and that means financing. But we should assess the value of having a stable
workforce in an area that is too expensive for workers to live.
Jeanie Stephens
3860 Corina Way
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
From:Thomas Nguyen
To:Council, City
Cc:Arthur Keller; hchang999@yahoo.com
Subject:Subject: Request for Review of Inconsistent Enforcement of 72-Hour Parking Ordinance
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 7:55:37 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to bring to your attention a concern regarding inconsistent enforcement of the 72-hour parking ordinance in my
neighborhood.
My vehicle—legally parked directly in front of my property—was recently tagged solely because a neighbor reported it. At
the same time, multiple RVs remain parked in the area of Adobe Meadows/Fabian way for extended periods far beyond the
72-hour limit without comparable enforcement. This disparity suggests selective enforcement triggered by individual
complaints rather than uniform application of municipal code.
I respectfully request that the Council review:
1. How complaint-driven enforcement differs from routine enforcement of the 72-hour rule,
2. Why long-term RV encampments appear to be exempt from comparable action, and
3. What policies or priorities currently govern enforcement of RV parking in residential zones.
I fully support reasonable enforcement, but I ask that it be applied consistently and equitably to all vehicles. Clarification or
guidance from the Council would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas Nguyen
3726 Grove Ave
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Cynthia Louie
To:Council, City
Cc:Francis Meynard
Subject:STOP Recreational Vehicles (OSVs) From Parking in Palo Alto Business Parks
Date:Wednesday, December 3, 2025 1:56:05 PM
Attachments:image001.png
25 10 28 PAG Letter to City Council and Mayor of Palo Alto-SIGNED.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good Afternoon,
The enclosed letter expressing concern about the RV and trailer parking violations on
Fabian Way in Palo Alto that is being sent on behalf of Francis Meynard, the President of
Pacific American Group.
Thank you,
CYNTHIA LOUIEExecutive Assistant104 Caledonia St, Ste. 101Sausalito, CA 94965415.331.3838 office
From:Theron Bullman
To:Council, City
Subject:STOP Recreational Vehicles (OSVs) From Parking in Palo Alto Business Parks
Date:Wednesday, December 3, 2025 1:52:23 PM
Attachments:25 10 28 ECI Letter to City Council and Mayor City of Palo Alto-SIGNED.PDF
Importance:High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please see the attached letter outlining our complaints and frustration with illegal RV
parking that is affecting our business.
THERON BULLMANVice President of OperationsEast Charleston Inc.104 Caledonia St, Ste. 101Sausalito, CA 94965415.331.3838 office415.419.4240 mobile
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Jeff Truskey
To:Council, City
Subject:RVs
Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:50:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
City Council: As several have commented, all City Council needs to do regarding RVs is
enforce the existing Palo Alto Municipal Code. When laws are not enforced, chaos ensues.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jeff Truskey
Palo Alto resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:midtowngary@mac.com
To:Council, City; Council, City
Subject:Regarding Oversized Vehicle parking - upcoming December 8, 2025 City Council meeting
Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:48:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
City Council, December 2, 2025
I am writing as a resident of Palo Alto to urge the City Council to take decisive action on the
increasing problem of long-term RV and oversized-vehicle parking in our community.
I understand the City Council will vote on December 8 on proposed additions or modifications
to the Municipal Code regarding Oversized Vehicles (including RVs). As you consider these
changes, I strongly urge you to enact a full ban on RV and oversized-vehicle parking
throughout the City. The rights of property owners and businesses deserve stronger protection
than those of transient oversized vehicles.
Pursuing a multi-step, multi-year approach will only waste taxpayer dollars and delay
meaningful results. Homeowners and businesses expect policies that preserve the cleanliness,
safety, and character of our neighborhoods. A comprehensive ban is both reasonable and
necessary.
Respectfully,
Gary
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 Powered by Mimecast
From:John Mori
To:Council, City
Subject:Regarding Vanlording, item 4, December 8
Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:50:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
Please move forward immediately to prohibit living in any motor vehicle or trailer parked
on the public street or parking lots.
Allowing people to live on the streets in RVs:
Is unsanitary - black water is hazardous waste. It must be assumed, RV units being
used as a residence will also employ the use of toilet facilities. In no instance should
even a temporary residence be allowed within the city that is not connected properly to
sewage and other utility hookups. Black water collection in RV tanks is a HAZMAT
condition that no neighborhood, residential or commercial, should be subjected to.
Will result in garbage on the street - again, grossly an unsanitary practice not to
mention the affect it has in the feeling of these neighborhoods or the appeal that
commercial properties have to business.in
Threatens the safety of the city's residences by such as fire from propane appliances
used in these units but also increased crime and drug use that often accompanies this
type of housing.
Brings higher incidents of mental health and untreated medical conditions into our
neighborhoods.
Has an ongoing cost to manage by Palo Alto Police and social services.
Normalizes slumlord behavior and threatens to turn vibrant communities into
slums.
The entire concept of addressing assumed low-income housing through illegal, unmanageable
trailers and other types of RVs is ludicrous and even lazy. Any use of city parking for living
units of any kind must be prohibited. And, any living unit (trailer or motor home) on private
property being used as a residence should be strictly regulated (proper hookups, neighborhood
approval, zoning review, etc.).
And, on a final note, I understand that it has been proposed that $4M be allocated for the
posting of signs throughout the city as part of this emergency measure - can’t this be done
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
more economically?
Best Regards,
John Mori
Tel/Txt: 650.888.3178
712 Garland Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-3601
From:Loren Brown
To:Council, City
Cc:Loren Brown; Sandy Freschi
Subject:12-08-2025 Council Mtg Agenda Item 4 - STOP Recreational Vehicles (OSVs) From Parking in Palo Alto Business
Parks
Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 12:04:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
12-01-2025
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I represent the property owners of two commercial properties located on Park Blvd. (3101 and
3197 Park Blvd.). For the past seven years, our properties have suffered as a result of
continuously-parked OSVs in front of or adjacent to our properties, as well as a lack of OSV
parking enforcement by the City of Palo Alto. It is challenging for us to keep our tenants
satisfied, and we have faced difficulties in leasing our buildings.
The measures proposed in Agenda Item 4 are insufficient to make a meaningful
difference in the number of OSVs currently parking in five Palo Alto Business Districts
(identified below).
1. There are no provisions included in the measures to inventory the number of OSVs
parked in these five business districts on a monthly basis. How will the City know that
its policy and enforcement efforts are working (and, if so, to what extent)?
2. The measures proposed do not eliminate or ban the parking of OSVs in these five
business districts. As of November 22, there are approximately 176 OSVs (or other types
of vehicles where people are residing) parked in these five business districts (giving our
business districts the appearance of a dilapidated RV park). The proposed measures (at
best) will only cause these vehicles to change their parking locations more frequently
within these five business districts.
As of November 22, 2025, there were approximately 176 OSVs (or other types of mobile
residences) parked primarily in five Palo Alto Business Districts. These five business districts
are:
1. Embarcadero Road/Faber Place/Embarcadero Way: On or about November 22, 2025, there
were 48 OSVs parked on these three streets.
2. Elwell Court and Corporation Way: On or about November 22, 2025, there were 24 OSVs
parked on these two streets.
3. Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue/Olive Avenue /Sheridan Avenue/Portage: On or about
November 22, 2025, there were 18 OSVs parking on these five streets.
4. Fabian Way/East Meadow Circle: On or about November 22, 2025, there were 43 OSVs
parked on these two streets.
5. San Antonio Road/Transport Street, Commercial Street, and Industrial Avenue: On or
about November 22, 2025, there were 43 OSVs parked on these four streets.
The above numbers total 176 OSVs. There are a couple of other streets where some additional
OSVs park (i.e., Colorado Avenue).
In Palo Alto, the OSV parking issue is a two-prong issue; it is a housing-affordability issue
and it is a business park deterioration issue. The housing-affordability issue is related to a
greater long-term, national/regional housing crisis that may never be solved. The business
park deterioration problem can be solved immediately by simply implementing measures that
relocate the parked OSVs to less problematic areas in the City where there is no existing
residential or business development. Parked OSVs are not compatible in either residential
neighborhoods or business neighborhoods.
The City needs to immediately decrease the negative impacts resulting from OSVs parking on
City streets by banning all OSVs from parking in any Palo Alto business district. Parked
OSVs in Palo Alto business districts have decimated these business districts by lowering
property values, creating an inhospitable commercial business environment, destroying the
ability to lease properties, increasing safety hazards to building occupants and visiting
clientele, etc.
Thank you,
Loren Brown
From:s Pea
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 2:56:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I lived in the Bay Area in 1995. I moved to Seattle 1996-2008. I returned to Monterey in 2008.
Moved to Mountain View in 2009, then to San Francisco, Palo Alto, Cupertino, then back to
Mountain View in 2013.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:50 PM s Pea <peas2please@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
Additional information is provided below on my experience with Life Moves:
Life Moves is an organization who runs a "Temporary Homeless Program" named “Move Mountain View,” a
parking program for Homeless people who live or work in Mountain View, who became homeless and now live in
a vehicle. When I resided in Mountain View beginning in 2009 and in my vehicle from autumn/winter 2022 –
12/2023, I made six separate applications to Move Mountain View through four different homeless service
agencies/case managers during that time. Each of my Case Managers followed up several times on the
application on my behalf. Case Managers came and went and I also diligently followed up routinely on each of my
applications to the Move Mountain View parking program by Life Moves.
There was zero accountability on behalf of Life Moves. After a bunch of turn over of staff at Life Moves, issues
with their phone system, people not checking the main lines voice mail for weeks, not returning messages.
Finally around Thanksgiving 2023, I finally was put in touch with the Manager “Crystal,” she agreed to look into
the situation and took down the dates I had made (or case workers) submitted my application(s) to access a
parking space in the program. “Crystal” did follow up, but she had a very different attitude than before now that
the incompetence or weaponized incompetence was revealed. Crystal was extremely defensive and her response
was alleging that it was my own fault and I never followed up. This is inaccurate. I said to Crystal, “I am following
up right now." She did not respond. So I requested a status on my most recent application [submitted two weeks
earlier] might be granted a spot in the program?”
Crystal responded saying, “it could be months.” And Crystal hung up on me. I phoned back and went straight to
voicemail. I left a message stating "We spoke and our call was disconnected, how I should work with her to stay
current and be considered for the program?" Crystal did not return my call. Which was consistent with the
previous 12 months of calls, phone messages and even twice visiting in person at their offices next to Google.
I know several people who live on the lot in the parking program and new people arrived daily during that time.
Most of these families were new migrants from South America who had arrived in the United States days before
and already had been given a free RV and a spot in the homeless parking program.
I spoke via phone or text daily with MV Community Service Officer McPherson in Mountain View and asked for
her assistance in getting me a place in the Move Mountain View homeless parking program as I qualify as
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
someone who lived and worked in Mountain View for many years (since 2013) and worked at Google Cloud.
MVPD CSO McPherson said she could get me into the temporary warming shelter but “she had no pull to get me
into the Move Mountain View Program and to just keep calling them.” Which I did.
In hindsight, I should have gone to Mountain View City Counsel and demanded answers why a programdesigned for people with my exact background and who qualify for the program are being turned away while
dozens of families from foreign countries were moving to the lot within a week of arriving in the United States
and often getting a free RV, and many gifts and free voucher, hot meals, showers and laundry in conjunction with
living in on the lot.
I have great respect for people of other countries and cultures, however this program was specifically designed
and paid for by Mountain View City Council touted as a solution for Mountain View residents who become
homeless, or who work or worked in Mountain View, prior to becoming homeless. It wasn’t intended for
Mountain View Residence tax dollars to be used as a migrant pipeline for those from other countries to live free
of charge while the existing Mountain View community members were living homeless.
I would prefer to live in a designated Homeless Parking Program for those reduced to living in their vehicles,
unfortunately the vendor Life Moves discriminated against long-time Mountain View resident(s) and coordinated
with the MVPD Homeless Police -- Community Service Officers to move me homeless to Palo Alto and then
disabled my vehicle to prevent my return to Mountain View.
In my experience, Life Moves should not be considered by the City of Palo Alto to manage a parking lot for
Homeless. The idea of a designated parking area is monitored and with some stability and resources (such asat a hosting Church parking lot) but to be successful the program needs to be implemented by the communitywho care about the populations they are claiming (and funded) to support.
As a person with limited means, struggling and in good faith to the Mountain View Police I was compliant with
Officer McPherson’s request to move to Palo Alto-- where I have also previously lived in rental housing and have
previously worked in businesses located in downtown Palo Alto.
I moved on a Sunday afternoon, and parked in the location I am currently at. Intentionally not parking near
residential neighbors as McPherson indicated. I left my vehicle for one hour to run an errand, when I returned
someone had entered my vehicle (evidence of torn the window casing) and ripped out my engine cables and
tampered parts so I could not restart the vehicle. McPherson had just gotten me into the MV Winter Warming
Shelter, so I went there. Then, I got Covid at the shelter. After recovering from Covid in quarantine, I got
assistance to fix my vehicle to move it. I paid from my menial job earnings, the vehicle wasn’t running great, but it
was drivable. Literally in the time it took to walk to a nearby gas station and get gas, someone returned and
damaged my vehicle again to make it undrivable that evening. Someone likely from Palo Alto Police pressured the
business owner and got me dismissed without cause from my Palo Alto employer.
I know several people who are unfortunately still living on the street as well as in the
parking lot program, some seniors, years later.
This is the fallacy of the parking program for the homeless.
I am employable and volunteer regularly in the community as I have for decades, however
for whatever reason the Palo Alto Police Officer was told to coerce aka dump me in
Mountain View.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: s Pea <peas2please@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:18 PM
Subject: Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective
To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am very grateful to the City of Palo Alto and the City Counsel who has humanely has NOT impounded my vehicle,
as a homeless person with no other means. I agree, it is not an ideal situation. I am open to options. Retaining
one’s vehicle “only home” is stabilizing and cheaper than “building housing for the homeless” to be eventually
mismanaged by those looking to exploit big budget projects.
The exact reason I am homeless in Palo Alto is because the Life Moves “Move Mountain View” Parking Program is
not only used for existing long-time Mountain View Residents “who live/work in Mountain View prior to
experiencing homelessness.” These were the explicit terms for funding by the Mountain View City Council.
The "Move Mountain View" homeless parking program was funded by Mountain View tax paid dollars to support
and alleviate community members suffering due to homelessness and appears to have been exploited. I have
compelling evidence the program was reappropriated as free housing and relocation assistance for people and
families who arrive in the United States for the first time from foreign nations.
As a peninsula resident who leased property, lived and worked in both Mountain View and Palo Alto for several
decades since 2009 as a Technology Contractor, I would prefer to live in a designated Homeless Parking Program
for those reduced to living in their vehicles. This low-cost option could be used in conjunction with longer-term
housing, such as for seniors and partnering with other organizations which specialize in job retraining.
In my direct experience, I am homeless in Palo Alto because of a failure of the vendor Life Moves to deliver on
their chartered contract and funding agreement. As a long-time Mountain View resident, it was semi-coordinated
with the MVPD Community Service Officers to pressure me to move to Palo Alto at which point my vehicle was
quickly disabled -- to prevent my return to Mountain View.
MVPD Officer McPherson and I spoke daily in November and early December in 2023. I had been a victim of
several violent crimes that made me homeless and exacerbated my disadvantaged situation. Officer McPherson
started pressuring me to move my vehicle to Palo Alto. At this time, I remained fully compliant in Mountain View,
moving my vehicle on the designated streets, every 2-3 days as Mountain View compliant with the 72-hour rule.
Officer McPherson claimed she had "NO PULL" to get me into the Parking Program but she could
walk me into the Temporary Winter Warming Shelter, she referred me by phone and I was able to
show up and obtain shelter there.
In one hour after I moved my vehicle from Mountain View to Palo Alto, in response and to be compliant with
Officer McPherson's request, someone had broke into my vehicle, badly damaging the window casing and ripped
out the firing cables to prevent my moving the vehicle.
This was after six applications were made (every 2-4 months) to the program between Winter
2022 and Winter 2023, by four different case workers, with diligent follow up both by each case
worker and by myself.
This practice of dumping the homeless from our community is sickening, pushing them out. "The Homeless" are
often dear community members who volunteer, live and work in the area for decades who are then affected due
to a personal or situational tragedy, someone who was not able to buy after growing up or working here for
years, or a senior or veteran, who loses their home due to fixed income paired with increasingly higher property
taxes.
I propose that police are able to refer local homeless people to any temporary parking program or shelters (with
availability), if this is not already the case.
The Parking Program is a wonderful temporary idea for those homeless living in vehicles due to experiencing
homelessness. It is relatively low-cost, and can provide a safe monitored and service-friendly area. I propose the
parking program be run or housed by a Church or Community Services Organization that would receive funding
allocated for homelessness as well as be audited periodically by the Elected Palo Alto City Counsel to insure the
funding is being allocated appropriately. While the program type is ideal, let us learn from the incompetence and
misuse of any housing or parking program as it failed to serve those in Mountain View.
Kind regards,
Sarah Prostak
1 of 626
Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective
s
Pea <peas2please@gmail.com>
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am very grateful to the City of Palo Alto and the City Counsel who has humanely has NOT impounded my vehicle,
as a homeless person with no other means. I agree, it is not an ideal situation. I am open to options. Retaining
one’s vehicle “only home” is stabilizing and cheaper than “building housing for the homeless” to be eventually
mismanaged by those looking to exploit big budget projects.
The exact reason I am homeless in Palo Alto is because the Life Moves “Move Mountain View” Parking Program is
not only used for existing long-time Mountain View Residents “who live/work in Mountain View prior to
experiencing homelessness.” These were the explicit terms for funding by the Mountain View City Council.
The "Move Mountain View" homeless parking program was funded by Mountain View tax paid dollars to support
and alleviate community members suffering due to homelessness and appears to have been exploited. I have
compelling evidence the program was reappropriated as free housing and relocation assistance for people and
families who arrive in the United States for the first time from foreign nations.
As a peninsula resident who leased property, lived and worked in both Mountain View and Palo Alto for several
decades since 2009 as a Technology Contractor, I would prefer to live in a designated Homeless Parking Program
for those reduced to living in their vehicles. This low-cost option could be used in conjunction with longer-term
housing, such as for seniors and partnering with other organizations which specialize in job retraining.
In my direct experience, I am homeless in Palo Alto because of a failure of the vendor Life Moves to deliver on their
chartered contract and funding agreement. As a long-time Mountain View resident, it was semi-coordinated with
the MVPD Community Service Officers to pressure me to move to Palo Alto at which point my vehicle was quickly
disabled -- to prevent my return to Mountain View.
MVPD Officer McPherson and I spoke daily in November and early December in 2023. I had been a victim of
several violent crimes that made me homeless and exacerbated my disadvantaged situation. Officer McPherson
started pressuring me to move my vehicle to Palo Alto. At this time, I remained fully compliant in Mountain View,
moving my vehicle on the designated streets, every 2-3 days as Mountain View compliant with the 72-hour rule.
Officer McPherson claimed she had "NO PULL" to get me into the Parking Program but she could walk
me into the Temporary Winter Warming Shelter, she referred me by phone and I was able to show up
and obtain shelter there.
In one hour after I moved my vehicle from Mountain View to Palo Alto, in response and to be compliant with
Officer McPherson's request, someone had broke into my vehicle, badly damaging the window casing and ripped
out the firing cables to prevent my moving the vehicle.
This was after six applications were made (every 2-4 months) to the program between Winter 2022 and
Winter 2023, by four different case workers, with diligent follow up both by each case worker and by
myself.
This practice of dumping the homeless from our community is sickening, pushing them out. "The Homeless" are
often dear community members who volunteer, live and work in the area for decades who are then affected due
to a personal or situational tragedy, someone who was not able to buy after growing up or working here for years,
or a senior or veteran, who loses their home due to fixed income paired with increasingly higher property taxes.
I propose that police are able to refer local homeless people to any temporary parking program or shelters (with
availability), if this is not already the case.
The Parking Program is a wonderful temporary idea for those homeless living in vehicles due to experiencing
homelessness. It is relatively low-cost, and can provide a safe monitored and service-friendly area. I propose the
parking program be run or housed by a Church or Community Services Organization that would receive funding
allocated for homelessness as well as be audited periodically by the Elected Palo Alto City Counsel to insure the
funding is being allocated appropriately. While the program type is ideal, let us learn from the incompetence and
misuse of any housing or parking program as it failed to serve those in Mountain View.
Kind regards,
Sarah Prostak
From:s Pea
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 2:51:55 PM
Attachments:2025 Dec 1 Letter sent to PA City Counsel on Homeless in Vehicle.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
Additional information is provided below on my experience with Life Moves:
Life Moves is an organization who runs a "Temporary Homeless Program" named “Move Mountain View,” a parking
program for Homeless people who live or work in Mountain View, who became homeless and now live in a vehicle.
When I resided in Mountain View beginning in 2009 and in my vehicle from autumn/winter 2022 – 12/2023, I made
six separate applications to Move Mountain View through four different homeless service agencies/case managers
during that time. Each of my Case Managers followed up several times on the application on my behalf. Case
Managers came and went and I also diligently followed up routinely on each of my applications to the Move
Mountain View parking program by Life Moves.
There was zero accountability on behalf of Life Moves. After a bunch of turn over of staff at Life Moves, issues with
their phone system, people not checking the main lines voice mail for weeks, not returning messages.
Finally around Thanksgiving 2023, I finally was put in touch with the Manager “Crystal,” she agreed to look into the
situation and took down the dates I had made (or case workers) submitted my application(s) to access a parking
space in the program. “Crystal” did follow up, but she had a very different attitude than before now that the
incompetence or weaponized incompetence was revealed. Crystal was extremely defensive and her response was
alleging that it was my own fault and I never followed up. This is inaccurate. I said to Crystal, “I am following up right
now." She did not respond. So I requested a status on my most recent application [submitted two weeks earlier]
might be granted a spot in the program?”
Crystal responded saying, “it could be months.” And Crystal hung up on me. I phoned back and went straight to
voicemail. I left a message stating "We spoke and our call was disconnected, how I should work with her to stay
current and be considered for the program?" Crystal did not return my call. Which was consistent with the previous
12 months of calls, phone messages and even twice visiting in person at their offices next to Google.
I know several people who live on the lot in the parking program and new people arrived daily during that time.
Most of these families were new migrants from South America who had arrived in the United States days before and
already had been given a free RV and a spot in the homeless parking program.
I spoke via phone or text daily with MV Community Service Officer McPherson in Mountain View and asked for her
assistance in getting me a place in the Move Mountain View homeless parking program as I qualify as someone who
lived and worked in Mountain View for many years (since 2013) and worked at Google Cloud. MVPD CSO
McPherson said she could get me into the temporary warming shelter but “she had no pull to get me into the Move
Mountain View Program and to just keep calling them.” Which I did.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
In hindsight, I should have gone to Mountain View City Counsel and demanded answers why a program
designed for people with my exact background and who qualify for the program are being turned away whiledozens of families from foreign countries were moving to the lot within a week of arriving in the United States
and often getting a free RV, and many gifts and free voucher, hot meals, showers and laundry in conjunction with
living in on the lot.
I have great respect for people of other countries and cultures, however this program was specifically designed and
paid for by Mountain View City Council touted as a solution for Mountain View residents who become homeless, or
who work or worked in Mountain View, prior to becoming homeless. It wasn’t intended for Mountain View
Residence tax dollars to be used as a migrant pipeline for those from other countries to live free of charge while the
existing Mountain View community members were living homeless.
I would prefer to live in a designated Homeless Parking Program for those reduced to living in their vehicles,
unfortunately the vendor Life Moves discriminated against long-time Mountain View resident(s) and coordinated
with the MVPD Homeless Police -- Community Service Officers to move me homeless to Palo Alto and then disabled
my vehicle to prevent my return to Mountain View.
In my experience, Life Moves should not be considered by the City of Palo Alto to manage a parking lot forHomeless. The idea of a designated parking area is monitored and with some stability and resources (such as at
a hosting Church parking lot) but to be successful the program needs to be implemented by the community who
care about the populations they are claiming (and funded) to support.
As a person with limited means, struggling and in good faith to the Mountain View Police I was compliant with
Officer McPherson’s request to move to Palo Alto-- where I have also previously lived in rental housing and have
previously worked in businesses located in downtown Palo Alto.
I moved on a Sunday afternoon, and parked in the location I am currently at. Intentionally not parking near
residential neighbors as McPherson indicated. I left my vehicle for one hour to run an errand, when I returned
someone had entered my vehicle (evidence of torn the window casing) and ripped out my engine cables and
tampered parts so I could not restart the vehicle. McPherson had just gotten me into the MV Winter Warming
Shelter, so I went there. Then, I got Covid at the shelter. After recovering from Covid in quarantine, I got assistance
to fix my vehicle to move it. I paid from my menial job earnings, the vehicle wasn’t running great, but it was drivable.
Literally in the time it took to walk to a nearby gas station and get gas, someone returned and damaged my vehicle
again to make it undrivable that evening. Someone likely from Palo Alto Police pressured the business owner and
got me dismissed without cause from my Palo Alto employer.
I know several people who are unfortunately still living on the street as well as in the parking
lot program, some seniors, years later.
This is the fallacy of the parking program for the homeless.
I am employable and volunteer regularly in the community as I have for decades, however for
whatever reason the Palo Alto Police Officer was told to coerce aka dump me in Mountain
View.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: s Pea <peas2please@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:18 PM
Subject: Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective
To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am very grateful to the City of Palo Alto and the City Counsel who has humanely has NOT impounded my vehicle,
as a homeless person with no other means. I agree, it is not an ideal situation. I am open to options. Retaining one’s
vehicle “only home” is stabilizing and cheaper than “building housing for the homeless” to be eventually
mismanaged by those looking to exploit big budget projects.
The exact reason I am homeless in Palo Alto is because the Life Moves “Move Mountain View” Parking Program is
not only used for existing long-time Mountain View Residents “who live/work in Mountain View prior to
experiencing homelessness.” These were the explicit terms for funding by the Mountain View City Council.
The "Move Mountain View" homeless parking program was funded by Mountain View tax paid dollars to support
and alleviate community members suffering due to homelessness and appears to have been exploited. I have
compelling evidence the program was reappropriated as free housing and relocation assistance for people and
families who arrive in the United States for the first time from foreign nations.
As a peninsula resident who leased property, lived and worked in both Mountain View and Palo Alto for several
decades since 2009 as a Technology Contractor, I would prefer to live in a designated Homeless Parking Program for
those reduced to living in their vehicles. This low-cost option could be used in conjunction with longer-term housing,
such as for seniors and partnering with other organizations which specialize in job retraining.
In my direct experience, I am homeless in Palo Alto because of a failure of the vendor Life Moves to deliver on their
chartered contract and funding agreement. As a long-time Mountain View resident, it was semi-coordinated with
the MVPD Community Service Officers to pressure me to move to Palo Alto at which point my vehicle was quickly
disabled -- to prevent my return to Mountain View.
MVPD Officer McPherson and I spoke daily in November and early December in 2023. I had been a victim of several
violent crimes that made me homeless and exacerbated my disadvantaged situation. Officer McPherson started
pressuring me to move my vehicle to Palo Alto. At this time, I remained fully compliant in Mountain View, moving
my vehicle on the designated streets, every 2-3 days as Mountain View compliant with the 72-hour rule.
Officer McPherson claimed she had "NO PULL" to get me into the Parking Program but she could
walk me into the Temporary Winter Warming Shelter, she referred me by phone and I was able to
show up and obtain shelter there.
In one hour after I moved my vehicle from Mountain View to Palo Alto, in response and to be compliant with Officer
McPherson's request, someone had broke into my vehicle, badly damaging the window casing and ripped out the
firing cables to prevent my moving the vehicle.
This was after six applications were made (every 2-4 months) to the program between Winter 2022
and Winter 2023, by four different case workers, with diligent follow up both by each case worker
and by myself.
This practice of dumping the homeless from our community is sickening, pushing them out. "The Homeless" are
often dear community members who volunteer, live and work in the area for decades who are then affected due to
a personal or situational tragedy, someone who was not able to buy after growing up or working here for years, or a
senior or veteran, who loses their home due to fixed income paired with increasingly higher property taxes.
I propose that police are able to refer local homeless people to any temporary parking program or shelters (with
availability), if this is not already the case.
The Parking Program is a wonderful temporary idea for those homeless living in vehicles due to experiencing
homelessness. It is relatively low-cost, and can provide a safe monitored and service-friendly area. I propose the
parking program be run or housed by a Church or Community Services Organization that would receive funding
allocated for homelessness as well as be audited periodically by the Elected Palo Alto City Counsel to insure the
funding is being allocated appropriately. While the program type is ideal, let us learn from the incompetence and
misuse of any housing or parking program as it failed to serve those in Mountain View.
Kind regards,
Sarah Prostak
From:s Pea
To:Council, City
Subject:Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 2:19:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am very grateful to the City of Palo Alto and the City Counsel who has humanely has NOT impounded my vehicle,
as a homeless person with no other means. I agree, it is not an ideal situation. I am open to options. Retaining one’s
vehicle “only home” is stabilizing and cheaper than “building housing for the homeless” to be eventually
mismanaged by those looking to exploit big budget projects.
The exact reason I am homeless in Palo Alto is because the Life Moves “Move Mountain View” Parking Program is
not only used for existing long-time Mountain View Residents “who live/work in Mountain View prior to
experiencing homelessness.” These were the explicit terms for funding by the Mountain View City Council.
The "Move Mountain View" homeless parking program was funded by Mountain View tax paid dollars to support
and alleviate community members suffering due to homelessness and appears to have been exploited. I have
compelling evidence the program was reappropriated as free housing and relocation assistance for people and
families who arrive in the United States for the first time from foreign nations.
As a peninsula resident who leased property, lived and worked in both Mountain View and Palo Alto for several
decades since 2009 as a Technology Contractor, I would prefer to live in a designated Homeless Parking Program for
those reduced to living in their vehicles. This low-cost option could be used in conjunction with longer-term housing,
such as for seniors and partnering with other organizations which specialize in job retraining.
In my direct experience, I am homeless in Palo Alto because of a failure of the vendor Life Moves to deliver on their
chartered contract and funding agreement. As a long-time Mountain View resident, it was semi-coordinated with
the MVPD Community Service Officers to pressure me to move to Palo Alto at which point my vehicle was quickly
disabled -- to prevent my return to Mountain View.
MVPD Officer McPherson and I spoke daily in November and early December in 2023. I had been a victim of several
violent crimes that made me homeless and exacerbated my disadvantaged situation. Officer McPherson started
pressuring me to move my vehicle to Palo Alto. At this time, I remained fully compliant in Mountain View, moving
my vehicle on the designated streets, every 2-3 days as Mountain View compliant with the 72-hour rule.
Officer McPherson claimed she had "NO PULL" to get me into the Parking Program but she could
walk me into the Temporary Winter Warming Shelter, she referred me by phone and I was able to
show up and obtain shelter there.
In one hour after I moved my vehicle from Mountain View to Palo Alto, in response and to be compliant with Officer
McPherson's request, someone had broke into my vehicle, badly damaging the window casing and ripped out the
firing cables to prevent my moving the vehicle.
This was after six applications were made (every 2-4 months) to the program between Winter 2022
and Winter 2023, by four different case workers, with diligent follow up both by each case worker
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
and by myself.
This practice of dumping the homeless from our community is sickening, pushing them out. "The Homeless" are
often dear community members who volunteer, live and work in the area for decades who are then affected due to
a personal or situational tragedy, someone who was not able to buy after growing up or working here for years, or a
senior or veteran, who loses their home due to fixed income paired with increasingly higher property taxes.
I propose that police are able to refer local homeless people to any temporary parking program or shelters (with
availability), if this is not already the case.
The Parking Program is a wonderful temporary idea for those homeless living in vehicles due to experiencing
homelessness. It is relatively low-cost, and can provide a safe monitored and service-friendly area. I propose the
parking program be run or housed by a Church or Community Services Organization that would receive funding
allocated for homelessness as well as be audited periodically by the Elected Palo Alto City Counsel to insure the
funding is being allocated appropriately. While the program type is ideal, let us learn from the incompetence and
misuse of any housing or parking program as it failed to serve those in Mountain View.
Kind regards,
Sarah Prostak