HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2606-6479CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
10.Recommendation from the Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Ad Hoc Committee to Launch Two
Pilot OSV Parking Programs, Including Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing an OSV
Parking Permit Program, an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Add an
OSV Parking Permit Fee, Resolutions Establishing OSV Parking Permit Districts on
Embarcadero Road and Coyote Hill Road, a Resolution Prohibiting OSV Parking on
Numerous Streets in Palo Alto; a Resolution Adding Related Penalties to the
Administrative Penalty Schedule; and Related Amendments to the FY 2027 Operating
and Capital Budget; CEQA status – categorically and statutorily exempt. Staff
Presentation, Public Comment
1
0
1
9
0
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: August 24, 2026
Report #:2606-6479
TITLE
Recommendation from the Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Ad Hoc Committee to Launch Two Pilot
OSV Parking Programs, Including Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing an OSV Parking Permit
Program, an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Add an OSV Parking Permit
Fee, Resolutions Establishing OSV Parking Permit Districts on Embarcadero Road and Coyote Hill
Road, a Resolution Prohibiting OSV Parking on Numerous Streets in Palo Alto; a Resolution
Adding Related Penalties to the Administrative Penalty Schedule; and Related Amendments to
the FY 2027 Operating and Capital Budget; CEQA status – categorically and statutorily exempt.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve a pilot OSV parking permit program on Embarcadero Road and Coyote Hill
Road for an initial term of 12 months, substantially as described in this report. This
includes adoption of the following:
a. An ordinance adding new PAMC Chapter 10.49 to establish an OSV Parking
Permit Program and amending PAMC section 10.60.010 allowing civil penalties
for parking violations of several chapters of the PAMC;
b. An ordinance amending the FY 2027 Municipal Fee Schedule to add an OSV
parking permit fee of up to $15 per month;
c. A resolution establishing an OSV Parking Permit District on a section of
Embarcadero Road. This will prohibit parking except for vehicles with permits;
d. A resolution establishing an OSV Parking Permit District on a section of Coyote
Hill Road. This will prohibit parking except for vehicles with permits; and
e. A resolution amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule to add penalties for
violations of PAMC Chapter 10.49.
2. Approve a pilot to prohibit OSV parking on alternating sides of the street, for an initial
term of 12 months, substantially as described in this report
1
0
1
9
0
a. This includes adoption of a resolution prohibiting OSV street parking on
alternating sides of the following street segments: 4000 block of Transport
Street, 900 block of Commercial Street, 900 Block of Industrial Avenue, 100 block
of Page Mill Road, 2800-3200 blocks of Park Avenue, 200-400 block of Olive
Avenue, 2900 and 3200 blocks of Ash Street, 200-400 block of Lambert Avenue,
2400 block of Faber Place, 2400 block of Embarcadero Way, 1000 block of
Corporation Way, 1000 block of Elwell Court, and 1000 block of East Meadow
Circle.
3. Approve amendments to the Fiscal Year 2027 budget appropriation for the General
Fund (2/3 vote required) by:
a. Increasing the City Manager’s Office contractual services appropriation by
$194,300, and
b. Decreasing the Business Tax Reserve for Housing Affordability and Services for
the Unhoused by $194,300.
4. Amend the Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Appropriation for the Capital Improvement Fund
(requires a 2/3 vote) to:
a. Increase the Parking Infrastructure Improvements project (PL-12000) in the
amount of $524,500; and
b. Decrease the infrastructure reserve ending fund balance by $524,500.
5. Direct the City Manager or their designee to return to Council in March and September
2027 with status reports and any recommendations regarding continuation,
modification, expansion or termination of the pilot programs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendation that
the City Council approve the launch of two pilot programs intended to address ongoing
neighborhood, business, public health, and safety impacts associated with OSVs used for
habitation while also providing a more structured and humane response for individuals living in
those vehicles. The first pilot permits eligible OSV dwellers to park in designated segments of
specific streets. The second pilot prohibits OSV parking on specific sides of identified streets
during designated six-month periods of the year.
1
0
1
9
0
The recommendation builds on the Phase I implementation, previously approved by Council1,
including enforcement, towing, cleanup, and service coordination measures, as well as
subsequent OSV Ad Hoc Phase II development, including consideration of enhanced services,
additional safe parking strategies, a pilot permit framework, and regional coordination. The
February 23, 20262 study session materials specifically identified a pilot OSV permit program as
a pragmatic next step because off-street safe parking expansion is constrained by land
availability and cost.
BACKGROUND
1 Council Staff Report, October 20, 2025
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83666&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=7bf9966e
-7dd8-4189-b428-086b2b158f4f
2 Council Staff Report, February 23, 2026
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=86646&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=d1be7c39
-257a-48d3-8ad3-c90298681508
1
0
1
9
0
comparatively high share relative to the Countywide rate of 53%. The City has experienced
increasing impacts to parking, traffic safety, on-street parking availability for other uses (e.g.,
residents, business employees and visitors) and necessitating outreach services, additional
street cleaning, and waste disposal in relation to oversized vehicle habitation on public streets.
5 regarding progress related to OSVs and the work of the OSV Ad Hoc.
The update noted that there was a decline in OSVs from 191 to 133 between January 15 and
May 6, 2026. The report also noted that substantial staff effort across departments during
Phase I reduced impacts, improved compliance, and provided insights for Phase II.
ANALYSIS
Current Conditions and Policy Context
5 Council Staff Report, June 8, 2026
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=887100&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=eb20f96
d-f928-4d49-a57e-abd6ccc0a99b
1
0
1
9
0
parking on heavily impacted streets. This program design balances the need to address impacts
of OSVs with legal, practical, and humanitarian considerations. In addition, the pilots will allow
for adjustments to real world conditions. Staff plans to return to Council with status reports
and recommendations for next steps at six months and again at 12 months.
OSV Parking Permit Pilot
7
and would permit OSV parking on a portion of Coyote Hill Road within the City’s jurisdiction and
a portion of Embarcadero Road near the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City is in ongoing
discussions with the County of Santa Clara for the Coyote Hill Road pilot and is seeking to
extend the program to parking spaces closer to Page Mill Road; however, pending agreement,
this pilot would be limited to the segment of Coyote Hill Road within the City’s jurisdiction.
7 Both pilot programs’ authorizing legislation are structured to allow them to continue until Council takes action
otherwise.
1
0
1
9
0
consistent participant engagement, help individuals develop and follow individualized housing
plans, coordinate documentation and benefit needs, connect participants to appropriate
housing pathways, and maintain forward progress toward permanent or more stable housing.
This dedicated support is intended to improve the pilot’s effectiveness as a transition toward
housing stability and to reduce the likelihood that participants cycle back into unsheltered
homelessness.
Landscaping to reduce fire risks along Coyote Hill Road
Temporary restriping of Embarcadero Road to allow for OSVs to park without blocking
the bike lane
Signage installation that clearly states ’parking by permit‘ only
Outreach to current OSV dwellers to gain participants for the permit program
Case management and program support through a formal solicitation process
Onsite port-a-potties and hand-washing stations
Waste management bins (via Greenwaste of Palo Alto)
Signage installation
Road restriping design and labor
1
0
1
9
0
Site Configuration Rendering for Coyote Hill Road (total OSV capacity, up-to 20)*
*This number is an approximation of capacity for the space and takes into account larger OSVs
plus one personal vehicle per OSV.
1
0
1
9
0
Site Configuration Rendering for Embarcadero Road (total OSV capacity, up-to 17)**
**This number is an approximation of capacity for the space and takes into account larger OSVs
plus one personal vehicle per OSV.
Under current estimates, the OSV parking permit pilot will have an approximate capacity of 37
permitted OSVs. Actual number of permits issued will be dependent on OSV size and remaining
space in the permitted areas. A lower number of permits may be issued at the start of the
program to allow staff to work out any issues that may arise.
Each permit will be valid for a period of one month. At the end of the one-month period, the
permit may be renewed for an additional one month should the permit holder be actively
engaging in case management, working toward the goals of moving into permanent housing,
and causing no ongoing issues or safety concerns. Permits will expire at the close of the OSV
parking permit pilot, and renewals will not be granted beyond the scope of the program.
Qualifications to participate in the parking permit pilot include:
A valid vehicle registration,
1
0
1
9
0
Active insurance,
Agreement to sign, and abide by, a good neighbor agreement,
Agreement to participate and engage with outreach workers to receive support to
transition into permanent housing,
Priority to Palo Alto connections,
Restriction to low-income households, and
The ability to pay a $15 permit fee, per month.
Staff propose using the following metrics to gauge program success:
A reduction in complaints about OSVs
From residents
From businesses
Overall reduction of warnings, citations and calls for services
Number of participants complying with good neighbor agreement and ability to meet
other eligibility requirements
Consistent engagement with case management services
With the addition of these OSV parking spaces on Coyote Hill Road and Embarcadero Road, a
complementary pilot will simultaneously be implemented to assist in reducing the impact of
OSVs parked elsewhere. The OSV parking prohibited on alternating sides pilot is explained
below.
OSV Parking Prohibited on Alternating Sides of Street
The OSV parking prohibited on alternating sides of street pilot would launch as a 12-month pilot
beginning by January 2027. This pilot is intended to complement the OSV parking permit pilot,
which will allow up to approximately 37 OSVs to park in dedicated spaces in the city.
There will be some logistical functions that arise as OSV dwellers, businesses, and surrounding
neighborhoods adapt to the changes.
On identified-as-impacted streets, OSVs will be prohibited from parking on one side of the
street for six months of the year and will then need to relocate for the remaining six months of
the year. In the remaining six months of the year, parking will be available on the other side of
the street. Permits will not be required to participate or park on these streets during this pilot.
However, compliance with posted signage will be required. Noncompliance can and will be
enforced with towing. Given this new restriction on the streets where OSVs predominantly park
in Palo Alto, there is likely to be spillover onto other streets in the city. By implementing this
pilot incrementally, staff will be able to better closely monitor and address potential impacts to
other areas, especially during street sweeping days. One anticipated impact is an increase in
1
0
1
9
0
OSVs parked on streets adjacent to parks near the pilot area. To address this potential impact,
signage will be installed to enable enforcement of no OSV overnight parking on the streets
adjacent to those parks.
Proposed Signage Rendering for Alternating Sides of the Street OSV Parking Prohibition
Staff recommend:
The below streets for OSV parking prohibited on alternating sides of the street:
4000 Block of Transport Street
900 Block of Commercial Street
900 Block of Industrial Avenue
100 Block of Page Mill Road
2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard
200-400 Block of Olive Avenue
2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street
200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue
1000 Block of Elwell Court
1000 Block of Corporation Way
1000 Block of East Meadow Circle
2400 Block of Embarcadero Way
1
0
1
9
0
2400 Block of Faber Place
The above list does not include the 900 block of San Antonio Road, 4000 block of
Transport Street, 900 block of Industrial Avenue, and 1800-1900 block of Embarcadero
Road because parking is already prohibited or unavailable on one side of the street on
these blocks.
Red tips (no parking) painted along curbs on both sides of all impacted streets (i.e.,
including segments of San Antonio, Transport, Industrial, and Embarcadero Road) with
about five feet (5') adjacent to driveways to aid with visibility for vehicles
entering/exiting parking lots
Daylighting at intersections (20 feet of red curb paint) on streets included in the
program
Street sweeping frequency to remain consistent at current twice per month frequency
Installing no overnight OSV parking signage on streets adjacent to nearby parks (i.e.,
streets adjacent to Ramos Park and Greer Park)
Staff propose using the following metrics to gauge success:
Feedback from businesses: does it continue to be negative, manageable, or did feedback
change altogether?
Spillover parking concerns from other streets, including residential areas
Before launching the two pilots, staff would conduct outreach and address feedback, finalize
the remaining administrative and operational details necessary to implement the Council-
approved pilot structure, such as application materials, verification process, signage,
communications, data tracking, and enforcement coordination.
Basis for Recommending Launch of Two Pilot Programs
The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the launch of two pilot programs to move from concept
development into limited-duration operational testing. The OSV parking permit pilot, when
coupled with the prohibiting OSV parking on alternative sides of the street pilot, provide a
necessary step to establish conduct monitoring (e.g., permit holders adherence to standards,
good neighbor conduct); optimize sanitation scheduling; evaluate impacts on pilot streets,
adjacent streets, and adjacent parks; streamline permit eligibility verification; and evaluate
success. Together, the pilots are intended to:
Reduce immediate neighborhood and business impacts,
Improve sanitation, safety, and accountability,
1
0
1
9
0
Test structured standards and eligibility requirements,
Strengthen service engagement and pathways towards housing,
Evaluate operational feasibility and staff workload, and
Provide Council with measurable results prior to any longer-term program or policy
decision.
Benefits of Launching the Pilots
Approving launch of two pilot programs at this stage offers several benefits. First, a pilot-based
launch gives the City a structured way to test whether these innovative approaches can reduce
impacts more effectively than cleanup and enforcement alone. Additionally, these pilots set
conduct standards and provide a greater level of support for the community, while also offering
more dignity and predictability to participants. Second, the pilots advance the phased strategy
already initiated by Council. Third, a limited pilot structure may reduce legal and operational
risk relative to immediate permanent or citywide implementation because it allows the City to
test processes on a manageable scale, monitor cost effectiveness and impacts closely, and
return to Council before expanding the approach.
Performance Measures and Return to Council
If Council approves the launch of the pilots, staff recommends evaluating them using
measurable criteria and returning to Council with a formal assessment. Recommended
performance measures include:
Number of issued permits;
Compliance, and non-renewal rates;
Number and type of neighborhood and business complaints before and during the
pilots;
Outreach contacts and service-engagement rates;
Housing, shelter, or safe-parking referrals and placements;
Staff time and operating costs;
Enforcement actions associated with pilot and non-pilot areas; and
Feedback from affected neighborhoods, businesses, service providers, and participants.
Staff anticipates returning to Council by Fall 2027 with a midpoint evaluation and Spring 2028
with a final evaluation and recommendations regarding continuation, modification, expansion,
or termination.
Risks, Constraints, and Implementation Challenges
A pilot will not fully resolve impacts outside the pilot geography. For example, unpermitted
OSVs could move from pilot areas into non-pilot areas. The Palo Alto Police Department
continues to provide proactive enforcement and response to enforceable violations that are
reported. However, implementation of the pilot programs may increase the number of calls for
1
0
1
9
0
service, response needs, and follow-up enforcement activity. The Public Works team continues
to divert their staff and resources to install signage throughout the identified streets. The Office
of Transportation has delayed other projects to support Public Works in sign design and other
associated tasks.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
1
0
1
9
0
1
0
1
9
0
OSV Parking Permit Pilot
Services/Capital Improvements Funding
Source
Pilot
Year*
Ongoing
Annual Cost**
Engineering; road restriping designs,
labor, materials
Capital Reserves $190,500
Signage Capital Reserves $16,000
Outreach and Case Management Business Tax Reserve $161,000 $177,000
*August 2026-March 2027 allows staff time to configure the permit program.
Permit program would operate March 2027-March 2028; this spans FY 2027 and FY 2028
** Ongoing costs include an approximate 10% annual increase
OSV Parking Prohibited on Alternative Sides of Street Pilot
Services/Capital Improvements Funding
Source
Pilot
Year
Ongoing
Annual Cost*
Signage Capital Reserves $283,000
Red Curb Paint (20’ from intersections,
5’ on each side of driveway)
Capital Reserves $35,000 $20,000
Community Services Officer (CSO)FY 2027 Budget $105,000 $115,000
*Ongoing costs are for curb paint touch ups
OSV Parking Permit Pilot Totals $400,800 $213,000
OSV Parking Prohibited on
Alternative Sides of Street Totals
$423,000 $135,000
Combined Pilot Totals $823,800 $348,000
If the City Council approves the budget amendments associated with this item, the remaining
balances will be $3.2 million in the Business Tax Reserve for Housing Affordability and $7.2
million in the Capital Infrastructure Reserve.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff continue to monitor and respond to correspondence submitted to Council, engage the
local service-provider network, meet with local businesses and the Chamber of Commerce, and
meet with individuals and groups requesting discussion on this topic. Additionally, staff and the
Ad Hoc participate in a regional convening hosted by Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga regarding
safe parking and regional collaboration.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The parking pilot programs as detailed in this staff report are exempt under CEQA regulations
15301 (existing facilities), 15304 (minor alterations to land), and Public Resources Code section
21080.10(c).
1
0
1
9
0
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
168_20260813_ts24
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter
10.49 (OSV Parking Permit Districts) to the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and Amending PAMC Section 10.60.010
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. California Vehicle Code section 22507 authorizes preferential parking permit programs.
B. The City Council desires to regulate the parking of oversized vehicles through a permit
program to mitigate the health, safety, and traffic impacts of such vehicles by creating an
Oversized Vehicle Parking Permit Program in new Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter
10.49.
C. The City Council also desires to amend PAMC section 10.60.010 to clarify that civil penalties
can be imposed for parking violations of several chapters of the PAMC.
SECTION 2. New Chapter 10.49 (Oversized Vehicle Parking Permit Program) is hereby
added to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
Chapter 10.49
Oversized Vehicle Parking Permit Districts
10.49.010 Definitions.
For the purpose of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the
following meanings:
(a) “OSV Parking Permit District” or "District" shall mean a geographical area in which the
City Council has established an OSV Parking Permit District to regulate the parking of Oversized
Vehicles. A District may also regulate the parking of other types of vehicles not classified as
Oversized Vehicles.
(b) “Oversize Vehicle”, “Oversized Vehicle” and “OSV” shall all have the same definition as
the term “Oversized Vehicle” does as defined in PAMC section 10.44.015.
10.49.020 Establishment of OSV Parking Permit Districts.
A District shall be established by adoption of a resolution of the City Council. The
resolution shall specify the following:
2
(a) The boundaries and name of the District.
(b) Hours and days of enforcement of parking regulations and other restrictions that shall be
in effect for permit holders and non-permit holders. This may include, but is not limited to, time
limits, reparking restrictions, parking prohibitions, or any other parking regulation or restriction
authorized by law.
(c) Such other matters as the council may deem necessary and desirable.
10.49.030 Administration of districts.
(a) No permit will be issued to any applicant until that applicant has paid all applicable permit
fees.
(b) All permits shall be displayed as directed by the City.
(c) No Guarantee of Availability of Parking. A parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to
the permit holder an on-street parking space within the designated District unless explicitly
stated in writing.
(d) Restrictions and Conditions. Each permit issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be subject to
each and every condition and restriction set forth in this Chapter, in the resolution
establishing the respective District, and in any applicable administrative regulations, as
may be amended from time to time. The issuance of such permit shall not be construed to
waive compliance with any other applicable law, regulation or ordinance.
(e) Exemptions.
The following vehicles are exempt from District parking restrictions in this Chapter:
(1) A vehicle owned or operated by a public or private utility, when used in the course of
business.
(2) A vehicle owned or operated by a governmental agency, when used in the course of
official government business.
(3) A vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued by the
Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, when used in the course of business.
(4) A vehicle parked or standing while actively delivering materials or freight.
(5) A vehicle displaying an authorized exemption permit issued by the City of Palo Alto.
(6) A vehicle displaying a State of California or military-issued disabled person placard or
license plates.
3
(f) Authority of Staff.
(1) The City Manager or designee is authorized to promulgate administrative regulations
that are not inconsistent with the purposes of this Chapter. This includes, but is not
limited to, administrative regulations on permit eligibility, permit sales processes, and
health and safety requirements. The administrative regulations may be different for
each District and may impose additional restrictions not in conflict with this Chapter.
(2) A private parking enforcement contractor approved by the City shall have the
authority to enforce any parking restriction and administrative regulations
established pursuant to this Chapter.
10.49.040 Violations and Penalties.
(a) No person shall park a vehicle adjacent to any curb in a District in violation of any posted or
noticed prohibition or restriction, unless the person has a valid and current parking permit
for that vehicle, or is otherwise exempt. A parking permit must be properly displayed or
affixed pursuant to any applicable administrative regulations to be valid. Use of any permit
issued under this chapter shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter and the
administrative regulations. Violations of this subsection shall be punishable by a civil
penalty under PAMC Chapter 10.60.
(b) No person shall sell, rent, or lease, or cause to be sold, rented, or leased for any value or
consideration any permit issued under this chapter. Upon violation of this subsection, all
permits issued to for the benefit of the permittee for which the sold, rented, or leased
permit was authorized shall be void. Violation of this subsection (b) shall be punishable as
an infraction and/or as an administrative penalty.
(c) No person shall buy or otherwise acquire for value or use any permit issued under this
Chapter, except as provided for in this chapter. Violation of this subsection (c) shall be
punishable as an infraction and/or as an administrative penalty.
(d) No person shall fail to abide by the administrative regulations authorized by this Chapter.
Violation of this subsection (d) shall be punishable as an infraction and/or as an
administrative penalty.
(e) Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this Chapter occurs
or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense.
(f) Where not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution or other applicable law, vehicles parked
in violation of this Chapter are subject to tow.
10.49.050 Revocation of permit.
In addition to all other remedies, the City Manager or designee may suspend or revoke a
permit issued under this chapter of any person found to be in violation of this chapter or its
administrative regulations by providing written notice of the suspension or revocation to the
permittee. Such written notice shall include a statement outlining the grounds for revoking the
permit.
4
A person may appeal a suspension or revocation by requesting a hearing under the
procedures in PAMC Section 1.12.060. The hearing shall be conducted under the procedures in
PAMC Chapter 1.12.
SECTION 3. Section 10.60.010 of Chapter 10.60 (“Parking Violations”) of Title 10
(“Vehicles and Traffic) is hereby amended to read as follows (new text underlined):
10.60.010 Parking violations punishable as civil penalties.
Except as otherwise provided, violations of any provision of Chapters 10.36, 10.40, 10.44,
10.46, 10.47, 10.48, 10.49 and 10.50 of this Title 10 and parking related violations in PAMC
Chapter 22.04 (hereinafter referred to as a "parking violation") shall be punishable by a civil
penalty (hereinafter referred to as a "parking penalty"). These parking penalties, together with
any late payment penalties, administrative fee, and other related charges shall be established
by ordinance or resolution of the city council.
SECTION 4. 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 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the 31st day after
adoption.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
5
SECTION 6. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this categorically
exempt under CEQA regulation 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304 (minor alterations).
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Chief Transportation Official
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
166_20260812_ts24
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Embarcadero
Road OSV Parking Permit District
R E C I T A L S
A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by City Council action,
of permit parking programs.
B. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 10.49 establishes the procedures for Oversized
Vehicle Parking Permit Districts (OSV Parking Permit District) within the City.
C. On August 24, 2026, the City Council desired to establish an OSV Parking Permit District on a
portion of Embarcadero Road through this Resolution and as permitted by PAMC section
10.49.020.
D. The City Council determines that the use of the permits will not adversely affect parking
conditions for residents or merchants in the area pursuant to California Vehicle Code section
22507(b).
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. Definitions.
A. “Oversized Vehicle” or “OSV” shall have the same meaning as in PAMC section 10.49.010.
B. “Embarcadero OSV Parking Permit District” or “District” shall consist of three segments
on Embarcadero Road as follows and as generally shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution:
a. Segment 1: From the northern corner of the intersection of Embarcadero Road
and Embarcadero Way, the start point of the segment is 20 feet northeast from
the northern corner of the intersection and continues for an additional 220 feet
to the northeast on the north side of Embarcadero Road.
b. Segment 2: From the western edge of the driveway of the Palo Alto Wastewater
Treatment Plant on Embarcadero Road, the start point of the segment is 100 feet
to the west and continues for an additional 250 feet to the west on the south side
of Embarcadero Road.
c. Segment 3: From the eastern edge of the driveway of the Palo Alto Wastewater
Treatment Plant on Embarcadero Road, the start point of the segment is 50 feet
to the east and continues for an additional 275 feet to the east on the south side
of the Embarcadero Road.
SECTION 2. Parking Restrictions within the District.
A. Permit Parking Only. Within the District, no person shall park a vehicle adjacent to any
curb. This restriction shall be in effect everyday at all times, except holidays as defined
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
166_20260812_ts24
in PAMC section 2.08.100(a) (but holidays shall not include Saturdays and Sundays, on
which days this restriction shall be active). Vehicles properly displaying a valid parking
permit as described in Section 4 of this Resolution are exempt from these restrictions.
B. Exempt vehicles. Vehicles described in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.49.030(e)
are exempt from the parking restrictions in this Resolution.
C. Tow Authority. Where not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution or other applicable
law, vehicles parked in violation of this Resolution are subject to tow.
SECTION 3. Parking Permits.
The City may issue parking permits for use by a person needing to park an OSV, plus an additional
vehicle(s) if allowed pursuant to administrative regulations.
A. Duration. Parking Permits shall be available in any duration as determined by the City
Manager or designee, up to a maximum of one year.
B. Form of Permit. The City may issue Parking Permits in any form it deems practicable.
C. Maximum Number of Permits Issued. The number of permits issued shall be determined
by the City Manager or designee.
SECTION 4. Parking Permit Fees. The fee for Parking Permits in the District shall be set
by the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule.
SECTION 5. Authority to Promulgate Regulations. The City Manager or designee is
authorized to promulgate regulations for this District pursuant to PAMC section 10.49.030(f). The
regulations may have additional restrictions on permit eligibility or permit requirements beyond
those in this Resolution.
SECTION 6. Conflicting Restrictions. In the event the City should, at a later time,
discover conflicting parking restrictions within the District that conflict with the restrictions of
this resolution, but are not expressly rescinded, the restrictions of this resolution shall control.
However, existing parking restrictions indicated by painted curbs and implemented pursuant to
Vehicle Code section 21458 are not superseded by this Resolution and remain in effect.
SECTION 7. CEQA. This Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15301 and 15304 in that this proposed
resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities and could result in a minor impact to
land.
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
166_20260812_ts24
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of
the Ordinance adopting new PAMC Chapter 10.49.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ __________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_______________________ ___________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Chief Transportation Official
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4
166_20260812_ts24
Exhibit A
The black lines with white dots represent the approximate locations of the three street
segments that compose the District.
*NOT YET APPROVED
1
167_20260813_ts24
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Coyote
Hill Road OSV Parking Permit District
R E C I T A L S
A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by City Council action,
of permit parking programs.
B. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 10.49 establishes the procedures for Oversized
Vehicle Parking Permit Districts (OSV Parking Permit District) within the City.
C. On August 24, 2026, the City Council desired to establish an OSV Parking Permit District on a
portion of Embarcadero Road through this Resolution and as permitted by PAMC section
10.49.020.
D. The City Council determines that the use of the permits will not adversely affect parking
conditions for residents or merchants in the area pursuant to California Vehicle Code section
22507(b).
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. Definitions.
A. “Oversized Vehicle” or “OSV” shall have the same meaning as in PAMC section 10.49.010.
B. “Coyote Hill OSV Parking Permit District” or “District” shall be the following segment of
Coyote Hill Road as follows and as generally shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution:
a. The segment starts at the border of the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo
Alto on Coyote Hill Road and continues east for 1,105 feet on the north side of the
road.
SECTION 2. Parking Restrictions within the District.
A. Permit Parking Only. Within the District, no person shall park a vehicle adjacent to any
curb. This restriction shall be in effect everyday at all times, except holidays as defined
in PAMC section 2.08.100(a) (but holidays shall not include Saturdays and Sundays, on
which days this restriction shall be active). Vehicles properly displaying a valid parking
permit as described in Section 4 of this Resolution are exempt from these restrictions.
B. Exempt vehicles. Vehicles described in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.49.030(e)
are exempt from the parking restrictions in this Resolution.
C. Tow Authority. Where not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution or other applicable
law, vehicles parked in violation of this Resolution are subject to tow.
*NOT YET APPROVED
2
167_20260813_ts24
SECTION 3. Parking Permits.
The City may issue parking permits for use by a person needing to park an OSV, plus an additional
vehicle(s) if allowed pursuant to administrative regulations.
A. Duration. Parking Permits shall be available in any duration as determined by the City
Manager or designee, up to a maximum of one year.
B. Form of Permit. The City may issue Parking Permits in any form it deems practicable.
C. Maximum Number of Permits Issued. The number of permits issued shall be determined
by the City Manager or designee.
SECTION 4. Parking Permit Fees. The fee for Parking Permits in the District shall be set
by the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule.
SECTION 5. Authority to Promulgate Regulations. The City Manager or designee is
authorized to promulgate regulations for this District pursuant to PAMC section 10.49.030(f). The
regulations may have additional restrictions on permit eligibility or permit requirements beyond
those in this Resolution.
SECTION 6. Conflicting Restrictions. In the event the City should, at a later time,
discover conflicting parking restrictions within the District that conflict with the restrictions of
this resolution, but are not expressly rescinded, the restrictions of this resolution shall control.
However, existing parking restrictions indicated by painted curbs and implemented pursuant to
Vehicle Code section 21458 are not superseded by this Resolution and remain in effect.
SECTION 7. CEQA. This Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15301 and 15304 in that this proposed
resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities and could result in a minor impact to
land.
//
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED
3
167_20260813_ts24
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of
the Ordinance adopting new PAMC Chapter 10.49.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ __________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_______________________ ___________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Chief Transportation Official
*NOT YET APPROVED
4
167_20260813_ts24
Exhibit A
The black line with white dots represents the approximate location of the District on Coyote Hill
Road.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
164_20260812_ts24
Ordinance No. ___
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Fiscal Year
2027 Municipal Fee Schedule to Add a Permit Fee for the OSV Parking
Permit Program
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On June 15, 2026, the City Council adopted an ordinance approving the City’s budget for fiscal
year 2027 (FY27). The ordinance included the FY27 Municipal Fee Schedule.
B. The City Council now desires to amend the FY27 Municipal Fee Schedule through this
Ordinance to add a new fee for the OSV Parking Permit Program.
SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Palo Alto amends the Fiscal Year 2027 Municipal
Fee Schedule by adding the following fee:
Office of Transportation
Parking Permit – OSV
OSV Parking Permit $0-15 per month (rate may be prorated depending on permit duration)
SECTION 3. The fee in this Ordinance is for a specific government service provided
directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged and which does not exceed the
reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product. In addition, the fee
is imposed for use/lease of local government property. Pursuant to Art. XIII C, Section 1(e),
subsections (2) and (4) of the California Constitution, this fee is not a tax.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this ordinance is not a “project” under CEQA
because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect
change in the environment.
//
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
164_20260812_ts24
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption as an amendment to the
City’s FY27 budget.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
____________________________
Chief Transportation Official
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
1
169_20260813_ts24
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Oversized
Vehicle Parking Restrictions on Several Street Segments in Palo Alto
R E C I T A L S
A. California Vehicle Code section 22507 and Palo Alto Municipal Code section 10.44.010 allows
the City Council to establish parking, stopping, standing and parking restrictions or
prohibitions.
B. The City Council seeks to restrict oversized vehicle parking on specific street segments
detailed below. Parking will be restricted to one side of each street segment at a time, and
will switch every six months to the other side of the street.
C. As used in this Resolution, the terms “oversized vehicle,” “trailer,” and “camper shell” shall
have the same meaning as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) section 10.44.015,
as may be amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. No person shall park an oversized vehicle, trailer, camper shell, tow truck as
defined by California Vehicle Code section 615, or special construction equipment as defined by
California Vehicle Code section 565, adjacent to the curb as follows:
Street Segment
Parking Prohibition Active
on this Side of the Street
Segment from January
through June
Parking Prohibition Active
on this Side of the Street
Segment from July through
December
4000 Block of Transport Street Side closest to 101 Side farther from 101
900 Block of Commercial Street East West
900 Block of Industrial Avenue East West
100 Block of Page Mill Road Side closest to Sheridan Ave Side closest to Olive Ave.
2800-3200 Block of Park
Boulevard
Side closest to Alma St Side closest to Birch St
200-400 Block of Olive Avenue Side closest to Page Mill Rd Side closest to Lambert Ave
2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street Side closest to Park Blvd Side closest to El Camino
Real
200-400 Block of Lambert
Avenue
Side closest to Olive Ave Side closest to Fernando
Ave
2400 Block of Faber Place Side closest to E. Bayshore Side closest to Embarcadero
Way
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
2
169_20260813_ts24
2400 Block of Embarcadero Way Side closer to Faber Place Side further from Faber
Place
1000 Block of Corporation Way Side closer to Elwell Ct Side further from Elwell Ct
1000 Block of Elwell Court Side further from
Corporation Way
Side closer to Corporation
Way
1000 Block of East Meadow
Circle
Outer ring (direction of
traffic going
counterclockwise)
Inner ring (direction of
traffic going clockwise)
SECTION 2. The following vehicles are exempt from the parking restrictions in this
Resolution:
(1) A vehicle owned or operated by a public or private utility, when used in the course of
business.
(2) A vehicle owned or operated by a governmental agency, when used in the course of
official government business.
(3) A vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued by the
Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, when used in the course of business.
(4) A vehicle parked or standing while actively delivering materials or freight.
(5) A vehicle displaying an authorized exemption permit issued by the City of Palo Alto.
(6) A vehicle displaying a State of California or military-issued disabled person placard or
license plates.
SECTION 3. Violations of this Resolution shall be a violation of PAMC section 10.44.010 or
any other applicable law. Pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22651(n), vehicles parked in violation of
this Resolution may be removed when not inconsistent with the United States Constitution or other
applicable law.
SECTION 4. This Resolution does not supersede any other parking regulation, restriction,
or prohibition (“parking regulation”). If this Resolution overlaps with another parking regulation(s),
the City Manager or designee may choose which parking regulation(s) to enforce in compliance with
the California Vehicle Code and any other applicable law.
SECTION 5. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 and 15304 in that this proposed
resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities and could result in minor alterations to
land.
//
//
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
3
169_20260813_ts24
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
passage. Enforcement shall commence when signage is posted.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ __________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_______________________ ___________________________
City Attorney or designee City Manager
___________________________
Chief Transportation Official
*NOT YET APPROVED*
165_20260812_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. 10272 is hereby
amended and restated to read as follows (edited sections underlined):
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*
165_20260812_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*
165_20260812_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*
165_20260812_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*
165_20260812_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
10.49.040(b)-(d) Transfer OSV permit; violation of regulations 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)
*NOT YET APPROVED*
165_20260812_ts24 6
12.20.020 Providing false information to City Utilities. 500
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
*NOT YET APPROVED*
165_20260812_ts24 7
or significant structure outside the downtown
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
*NOT YET APPROVED*
165_20260812_ts24 8
period for any daily violations that
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
*NOT YET APPROVED*
165_20260812_ts24 9
22.04.290(c) Attaching sign, etc., without permit. 500
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. 10272 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
*NOT YET APPROVED*
165_20260812_ts24 10
parking zones.
10.44.020 Oversized vehicle parking 46
10.44.040(b)Not in space marking. 46
10.44.050 Parking violation. 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
10.49.040(a)Violation of posted OSV permit sign 46
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. 10272 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
*NOT YET APPROVED*
165_20260812_ts24 11
stall or space with counterfeit, forged, altered or
mutilated license/placard for disabled.
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 Transportation Official
Recommendations on OSV Phase II Pilots
Presenter:
Melissa K. McDonough,
Assistant to the City Manager
August 24, 2026 Paloalto.gov
OSV Timeline
2
OSV Work to Date
•Adopted Ordinance prohibiting vanlording
•Adopted Ordinance prohibiting detached and inoperable trailers
•Increased enforcement of new and existing regulations
•Implemented scheduled street cleaning/sweeping with parking prohibitions on 18
impacted streets
•Evaluated RV buyback and RV storage
•Engaged County on safe parking for regional solutions
•Outreached to property owners on availability of safe parking sites
•Met regularly with neighboring cities and County to work together to address
homelessness and its impacts
3
Recommendation
Recommendation for City Council to Approve Two Pilot OSV Parking Programs:
1.OSV Parking Permit Program on Coyote Hill Road and a portion of Embarcadero
Road (program includes an amendment to the Municipal Fee Schedule to add an
OSV Parking Permit fee; also includes resolutions to establish OSV parking permit
districts on these 2 roads)
2. Prohibiting Parking on Alternating Sides of Street on numerous streets (and
adding related penalties and budget amendments)
4
1st Pilot: OSV Parking Permit Program
•Goal: to provide structured, service -connected setting while helping people
transition into permanent housing
•Program Capacity: ~ 37 OSVs
•Pilot cost: $400,800
•Ongoing annual cost: $213,000
5
Embarcadero Road near Water Quality Control Plant Coyote Hill Road, City-managed side (may switch
to county side)
OSV Parking Permit Program Participation Requirements
•Valid vehicle registration
•Active insurance
•Signing (and abiding by) a good neighbor agreement
•Agreement to participate and engage with outreach workers to receive support
toward transitioning into permanent housing
•Prioritizing applicants with connections to Palo Alto
•Restriction to low-income households
•The ability to pay a $15 per month permit fee
6
2nd Pilot: OSV Parking Prohibited on Alternating Sides of Street
•Goal: to help reduce health and safety impacts
and OSV density on Phase I streets
•All existing regulations remain in place (72-hour,
street sweeping, detached trailer, etc.)
•New OSV parking prohibition* on one side of
the street (prohibition alternates sides from JAN -
JUN and JUL-DEC)
•All Phase I streets receive red tips on driveways
and at intersections
•Pilot cost $423,000
•Ongoing annual cost: $135,000
7
*Some Phase I streets are excluded from this pilot due to existing parking regulations (e.g., parking already limited to
only one side of the street)
•4000 Block of Transport Street
•900 Block of Commercial Street
•900 Block of Industrial Avenue
•100 Block of Page Mill Road
•2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard
•Portion of 200 Block of Olive Avenue
•2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street
•200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue
•1000 Block of Elwell Court
•1000 Block of Corporation Way
•1000 Block of East Meadow Circle
•2400 Block of Embarcadero Way
•2400 Block of Faber Place
•1000 block of Colorado
•1800-1900 block of Embarcadero Road
•3800-4000 block of Fabian Way
•900 block of San Antonio Road
•100 block of Sheridan Avenue
Street segments listed in blue are included in the alternating sides parking prohibition. All streets listed
receive red tips. This list includes updates/corrections from the staff report.
2nd Pilot Streets
8
Services/Capital Improvements Funding Source Pilot Year Ongoing Annual Cost
OSV Parking Permit Pilot
Site Amenities; portable toilets, hand -washing
station, Green Waste bins
Business Tax Reserve $33,300 $36,000
Engineering; road restriping, designs, labor,
materials
Capital Reserves $190,500 $0
Signage Capital Reserves $13,000 $0
Outreach and Case Management Business Tax Reserve $161,000 $177,000
*August 2026-March 2027 allows staff time to configure the permit program. Permit program would operate March 2027 -2028; this spans FY2027 and FY2028
**ongoing costs include an approximate 10% annual increase
OSV Parking Prohibited on Alternative Sides of Street
Signage for Additional Parking Restrictions Capital Reserves $283,000 $0
Red Curb Painting (20' from intersections, 5' on each side of
driveway)
Capital Reserves $35,000 $20,000*
Community Service Officer FY 2027 Budget $105,000 $115,000
*ongoing costs are for curb paint touch ups
OSV Parking Permit Pilot Totals $400,800 $213,000
OSV Parking Prohibited on Alternative Sides of Street Totals $423,000 $135,000
Combined Pilot Totals $823,800 $348,000
Recommended Motion
Recommendation for City Council to Approve Two Pilot OSV Parking Programs:
1.Adopt an Ordinance Establishing an OSV Parking Permit Program; including:
a.An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Add an OSV Parking
Permit Fee), and
b.Resolutions Establishing OSV Parking Permit Districts on Embarcadero Road
and Coyote Hill Road,
2.Adopt a Resolution Prohibiting OSV Parking on Numerous Streets in Palo Alto;
including
a.Resolution Adding Related Penalties to the Administrative Penalty Schedule;
and Related Amendments to the FY 2027 Operating and Capital Budget
10
Melissa McDonough
Assistant to the City Manager
Melissa.McDonough@PaloAlto.gov
650.329.2533
From:Suneet Dhingra
To:Council, City
Subject:Sign enforcement for oversized vehicles
Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 5:52:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hi,
Thank you for confirming that the 4000 block of Fabian Way east of the
bend is eligible for signs allowing enforcement of the overnight
oversized vehicle parking restriction under PAMC 10.44.020. This
location is near the driveway serving 800 Charleston Village.
Installing these signs will dramatically improve safety and visibility
in the area. Could you please share the expected work order and
installation dates? Please reference Palo Alto 311 case 18225728.
Thank you!
~Suneet.
From:Henry Childs
To:Council, City
Subject:Upcoming Council Discussion on August 24th Addressing Oversized Vehicle Impacts
Date:Tuesday, August 11, 2026 6:05:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for providing notice of the August 24 discussion regarding oversized vehicles
used for habitation. I previously contacted the City regarding the growing number of
oversized vehicles parked along East Meadow Drive and near neighborhood parks, and I
appreciate the opportunity to provide additional public comment.
I want to be clear about my position. My principal concern is not simply that people are
living in vehicles. My concern is that Palo Alto is allowing large vehicles being used as
residences to occupy public residential streets for extended periods of time in a manner
that creates significant safety, parking, neighborhood, and land-use impacts.
There are three issues that I believe the Council should address directly.
First, this is a public-safety issue. Oversized vehicles routinely park adjacent to
neighborhood parks and other areas heavily used by children and families. Large
vehicles create substantial visual obstructions for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists and
reduce sightlines near areas where children are crossing streets, entering parks, and
playing. Whatever policy the City ultimately adopts, overnight or prolonged parking of
oversized vehicles near parks and other child-centered public spaces should be
prohibited.
Second, this is a neighborhood and property-value issue. Residential streets are shared
public assets. Allowing oversized vehicles to function as long-term residences along
those streets changes the character and use of the surrounding neighborhood and can
create the appearance of blight. Residents should not be expected to absorb the
consequences of effectively converting portions of residential streets into informal
residential sites without any of the zoning, sanitation, parking, fire-safety, or land-use
requirements that would apply to a conventional residential development.
Third, the current time-based parking restrictions are plainly inadequate. The practical
problem is that an oversized vehicle can leave a location briefly, park elsewhere, and
then return. I have personally observed what appears to be this type of rotation on East
Meadow. Moving a vehicle for a short period and then returning it to substantially the
same location may satisfy a technical interpretation of a parking restriction, but it
defeats the purpose of preventing public streets from becoming long-term residential
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
parking locations.
The Council should therefore consider the functional use of these vehicles, not merely
whether they are capable of moving.
In practical terms, an oversized RV that remains within the same neighborhood and is
continuously used as a residence has many of the same land-use characteristics as a
unit in a trailer or mobile-home park. The fact that it has wheels does not eliminate the
neighborhood impacts associated with residential occupancy. The critical distinction is
that a lawful mobile-home or RV park operates on property specifically designated for
that purpose and is subject to applicable infrastructure, sanitation, safety, density, and
land-use requirements. A public residential street is not.
For that reason, I urge the Council to adopt a policy that prevents residential streets
from becoming de facto mobile-home parks while simultaneously creating a structured
alternative for individuals currently living in oversized vehicles.
At minimum, I encourage the Council to consider:
1. Prohibiting overnight parking of oversized vehicles adjacent to parks, playgrounds,
schools, and other areas heavily used by children.
2. Establishing meaningful geographic restrictions on oversized-vehicle parking in
residential neighborhoods, rather than relying exclusively on a rule that can be
circumvented by briefly moving a vehicle.
3. Creating an enforcement standard that addresses repeated rotation within the same street
or neighborhood so that temporary relocation does not indefinitely reset the parking
clock.
4. Continuing aggressive enforcement of Palo Alto's vanlording ordinance where
individuals or businesses are effectively renting vehicles as unregulated residential
units.
5. Providing designated locations, where appropriate, for individuals who legitimately
need temporary vehicle habitation, rather than placing the entire burden of that policy on
residential neighborhoods and public streets.
A humane policy and a strong neighborhood-protection policy are not mutually
exclusive. Palo Alto can provide reasonable alternatives for people living in vehicles
without accepting the permanent conversion of residential streets and park frontage into
unregulated residential areas.
I encourage the Council to use the August 24 discussion to move beyond a system that
merely causes oversized vehicles to rotate from block to block. The objective should be
a policy that actually addresses the underlying land-use, public-safety, parking, and
neighborhood impacts.
Thank you for considering my comments.
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George
Cc:Becky Sanders; Bulatao, Eric; Janie Sydow; Alex Smelik; Nancy Ellickson; Roger Smith; McDonough, Melissa; Scott Petersen; Chris Schremp; Apple, Kara; City Mgr; Barry Katz; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Jo Ann Mandinach; Penny Brennan
Subject:Oh and About the Lexington OSV on Matadero/Charleston Village
Date:Wednesday, August 12, 2026 2:13:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto City Council Members and OSV Ad Hoc Committee,
Please read this interaction below between a resident of the Ventura neighborhood and the Palo Alto Police Department. This situation is going on all over South Palo Alto, day after day, and the Police
Department can only do so much based on the current regulations. We need concrete more stringent regulations to prevent these situations NOW, not in Q4, 2027, or NEVER. The tax-paying residents of
Palo Alto are really, really tired of the minimal efforts the City has taken to remove these OSVs.
I was just notified of a RV that has moved back in from of the Charleston Village Condos on Fabian Way. Two RVs were camped out there for months and somehow they were gone for a month until
yesterday. While they were gone the residents would coordinate parking their cars there so the RVs could not move back. Since that is very difficult to coordinate amongst the residents, there was a small
opening and the RV moved back. This is absolutely insane and unfortunateI As you can read below the police do not have the tools to take the needed actions to remove these RVs.
We are getting very tired on this and the police on the streets are getting very tired of this! It sounds like we are going to hear about two pilot proposals at the August 24th Council Meeting. Based on the
Council’s proclivity to not be punitive and to not make decisions based on the common sense needs of their constituents we sure hope there will be short-term actions to remove these RVs from the streets
of South Palo Alto.
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
Matadero Ave.
Fabian Way & East Charleston
From: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Oh and about the Lexington OSV on Matadero
Date: August 11, 2026 at 12:54:42 PM PDT
To: "Bulatao, Eric" <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>
Cc: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>
Hi Sgt. Eric:
Thank you for responding. Please see my responses in-line.Thank you.
Becky
On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 5:20 PM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Hi Becky,
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. We are familiar with the RV parked along Matadero and understand the many complaints we have received regarding it. We have
tagged the vehicle numerous times, and each time we have rechecked it, there has been an indication that it was moved.
Would you define 'indication' in this case? I drive by or walk by the Lexington everyday and it's always on that section. The guy also owns a black SUV that he tools around in and
is careful to keep his head down and not make eye contact. The Lexington may have moved 10 feet in either direction, but it is always there. Honest to God.
Under the municipal code, the vehicle is not required to leave the area entirely; it only needs to move at least one-half mile.
I will eat my hat if that OSV has moved 1/2 mile away in the last few months.
As a result, the RV can legally drive around the block and return to the same location.
Regarding the hazard you mentioned, we measured the distance from the front of the RV to the intersection several times. Each measurement showed that the RV was more than 20
feet from the intersection. Since it is parked beyond the required 20-foot distance, it is not in violation of the applicable vehicle code governing parking near intersections. Additionally,
because the curb is not marked as a red zone or contains No Parking signs, the vehicle may legally park there.
We will continue to monitor the situation, but I wanted to address the two concerns you raised. If you believe the area should be designated as a No Parking zone due to visibility or the
proximity of oncoming traffic, I recommend contacting the Office of Transportation to request that they evaluate the location and determine whether a parking restriction is warranted.
Hey Eric, I just want you all to enforce the laws on the books. I live at xxxxxxx and we just recently were relieved of a dilapidated eyesore that resided on Orinda outside our fenceafter years, the poor fellows living there left garbage and human waste for us to clean up.
We now have new neighbors in a different OSV. They are outside our fence most days. They do move up to the next block on Orinda regularly and then return. They run their
generator quite a bit and exhaust wafts into our windows every day they stay outside my fence. They are not moving 1/2 mile away, by the way.
Also Eric, answer me honestly, if these OSVs were moving in on North Palo Alto where the more tony homes are, wouldn't you all chase them out of there so fast? Honestly. We are
very frustrated over here. We are second class neighborhoods down here in South Palo Alto as evidenced by your office's lack of will to enforce the laws on the books.
One more question -- Who is your boss and what do you need to hear from them to get you to act on our behalf.
Thank you.
Becky
Respectfully
Sergeant Eric Bulatao
Palo Alto Police Department
Special Problems Detail
275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Office: (650) 838-2866
From: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 10:52 AM
To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Oh and about the Lexington OSV on Matadero
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Sgt. Bulatao:
We continue to be amazed at the lack of line of sight caused by the trailer and the safety hazard it creates when drivers in the alley and on Matadero cannot see around its hulk.
Even if you nose your car forward, you might get hit by someone who is driving at speed who doesn't see you.
Why doesn't that OSV on Matadero at El Camino ever have to move? Aren't we supposed to warn and tag them and tow them if they don't move? Is there someone living there that
needs to be there for some reason, whose interests outweigh those of the neighbors.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Becky
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Council, City; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick
Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy
Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete;
Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter
Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer;
Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker;
Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette
Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana
Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael;
Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian;
Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott;
Linda Zausen
Subject:Fabian Way - - Thursday August 13, 2026
Date:Thursday, August 13, 2026 3:27:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Ms. Mayor,
I would like to bring to your attention the worsening OSV situation in South Palo Alto and ask you to address it.
These photos represent the situation today that was brought to my attention by several residents of the Charleston Village Condominiums on the corner of E. Charleston and Fabian Way. This segment of Fabian Way between
E. Charleston and San Antonio Rd. is lined with back to back OSVs and the residents and businesses here are fed up and want action from the City. You can clearly see this fifth wheel trailer dangerously jutting out in to bend
in the road obstructing the roadway and sightings. I drove down here several times today and it is extremely dangerous. Can the City have this vehicle towed away immediately.
Please be on notice that this situation has been brought to the City’s attention in the event that there is an accident and someone is injured.
We have been dealing with this situation for far too long and we are near the breaking point. A year has gone by and the incremental measures implemented by the City in this past year have only marginally fixed the problem.
This particular section of Fabian Way is a disaster and it is not fair to the residents and businesses here.
We would like for you to tell us how this situation will be fixed in the very near term! As the mayor you are the one who has the power, in addition to your fellow council members, to make the necessary decisions to fix this
problem. Let me add, one more time, the City Council works for the Palo Alto Residents!
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
Fabian Way between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd. Charleston Village Condominiums in the background
Fabian Way between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.
Fabian Way between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.
Fabian Way between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.
Fabian Way between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.
Fabian Way between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.
Fabian Way between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.
From:annie griffin
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: RV LIFESTYLES
Date:Friday, August 14, 2026 12:25:40 PM
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 express my deep concern regarding the recent article about Palo Alto resident
Bob Mariano spending months documenting RVs parked throughout the city and sharing his
findings with city officials. Sounds a bit like the Gestapo to me.
It is not a crime to choose a nomadic lifestyle. Thousands of well-educated, civilized people
choose to live this way. In Europe, this lifestyle is not looked down upon; in fact, nobody
seems to notice. Yet, in America, there seems to be a widespread pettiness that unless you live
in a traditional home, you are a lesser human being. This mentality needs to stop, and framing
this man as a hero for monitoring these residents is deeply disheartening.
For many, an RV is a last resort after losing their homes to disasters like fires, or due to
insurance delays leading to foreclosure. I wish Mr. Mariano would instead interview these
individuals to share their lifestyles and adventures. Furthermore, many adult children are
moving back with their parents because the high cost of living has made it nearly impossible
to afford a decent apartment on a standard wage. You seem to be bent on making sure
everyone lives in a house when not everyone wants to. This policing of Our Lives infringes on
our individual freedom of choice. Who knows one day you might want to live in an RV. And
by law you won't be able to because there will be nowhere to park. Please rethink what you're
doing as though we're happening to you. Living an RV lifestyle can be so much fun good for
our health and gets us out of the drudgery of sameness. Thank you for considering my
comments sincerely Annie Griffin 831-582-1705
Sincerely,
Annie Griffin
831-582-1705
911 Bryant St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:LAKIBA PITTMAN
To:Council, City
Subject:Public Comment Letter on Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Programs
Date:Saturday, August 15, 2026 1:50:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Date: August 15, 2026
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Resident of Olive Avenue, Ventura Neighborhood
Subject: Public Comment on Item 10: Oversized Vehicle (OSV) Impact Pilot
Programs (August 24, 2026 Meeting)
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a resident of Olive Avenue in the Ventura neighborhood to share my
feedback and serious concerns regarding the proposed Oversized Vehicle (OSV) pilot
programs on the agenda for the August 24, 2026 meeting.
Living on Olive Avenue, my neighbors and I witness the daily impacts of vehicle
habitation firsthand. While there are existing parking restrictions on our street,
consistent enforcement remains a persistent challenge. Currently, oversized vehicles
frequently park at the end of Olive Avenue, directly near the intersection with Park
Boulevard. This clustering has created significant safety and quality-of-life concerns
for our neighborhood.
Specifically, the presence of these long-term campers has resulted in accumulated
garbage left out on our public right-of-way. More importantly, it has directly impacted
our sense of safety. Ventura is a vibrant neighborhood filled with children playing and
residents walking their dogs. However, due to the lack of visibility and the activity
concentrated around these vehicles near Park Boulevard, I no longer feel entirely
safe walking my dog in that direction during dusk or the early evening hours.
Regarding the proposed pilot programs, I want to emphasize that residential streets
like Olive Avenue and Ash Street must be proactively protected. While I understand
the "OSV Parking Prohibited Alternating Side Pilot" is intended to restrict long-term
encampments by shifting parking availability every six months, I am deeply concerned
that it may inadvertently signal that oversized parking is permitted on residential
blocks during those intervals if enforcement is not immediate, rigorous, and
continuous.Therefore, I urge the Council to prioritize the following actions within any
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
adopted plan:
1. Strict Protection of Residential Zones: Ensure that the OSV Parking Permit Pilot
successfully redirects vehicle dwellers to the non-residential areas designated
on Coyote Hill Road and Embarcadero Road, completely removing the burden
from residential streets in Ventura.
2. Immediate Safety Infrastructure: Accelerate the painting of red tips at driveways
and critical intersections, particularly at the corner of Olive Avenue and Park
Boulevard, to restore pedestrian visibility and traffic safety.
3. Dedicated Sanitation Monitoring: Provide immediate mitigation for illegal
dumping, littering, and public health concerns on our residential blocks while
these programs are evaluated.
The Ventura neighborhood has historically taken on a significant share of high-density
zoning and urban impacts. We ask the City Council to ensure that this program strictly
protects our residential peace, safety, and cleanliness.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community.
Sincerely,
Lakiba Pittman
Olive Avenue Resident
Palo Alto, CA
From:Francesca Rael
To:Lauing, Ed; julie.lythcott-haimes@cityofpaloalto.org; Stone, Greer; vicki.venker@cityofpaloalto.org; Lu, George;
Burt, Patrick; Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Subject:OSV Phase II Pilot Program
Date:Saturday, August 15, 2026 2:54:06 PM
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 as a Palo Alto resident who lives very close to East Meadow Circle to strongly
oppose the proposed OSV Phase II Pilot Program as it applies to East Meadow.
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to people living in oversized vehicles, nor am I
opposed to allowing OSV parking on East Meadow. I would support a structured permit
program. What I do not support is an approach that fails to meaningfully control who is using
these streets for long-term vehicle residency and simply shifts parking from one side of the
street to the other.
If East Meadow is going to serve as a location for OSV parking, the City should implement a
permit system with clear eligibility requirements and accountability. Permits should prioritize
people who are genuinely low-income and have a meaningful connection to Palo Alto, for
example, people who work here, have children attending Palo Alto schools, care for an elderly
parent or family member here, or have another established community connection.
Participants should also be connected with case management and services aimed at achieving
stable housing similar to the participants in the proposed permit program on Embracadero and
Coyote Hill.
Residents living near East Meadow should not be expected to accept oversized vehicles
without reasonable limits, oversight, sanitation standards, or a clear understanding of who the
program is intended to serve. Alternating which side of the street permits parking every six
months does not adequately address those concerns.
A structured permit program would be both more compassionate and more responsible. It
would allow Palo Alto to provide a safe place for community members experiencing housing
instability while establishing clear expectations and protecting the surrounding neighborhood.
In my opinion, a structured permit program should be the only way that OSVs should be
allowed on our streets.
I urge the Council not to move forward with the alternating-side pilot on East Meadow in its
current form and instead develop a controlled, accountable permit program for this street.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you for taking the concerns of residents seriously.
Best,
Francesca
From:Jenny Lee
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Lauing, Ed; julie.lythcott-haimes@cityofpaloalto.org; Stone, Greer; vicki.venker@cityofpaloalto.org; Lu, George;
Burt, Patrick
Subject:OSV Phase II Proposed Plan
Date:Saturday, August 15, 2026 4:30:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and City Manager Shikada,
I am writing as a resident of the Echelon community to respectfully share my concerns about
the proposed rules for oversized vehicle and RV parking.
While we recognize the complex challenges surrounding housing and vehicle habitation, the
growing concentration of RVs along East Meadow Circle is significantly affecting the safety
& cleanliness of our neighborhood.
We respectfully ask the Council to prioritize dedicated, non-residential locations with
appropriate sanitation and services rather than allowing East Meadow Circle to become a
long-term habitation area. A phased approach that delays enforcement would only prolong
concerns related to waste management and resident safety.
I hope you will pursue a solution that balances compassion for those in need with the safety &
well-being of surrounding residential communities.
Thank you for your time and public service.
Sincerely,
Jenny Lee
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:01 lu
To:Council, City
Cc:Lauing, Ed; julie.lythcott-haimes@cityofpaloalto.org; Stone, Greer; vicki.venker@cityofpaloalto.org; Lu, George;
Burt, Patrick; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Unfair burden on the Echelon neighborhood - RV Parking
Date:Saturday, August 15, 2026 11:41:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
It is fundamentally unjust that the City of Palo Alto has allowed the RV parking issue to beconcentrated almost entirely on the borders of a few specific communities, including ours at EastMeadow Circle. Because our adjacent street is technically zoned non-residential, it has becomethe default dumping ground for this city-wide issue.
We expect the council to represent our interests equally. The current proposal, which postponesmeaningful enforcement and safe-parking relocation for years, leaves our neighborhood bearingthe brunt of the impact. I urge you to adopt policies that immediately post "No OversizedVehicle Parking" signs on East Meadow Circle and strictly enforce them. We need a definitivetimeline for the removal of these vehicles from our borders.
Sincerely, Lingyi Lu3724 Feather Ln
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Annette Ross
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:City Mgr; Annette Ross
Subject:OSV Proposal
Date:Sunday, August 16, 2026 11:19:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
I am writing to suggest that the OSV AdHoc Committee scrap the current proposal for
dealing with the OSV dilemma, reconvene, and invite Robert Marinaro to the table. If you
can figure out who they are, include also Lily and Gary G., who both posted informed
comments to Palo Alto Online’s article about your plan.
As a tax-paying resident of Palo Alto, I expected Council to come up with a plan that is
responsive to the concerns of residents and businesses. Instead, the proposed plan
legitimizes something that should not be happening in the first place. And the proposed
fee ($15/month) for a permit to park and live in Palo Alto is likely an invitation to grow the
problem. One person commented online that if he pulled his RV out of storage in
Monterey (@$60/mo) and relocated it here, he’d save money. Your proposal encourages
this.
Related to this (see Lily G’s comments online) I am baffled by this city’s approach to fire
safety. Palo Alto is promoting housing density (including sanctioned RV dwelling) which
only and inevitably increases demand on health and safety services. Yet there’s no
evidence of a planned increase in services. Or even right-sizing the equipment and
staffing at Fire Station 4. This is asking for trouble. If you need confirmation of that you
need only call LA’s mayor. Or read about the unnecessary complications of the
Altadena and Pacific Palisades fires.
You all spent a lot of time and a good amount of money convincing Palo Alto voters that
you have the chops to tackle civic issues. This proposal doesn’t come close to proving
that. Please, start over. This community deserves better.
From:Shaoping Lu
To:Council, City
Subject:over-sized vehicles parking along Fabian way
Date:Sunday, August 16, 2026 5:57:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To whom may concern:
Thank you for confirming that the 4000 block of Fabian Way east of the bend is eligible for
signs allowing enforcement of the oversized vehicle parking restriction under PAMC
10.44.020. This is near the driveway serving 800 Charleston Village. Installing these signs
will dramatically improve safety and visibility in the area, especially when we drive a car out
of the complex. Could you please share the expected work order and installation dates?
PLease reference Palo Alto 311 case 18225728.
Thanks
Shaoping Lu
800 E Charleston Rd #31
Palo Alto 94303
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr
Cc:Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz;
Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou;
Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong;
Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily
Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky;
Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron
Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan
Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro;
Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun;
Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri
Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave
Adams
Subject:A Day in the Life of East Meadow Circle (8/16/26) - - Not So Quiet on the Southern Front!
Date:Sunday, August 16, 2026 10:07:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
All,
I walked East Meadow Circle with my wife tonight at 5:00 pm and recorded the following. While others were enjoying events in the park I was doing my due diligence! At any one time there are between 35-45 OSVs on the
0.5 mile segment of road
So as we walked down the middle of the street with my phone in my hand the first guy yells out something, which was inaudible, at us while we were 50 feet past his RV, then the guy who lives in his box truck opened the back
door of the truck to see who was coming and actually said Hi when he saw my wife because I was about 20 feet in front of her. I suspect he had a camera rigged to the outside of his truck as many of these RVs do.
Then this guy from one of the RVs followed us for about three blocks until we sat on a bench in Ramos Park. He continued to follow us and sat on a bench right next to us as if he was tying to intimidate us. We sat there for a
while and then we saw my neighbor playing on the play structure with his two children so we walked over the the play structure and played with the kids for about ten minutes before this guy finally turned around and walked
back to East Meadow Circle. I suspect he want to know where I lived.
Just so you know, this situation is really getting intolerable and just because it is not in your neighborhood doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist!
Bob
The Avenue des Champs-Élysées of South Palo Alto
Echelon Condos on East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle - - Is that a boat I see between the vehicles!
East Meadow Circle - - Sure, I’ll park anywhere in Palo Alto I please!
East Meadow Circle - - The guy who lives in his box truck with two dogs!
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle - - Seeing RV dwellers fixing their motocycles and cars is a common occurrence
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle - - This guy is a fixture here
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle - - Seen better days!
Sofia University - - Several of you are on my distribution list I sure wish you would speak up!
East Meadow Circle - - The Intruder is Everpresent
East Meadow Circle - - That tire cover should read “Life is Better on East Meadow Circle!"
East Meadow Circle - - The intruder has a nice setup in front of one of the many businesses that reside here
East Meadow Circle - - Detached trailer which is illegal under the OSV Phase I Plan so I called it in to the PAPD and got a quick response that it would be investigated
Fabian Way - - And one of the unfortunate consequences we see here in South Palo Alto
From:Annette Ross
To:Council, City; City Mgr; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims,
Julie; Stone, Greer
Cc:Annette Ross
Subject:OSV
Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 6:41:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Below is a picture from Palo Alto Online that is indeed worth a thousand words.
Is this type of parking even legal? Are you ticketing cars that park like this? If not, you should be.
At least 2 of the vehicles exceed the allowable size of the parking space. Also, whoever owns the
black truck in this photo cannot possibly get out of that space - and it looks like others are in the
same predicament. This issue isn’t going away. Please, put on your thinking caps!
From:hallows.vaulter_5c@icloud.com
To:Council, City
Subject:August 24th Council Addressing Oversized Vehicle Impacts
Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 8:08:04 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
All,
I understand that the City Council will meet on August 24 to discuss proposed oversized-
vehicle (OSV) pilot programs. As you consider these proposals, I strongly urge the City
Council to enact a comprehensive ban on RV and oversized-vehicle parking throughout the
City.
The rights and interests of property owners, residents, and local businesses deserve stronger
protection than those of transient oversized vehicles. As you are aware, OSVs used for
habitation can create significant challenges, including sanitation concerns, obstruction of
public spaces, reduced visibility, decreased on-street parking availability, impacts on
neighborhoods and businesses, and ongoing demands on City resources and operations.
Rather than spending taxpayer dollars on pilot programs that may only delay meaningful
results, the City should focus on enforcing the municipal code already in place. Section 90.09
prohibits individuals from using vehicles for lodging on public streets and property between
the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Enforcing this existing regulation would provide an
immediate and straightforward way to address overnight habitation in vehicles without
creating additional programs or expenses.
Residents and business owners expect the City to enforce its existing laws and maintain the
cleanliness, safety, accessibility, and character of our neighborhoods. Resources should be
directed toward enforcement and solutions that benefit the community as a whole—not toward
programs that normalize or expand OSV habitation.
If the City Council nevertheless decides to proceed with an OSV pilot program and allocate
taxpayer resources to it, I would suggest an alternative: limit OSV parking exclusively to the
city blocks where City Council members and the City Manager reside. If these programs are
truly in the best interests of the community, City leadership should be willing to experience
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
their impact firsthand.
A comprehensive ban on RV and oversized-vehicle parking is reasonable, necessary, and
preferable to spending additional public resources on pilot programs when existing municipal
regulations can and should be enforced.
Best,
GMH
Begin forwarded message:
From: "McDonough, Melissa" <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Staff Report Available for August 24th Addressing Oversized Vehicle
Impacts
Date: August 13, 2026 at 6:08:36 PM PDT
As I mentioned earlier this week, Council will be discussing oversized vehicle (OSV)
impacts at its August 24th meeting, tentatively scheduled as Item 10, from 8:40 - 10:40
PM. Ahead of the meeting, if you’re interested, you can read the staff report online,
which describes two pilot programs:
1. OSV Parking Permit Pilot. Allowing OSVs to park on two designated street
segments (Coyote Hill Road and Embarcadero Road), while actively engaged in
pursuing permanent stable housing. This would also include case management
services, access to portable toilets, and trash removal.
2. OSV Parking Prohibited Alternating Side Pilot. On impacted streets, prohibiting
parking on one-side of each street, on an alternating 6-month basis. This would
also include painting red tips at driveways and intersections, and adding signage to
allow enforcement of no OSV overnight parking alongside city parks near these
streets.
Best regards,
Melissa
Melissa McDonough, MPP
Assistant to the City Manager
pronouns: she/her
650.329.2533 (desk) | 650.586.1557 (mobile)
c
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:Oksana Selavri
To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; julie.lythcott-haimes@cityofpaloalto.org; Stone, Greer; vicki.venker@cityofpaloalto.org;
Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Shikada, Ed
Subject:strong objection to Phase 2
Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 8:44:03 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good morning Mayor Veenker, Members of the City Council and City Manager,
I absolutely agree with Martin and strongly object to the current Phase 2 proposal. I am a resident of
Echelon Community and Fabian Way and East Meadow Circle is my immediate neighborhood. We have
suffered long enough (for 6 years now) from this problem and are asking for a better solution which
involves banning RVs in areas such as ours which are residential and adjacent industrial/commercial
areas. These vehicles do not belong on our streets. In fact the currently implemented biweekly street
cleaning showed minimal improvement and did not fix the problem at all. We used to have 55 back to
back RVs on East Meadow and now have about 35 RVs that continue to stay. And to make the matters
worse the street cleaning flushes them out and they now park right in front of our complex and run their
motors overnight creating noise and pollution. Please use the current $800K plus budget to either move
these people into Motels and truly help them get off the streets or identify a lot for these 130 plus vehicles
that are not disturbing tax paying Palo Alto residents. I see it as a waste of money with no result.
Respectfully,
Oksana Selavri
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Christian A. Hothem
To:Council, City
Subject:RV Parking Near 844 E. Charleston Road – Impact on Local Businesses
Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 4:51:31 PM
Attachments:pag-logo-email2_4095fa7b-f6df-42a4-99d6-4052b8405145.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor and Members of the City Council,
My name is Christian Hothem with Pacific American Group. Our family has owned the
commercial property at 844 E. Charleston Road since 1994.
I am writing regarding the concentration of RVs currently parked on the street near our
property. We have contacted the City and have been told that the vehicles are legally parked.
We recognize that homelessness and vehicle dwelling are difficult issues and that the City has
obligations to residents experiencing homelessness. We are not asking the City to simply
move people from one neighborhood to another.
However, the current situation is beginning to create a separate problem for the surrounding
business community. We recently had a prospective tenant decide not to lease space at 844 E.
Charleston specifically because of concerns about security associated with the RVs and the
condition of the surrounding street.
That means the issue is now directly affecting Palo Alto's ability to attract and retain
businesses at this location.
We would like to work constructively with the City to find a solution that treats the people
living in these vehicles appropriately while also ensuring that commercial streets remain safe,
accessible and attractive places for businesses, employees and customers.
We would appreciate the Council's assistance in determining what options are available,
whether through parking regulation, enforcement, outreach services, managed parking
programs, or another approach the City believes would be effective.
We have been invested in Palo Alto for more than three decades and want to continue being a
responsible long-term member of the community. I would be happy to meet with
Councilmembers or City staff at 844 E. Charleston to show you the situation firsthand.
Help your local businesses succeed! Please vote NO on Action Item 10 in the august 24th
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
special city council meeting. Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Christian Hothem
Pacific American Group
CHRISTIAN HOTHEMManaging Partner104 Caledonia St, Ste. 101Sausalito, CA 94965415.331.3838 office
From:Penny Brennan
To:Council, City
Subject:Please, Vote NO on Both OSV Pilot Programs!
Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 5:47:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
I urge you to vote NO on both OSV pilot programs recommended to you by the OSV
subcommittee and staff.
· As usual, even after community inquiries, the OSV subcommittee and
staff have acted with zero input from the Palo Alto residents and
businesspeople most directly affected and negatively impacted by presence
of OSVs on Palo Alto streets.
· The OSV subcommittee and staff continue to base their OSV policy
recommendations on stereotypes and feelings, rather than actual empirical
data, regarding the use and need characteristics of individuals who park their
OSVs in Palo Alto. For example, there are two OSVs parked in my Ventura
neighborhood (Matadero and Orinda Aves) that are routinely left vacant for
days and weeks on end, with no sign of overnight use. Seemingly these are not
being used as “humanitarian” shelters by their owners but as storage spaces
and way stations for cooling and car-charging via gas-powered generators.
The primary need of these users seems to be finding a parking space
sufficiently large to accommodate the enormous length and width of their
vehicles. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that some OSV users
park where they do not out of unemployed or destitute status but out of
preference for proximity to their Palo Alto workplaces. The Palo Alto City
Council should base its OSV policies on OSV use and need facts rather than
stereotypes and “gut feelings” labeled as “humanitarianism” and “moral
obligation.”
· Both recommended pilot programs are illogical in their conception. If
pilot permitted spaces are filled by new OSV arrivals, this will just add to the
more than 130 OSVs that already occupy Palo Alto streets. If the idea is to
shift existing OSVs to new pilot program spaces: Isn’t it obvious that the left-
behind, empty OSV parking spaces will be immediately backfilled by the
arrival of yet more new OSVs?
· Both pilot programs will be utterly unenforceable.
· Attempted implementation of the pilot programs will be costly, using
resources that would be much better spent strictly enforcing Palo Alto’s 72-
hour parking and public nuisance ordinances. Currently, Palo Alto is not doing
so.
· When will Palo Alto City Council focus its humanitarian compassion and
resource allotment more on Palo Alto residents and businesspeople, whose
safety, security, physical and mental health, livelihoods, and property values
are being jeopardized by the OSV users, than on the circumstances and needs
of OSV users who have chosen to park their vehicles in our city?
Both recommended OSV pilot programs are built on false premises, ill-conceived,
unenforceable, and destined to further harm Palo Alto residents and
businesspeople. I urge you to vote “NO” on both of them.
Sincerely,
Penny Brennan, PhD
Ventura Neighborhood
From:Dmitri Samsonov
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Oppose Legalization of Long-Term RV Parking in Residential Neighborhoods
Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 9:18:55 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,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the City's current approach toward RV parking in
residential neighborhoods and to any proposal that would legalize or permanently accommodate long-
term RV parking in our neighborhood, East Meadow circle.
The City continues to spend public funds on programs addressing RV occupancy, yet residents see little
measurable progress. As taxpayers, we deserve transparency, accountability, and results. The current
approach appears to lack all three.
One of my primary concerns is the lack of accountability regarding RV owners who are being permitted
to live in their vehicles as part of City assistance programs. I understand that people may experience
temporary hardships such as job loss, unexpected financial difficulties, or other personal crises, and I
support providing short-term assistance during those times. However, such assistance cannot be
indefinite.
The City should maintain clear records identifying who is receiving assistance, the reason assistance is
being provided, the duration of that assistance, the services being offered, and the expected path
toward a more permanent housing solution. Without documented records, timelines, and measurable
goals, there is no way to determine whether the program is effective or whether public resources are
being used responsibly.
Compassion should not mean allowing unlimited occupation of public streets without oversight or
accountability. If the City chooses to permit individuals to remain in RVs due to temporary hardship,
there must be clear eligibility requirements, regular reviews of each case, and a defined timeframe for
assistance. Residents have a right to know that these programs are being managed responsibly and that
temporary assistance is not becoming a permanent arrangement.
There must also be clear expectations and timeframes. Assistance programs should be designed to help
individuals regain stability and move toward permanent housing solutions within a reasonable period.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Public support should not become an indefinite arrangement with no measurable goals, no review
process, and no accountability. Compassion is important, but compassion without accountability is not a
sustainable public policy.
I am particularly concerned by discussions that could result in the legalization of long-term RV parking
in residential neighborhoods. Such a policy would be a serious mistake and a failure to protect the
interests of Palo Alto residents. Residential streets were never intended to function as permanent RV
living locations, and the City should not redefine them as such.
When our condominium complex was approved and built, the City authorized it as a residential
community. Residents purchased homes with the expectation that surrounding streets would remain
residential in character. We should not be expected to live with conditions resembling vehicle storage
areas or encampments. The City has a responsibility to preserve the character, safety, and quality of life
of established residential neighborhoods.
If certain individuals require long-term support due to age, disability, or other circumstances, the City
should work with appropriate social service agencies, housing organizations, senior support programs,
and county resources to identify better solutions. Residential streets should not become permanent
housing alternatives.
The City has a duty to ensure accountability, enforce its own laws, and protect the rights of Palo Alto
residents. The current approach fails to meet these fundamental responsibilities. Existing regulations
should be enforced consistently and fairly. No individual or group should be exempt from reasonable
standards that apply to everyone else.
I would also like to remind the City Council that its members were elected to represent the residents of
Palo Alto. Your first responsibility is to the people who live in these neighborhoods, pay taxes, and rely
on the City to protect the character and livability of their community.
Therefore, I respectfully but firmly demand that the City:
Reject any proposal that would legalize permanent or indefinite RV parking in residential
neighborhoods.
Establish clear records and reporting regarding individuals receiving assistance and the outcomes
achieved.
Implement defined timelines, goals, and accountability measures for assistance programs.
Enforce existing parking and neighborhood regulations consistently.
Develop long-term housing solutions that do not place the burden on residential
neighborhoods.
Residents deserve safe, clean, and properly regulated neighborhoods. The City must balance
compassion for those in need with accountability, effective use of public funds, and respect for the
rights of Palo Alto residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to meaningful action
on this issue.
Sincerely,
Dmitri.
From:Tonu Pale
To:Council, City
Subject:OSV to park on OLIVE ST for 6th month
Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 6:29:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
My name is Tonu Pale, I live on 265 olive ave. And I would like the CITY to please explain
WHAT are they trying to DO with OSV parking ON our street and WHY. Please FEEL the
poor and let ME understand this IDEAS. Please HELP ME i need to communicate with you
/City of Palo Alto for Real
Thanks
T pale
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Mike Emrick
To:Council, City
Cc:City Mgr
Subject:Response to Staff Report Regarding RV Parking and Vehicle Dwelling
Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 8:02:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed approach to RV parking and
vehicle dwelling outlined in the staff report.
While I understand that the City is attempting to address a difficult and complex issue, I
do not believe the proposed plan is a meaningful long-term solution. Instead, it risks
institutionalizing and concentrating a problem that has already had serious
consequences for Palo Alto residents, businesses, and property owners.
For businesses located near the proposed parking areas, this is particularly concerning.
Property owners have invested substantially in Palo Alto based on the expectation that
the City will maintain safe, clean, accessible, and economically viable commercial
areas. Allowing long-term RV habitation on public streets—even under a permit system
—can negatively affect the appearance, accessibility, desirability, and ultimately the
value of surrounding commercial properties.
It also creates a serious concern for future leasing. Businesses considering leasing
space in an area where long-term RV habitation is permitted may reasonably question
whether the location is appropriate for their employees, customers, clients, and
operations. A policy intended to manage RVs should not inadvertently make Palo Alto
commercial properties less attractive to prospective tenants.
I am also deeply concerned that the proposed program will not actually deter RVs from
coming to Palo Alto. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. If Palo Alto becomes
known as a city where RV residents can obtain permits and remain in designated
locations for extended periods, word will spread that Palo Alto is a place where long-
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
term vehicle habitation is tolerated and accommodated. That creates a very real risk
that the City will attract additional RVs rather than reduce their presence.
We have already witnessed situations in which RV owners or “vanlords” have taken
advantage of available public parking by operating a long-term rental arrangement from
vehicles parked on Palo Alto streets. The City has recognized this problem and has taken
steps to prohibit vanlording, but simply designating additional locations for RV parking
does not address the broader incentive created when public streets become a
dependable place for long-term habitation.
The proposed alternating-side parking approach is also troubling. Moving RVs from one
side of a street to the other every six months does not eliminate the impact on
surrounding businesses and property owners. It simply moves the problem back and
forth. For those of us who live and work in affected areas, this is not a solution—it is a
redistribution of the burden.
The City should also carefully consider what message this policy sends to businesses
that have complied with Palo Alto's rules, paid taxes, maintained their properties, and
invested in the community. Businesses should not be expected to absorb the
consequences of a policy that effectively converts public streets adjacent to their
properties into long-term RV living areas.
I respectfully ask the City Council to reconsider this approach before moving forward. At
a minimum, the City should require clear and measurable evidence that the proposed
program will actually reduce the number of RVs on Palo Alto streets rather than simply
relocate them. The City should also establish enforceable limits on duration, meaningful
consequences for violations, protections for adjacent businesses and property owners,
and a clear plan for preventing spillover into surrounding neighborhoods and
commercial areas.
Most importantly, Palo Alto should not become known as a destination for long-term RV
parking simply because neighboring jurisdictions have adopted more restrictive policies.
We should be pursuing a coordinated regional solution rather than allowing Palo Alto to
become the place where the problem is concentrated.
I sincerely hope the City Council will consider the long-term consequences of this
proposal—not only for those currently living in RVs, but also for the residents,
businesses, employees, customers, and property owners who will be living with the
consequences of this policy for years to come.
The community deserves a solution that actually addresses the problem rather than one
that merely moves it from one block to another. After the significant concerns that
residents and businesses have already raised, I do not believe the current proposal
represents meaningful action.
I respectfully urge the City Council to reject or substantially revise the proposed plan
and pursue a strategy that protects Palo Alto's neighborhoods, commercial properties,
businesses, and quality of life while addressing the underlying causes of vehicle
habitation through a genuine regional and long-term solution.
Sincerely,
Michael Emrick
Mozart Development
1068 East Meadow Circle
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
From:Steven Hsu
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Subject:RV Parking Phase2 Issue
Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:03:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veekner and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to respectfully object to the current Phase 2 proposal.
As a resident of the Echelon community since 2021, I and my neighbors have endured the
impacts of long-term RV parking in this area for five years. We urge the City to pursue a more
effective solution, including prohibiting RV parking in residential neighborhoods and adjacent
industrial and commercial areas.
The biweekly street-cleaning program has produced minimal improvement and has not
resolved the underlying issue. While the number of RVs on East Meadow Circle has decreased
from approximately 60 to 35, the cleaning schedule often causes vehicles to relocate
temporarily in front of our complex. This creates overnight engine noise and air pollution,
directly impacting our quality of life and neighborhood security—the very reasons we
chose to live in Palo Alto.
Please consider utilizing the proposed budget of over $800,000 to pursue a lasting and humane
solution. This could include providing temporary motel accommodations and supportive
services, or establishing a designated site for these 130-plus vehicles away from residential
neighborhoods.
As currently proposed, Phase 2 is unlikely to address the root of the problem and risks
spending substantial public funds without achieving meaningful results.
Respectfully,
Steven Hsu
4088889926
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Forrest Mozart
To:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:RE: Response to Staff Report Regarding RV Parking and Vehicle Dwelling
Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:59:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I would like to piggyback on the below email. This has become a serious problem for
business on East Meadow Circle. The other day I saw a man showering outside his
mobile home. I saw a person trying to rip a branch off a street tree so he could have
better access to his mobile home. People place their trash outside. This has become a
complete joke and honestly there is no one to blame but our elected officials.
We have great sympathy for this situation but as our elected officials you all need to
come up with a better solution. Maybe get Stanford University involved? They have
plenty of land that could be converted to help this situation. Stanford claims to be a
philanthropic institution – let’s see.
Forrest Mozart
California Communities
Mozart Development
650-380-5399
From: Mike Emrick
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 8:02 AM
To: 'city.council@paloalto.gov' <city.council@paloalto.gov>
Cc: 'citymgr@paloalto.gov' <citymgr@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Response to Staff Report Regarding RV Parking and Vehicle Dwelling
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed approach to RV parking and
vehicle dwelling outlined in the staff report.
While I understand that the City is attempting to address a difficult and complex issue, I
do not believe the proposed plan is a meaningful long-term solution. Instead, it risks
institutionalizing and concentrating a problem that has already had serious
consequences for Palo Alto residents, businesses, and property owners.
For businesses located near the proposed parking areas, this is particularly concerning.
Property owners have invested substantially in Palo Alto based on the expectation that
the City will maintain safe, clean, accessible, and economically viable commercial
areas. Allowing long-term RV habitation on public streets—even under a permit system
—can negatively affect the appearance, accessibility, desirability, and ultimately the
value of surrounding commercial properties.
It also creates a serious concern for future leasing. Businesses considering leasing
space in an area where long-term RV habitation is permitted may reasonably question
whether the location is appropriate for their employees, customers, clients, and
operations. A policy intended to manage RVs should not inadvertently make Palo Alto
commercial properties less attractive to prospective tenants.
I am also deeply concerned that the proposed program will not actually deter RVs from
coming to Palo Alto. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. If Palo Alto becomes
known as a city where RV residents can obtain permits and remain in designated
locations for extended periods, word will spread that Palo Alto is a place where long-
term vehicle habitation is tolerated and accommodated. That creates a very real risk
that the City will attract additional RVs rather than reduce their presence.
We have already witnessed situations in which RV owners or “vanlords” have taken
advantage of available public parking by operating a long-term rental arrangement from
vehicles parked on Palo Alto streets. The City has recognized this problem and has taken
steps to prohibit vanlording, but simply designating additional locations for RV parking
does not address the broader incentive created when public streets become a
dependable place for long-term habitation.
The proposed alternating-side parking approach is also troubling. Moving RVs from one
side of a street to the other every six months does not eliminate the impact on
surrounding businesses and property owners. It simply moves the problem back and
forth. For those of us who live and work in affected areas, this is not a solution—it is a
redistribution of the burden.
The City should also carefully consider what message this policy sends to businesses
that have complied with Palo Alto's rules, paid taxes, maintained their properties, and
invested in the community. Businesses should not be expected to absorb the
consequences of a policy that effectively converts public streets adjacent to their
properties into long-term RV living areas.
I respectfully ask the City Council to reconsider this approach before moving forward. At
a minimum, the City should require clear and measurable evidence that the proposed
program will actually reduce the number of RVs on Palo Alto streets rather than simply
relocate them. The City should also establish enforceable limits on duration, meaningful
consequences for violations, protections for adjacent businesses and property owners,
and a clear plan for preventing spillover into surrounding neighborhoods and
commercial areas.
Most importantly, Palo Alto should not become known as a destination for long-term RV
parking simply because neighboring jurisdictions have adopted more restrictive policies.
We should be pursuing a coordinated regional solution rather than allowing Palo Alto to
become the place where the problem is concentrated.
I sincerely hope the City Council will consider the long-term consequences of this
proposal—not only for those currently living in RVs, but also for the residents,
businesses, employees, customers, and property owners who will be living with the
consequences of this policy for years to come.
The community deserves a solution that actually addresses the problem rather than one
that merely moves it from one block to another. After the significant concerns that
residents and businesses have already raised, I do not believe the current proposal
represents meaningful action.
I respectfully urge the City Council to reject or substantially revise the proposed plan
and pursue a strategy that protects Palo Alto's neighborhoods, commercial properties,
businesses, and quality of life while addressing the underlying causes of vehicle
habitation through a genuine regional and long-term solution.
Sincerely,
Michael Emrick
Mozart Development
1068 East Meadow Circle
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
From:Mike Emrick
To:Council, City
Cc:City Mgr
Subject:Video - Re: August 24, 2026 Staff Report
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 8:37:57 AM
Attachments:2a106d9e-750c-4ce2-9a19-7c8d8aabe0f0.mp4
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Attached is a video taken in front of our building. As the video shows, individuals
associated with the RVs attempted to remove a branch from a tree located within the
City’s easement.
I wish I could say that incidents like this are rare, but unfortunately, they are part of an
ongoing pattern of activity. We have witnessed double parking, RV repairs being
conducted on the street, dumping of trash, attempts to take water from our irrigation
system, and employees of the RV owners moving multiple RVs from one side of the
street to the other shortly before street sweeping.
Despite these ongoing issues, the “vanlords” continue to use Palo Alto as a location for
RV rentals. I question whether City staff have conducted a thorough review of the various
online platforms and websites to determine whether RVs located in Palo Alto are being
actively rented.
I respectfully ask the City to investigate these activities, including whether the RVs are
being rented commercially from locations within Palo Alto, and to take appropriate
enforcement action where violations are identified.
The continued use of our streets and public easements for these activities is creating
significant problems for our neighborhood and should not be allowed to continue
unchecked.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would appreciate a response regarding what
steps the City intends to take to address these ongoing issues.
Sincerely,
Michael Emrick
Mozart Development
1068 East Meadow Circle
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
From:Bianca Patel
To:Council, City
Subject:Public Comment: Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Program - August 24 Council Meeting
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 11:03:02 AM
Attachments:The Foster Museum_City Council Letter.pdf
Enclosure_The Foster Museum Vehicle Log 2021-2026.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the City Council,
Attached is a public comment letter and vehicle reporting log from The Foster Museum
regarding the Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Program on your August 24 agenda.
Our museum is located at 940 Commercial Street - on the 900 block specifically named in the
staff report. We've been documenting oversized vehicle impacts at this location since 2021
and have outlined four specific requests for the Council's consideration.
We welcome the opportunity to speak during public comment at the meeting as well.
Thank you,
Bianca
Bianca Patel
Executive Director
The Foster Museum
940 Commercial Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
www.thefoster.org | (o) 650-209-7181 (m) 737-352-3833
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
August 18, 2026
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Public Comment — Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Program (August 24, 2026)
Dear Members of the City Council,
Oversized vehicles have been parked in front of The Foster Museum (a free, public cultural institution at
940 Commercial Street) continuously since 2021. As Executive Director, I am writing because our block
is specifically named in the staff report as part of the proposed “alternating sides” parking restriction,
and we have serious concerns about the adequacy of this approach for our block.
We recognize that the City is navigating a difficult and deeply human challenge, and we do not take
lightly the circumstances that lead people to live in vehicles. Our concern is not with the City’s goals,
which we share, but with the specific implementation on our block.
The Foster Museum was founded by Jane Woodward, a native Palo Altan, lifelong resident, and
internationally recognized businesswoman who has invested millions of dollars to create a free, world-
class cultural institution that is open to everyone in this community. The museum offers free admission
six days a week, hosts over 6,000 guests annually, is ranked #4 among TripAdvisor’s Top Attractions in
Palo Alto, and provides free programming for schools, seniors, and community groups. We purchased
the building in 2024, permanently committing to this neighborhood. More about the museum can be
found at www.thefoster.org.
A Documented, Worsening Problem
Museum staff have logged oversized vehicle incidents in front of 940 Commercial Street continuously
since 2021. A detailed vehicle reporting log is enclosed. The impacts are concrete:
• Visibility and access: RVs block our facade and signage, making the museum invisible to first-
time visitors and tourists.
• Safety: Sightlines from our driveway are blocked; generators, propane tanks, wiring, and debris
occupy the public right-of-way.
• Accessibility: Children, seniors, and visitors with disabilities are forced to park far from the
entrance.
• Events and programming: The museum hosts community events, exhibitions, and programming
that draw visitors to the building. Oversized vehicles parked directly outside affect the
experience for event attendees and reduce available street parking for guests.
Our Concerns with the Proposed Plan
• The plan treats our block like a residential street. The Foster Museum is a public-facing cultural
venue that depends on street visibility and a welcoming exterior. The impact of RVs in front of a
museum entrance is qualitatively different from the impact on a residential block.
• Displacement is acknowledged but unaddressed. The staff report itself states the program “will
likely drive some vehicles to other blocks.” Without stronger protections, Commercial Street
could absorb displaced vehicles from other segments.
• The City’s own approach could be expanded. The City has already identified low-traffic
corridors like Coyote Hill Road and Embarcadero Road as effective permit-zone locations. We
encourage the Council to expand this approach to additional similar corridors, such as segments
of Fabian Way. These corridors could accommodate more designated parking without impacting
cultural institutions, schools, or business frontages.
• Six months is too long. For a visitor-facing business, six months of RVs on one side of the street
represents an entire exhibition season of impaired access.
We are not asking the City to eliminate the oversized vehicle program. We are asking the Council to
ensure that its implementation protects Palo Alto’s community assets.
Our Specific Requests
1. Establish a no-parking buffer zone directly in front of 940 Commercial Street so the museum’s
facade, signage, and driveway sightlines remain clear regardless of the rotation schedule.
2. Shorten the rotation cycle for the 900 block to 90 days instead of six months.
3. Prioritize enforcement and monitoring on this block, tracking whether displaced vehicles
concentrate near the museum.
4. Expand designated permit zones to additional low-impact corridors such as Fabian Way.
We have documented this problem for over four years, and have worked cooperatively with the Police
Department and city staff.
We welcome the opportunity to speak during public comment and invite any Council member or staff to
visit the museum and see the situation firsthand.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bianca Patel
Executive Director, The Foster Museum
940 Commercial Street, Palo Alto
(737) 352-3833
Enclosures:
• Oversized and Abandoned Vehicle Reporting Log, 2021–Present
• Photographs of current conditions (see next page)
Photographs: Oversized Vehicles at 940 Commercial Street
RVs parked in front of the museum (approaching guest’s view of 940 Commercial St)
Museum entrance with adjacent RVs
RVs in front of museum (note propane tanks on the sidewalk)
Oversized and Abandoned Vehicle Reporting Log
The Foster Museum, 940 Commercial Street, Palo Alto
Documented incidents: 2021 – Present
Vehicle Information Vehicle Description Arrived Called/Reported Tagged Moved
Itasca by Winnebago, License
#2KCA015, in front of 940
Commercial
White, blue pinstripes 10/14/21, 10/19/21 10/18/21 10/22/21
5th Wheel Camper Trailer
(No Plate) + Van License
#10373, in front of 940
Commercial
White w/ silver detail,
"Wilderness"; White van w/
teddy bear
5/31/22 6/4/22 6/6/22
Jamee Camper, License
#8UJM381, in front of 940
Commercial
Cream w/ brown, orange, tan
detail
7/13/22 7/19/22, 7/22/22 7/25/22
5th Wheel + Van #10373, in
front of 940 Commercial
White "Wilderness" + van w/
teddy bear
7/14/22 7/14/22 7/20/22
5th Wheel + Van #10373, in
front of 940 Commercial
White "Wilderness" + van w/
teddy bear
3/22/23 3/28/23
5th Wheel + Van #10373, at
950 Commercial
White "Wilderness" + van w/
teddy bear
4/15/23 8/28/23 8/31/23
RV, License #5RGS155, in
front of 950 Commercial
Grey-Silver, blue/tan trim,
Trek Safari
9/13/23 9/15/23 9/16/23 9/18/23
Storage Trailer, License
#4SU3290, at 950
Commercial
White, Titanium Cargo
Trailers LLC
9/20/23 9/29/23, 10/5/23,
10/18/23
10/22/23
Camper Van (no plate), in
front of 940 Commercial
GMC, pink/blue w/ black
painted emblems
9/22/23 9/29/23
Truck w/ custom wooden
camper (no plate), in front of
940 Commercial
Older Ford, green truck 9/22/23 9/29/23
5th Wheel + Van #10373, at
950 Commercial
White "Wilderness" + van w/
teddy bear
10/24/23 11/13/23 (Holly
Knapp Board
Member, w/ Officer
Brill)
11/18/23
Camper Van (no plate), in
front of 940 Commercial
GMC, pink/blue w/ black
emblems
11/17/23 11/24/23
Truck w/ custom wooden
camper (no plate), in front of
940 Commercial
Older Ford, green truck 11/17/23 11/24/23
Bounder RV, License
#3PQD855, in front of 940
Commercial
Light tan w/ gray/burgundy
stripes
6/15/24 6/19/24 (Holly Knapp
w/ Officer Brill)
6/21/24
Camper Trailer, License #RN
4959
Prowler, white w/ yellow trim 9/18/24 9/18/24 9/23/24
Abandoned microwave and
generator found in front of
building
10/17/24
Camper Trailer, License
#4LV4021
Sierra by Cobra, white w/
brown pinstripe
10/22/24 10/25/24 10/27/24 10/31/24
Truck w/ custom wooden
camper, License #053 S10
Older Ford, green truck 11/6/24 11/7/24
RV, AZ License #BXE8049 Mallard, white w/ blue trim 11/15/24 11/20/24 11/21/24 11/22/24
5th Wheel Trailer, License
#1KY4872
Wanderer Wagon, white w/
blue/grey trim
11/24/24 11/26/24 11/26/24 11/27/25
Vehicle Information Vehicle Description Arrived Called/Reported Tagged Moved
Inoperable pickup truck in
museum back lot (placed by
RV dweller)
Gray pickup, broken
windshield
12/13/25 12/18/25 12/18/24
Dodge van (no plate), in front
of museum
White, "Mazzy's Fire
Protection Services"
12/29/24 1/3/25, 1/7/25 1/14/25
Ford van, License #8L10716 Blue and light blue Ford van 12/29/24 1/3/25, 1/7/25,
1/14/25
1/20/25
5th Wheel + Van #10373 (no
plate)
White "Wilderness" + GMC
van
3/11/25 3/12/25 (+ Holly
Knapp w/ Officer
Brill)
3/14/25
RV, AZ License #BXE8049 White w/ dark blue trim 3/11/25 3/12/25 (+ Holly
Knapp w/ Officer
Brill)
3/14/25
Chevrolet pickup, License
#51910W1
Light brown/bronze 5/23/25 5/23/25 (emailed
Officer Jun)
5/27/25
3 vehicles in front of museum Big wooden one, blue/pink
van, white/yellow one
7/24/25 7/28/25 7/29/25
2 RVs: PaceArrow License
#8DMW047 + SeaBreeze
License #3EMV964
White RV w/ blue trim; White
RV w/ faded blue/purple trim
7/31/25 8/1/25, 8/7/25
Black Van
Make: Toyota or Subaru
Unable to get the license
number
Black Van - 4 door
The van belonged to the
people in the RV reported
above
9/9/25 Asked the
owners to
move out
of our
designated
parking
space on
9/9/25
RV
CA License #9HJN053
White RV with blue trim and
pinstriping
9/17/25 9/19/25
5th Wheel Trailer
CA License #1NM6643
White 5th wheel with
black/gray trim and
pinstriping
9/18/25 9/19/25
RV
CA License #2RUL916
White Ford RV with
gray/blue/maroon trim
10/7/25 10/10/25 10/12/25
5th Wheel Trailer
License: Unknown
White 5th Wheel with green
trim
Model: Layton
10/12/25 10/14/25
RV
CA License #9HJN053
White RV with light and dark
blue trim
10/29/25 11/3/25
RV
CA License #5SSJ533
White RV with tan and black
trim
10/30/25 11/4/25
5th Wheel
CA License #1LN261
White 5th wheel trailer with
tan and brown trim
11/5/25 11/8/25 11/10/25
RV
License #K3975
White RV with light blue and
dark blue trim
11/13/25 11//17/25, 12/2/25 12/5/25
RV
CA License #8MYH017
White RV with light and dark
green detailing
11/15/25 11/19/25, 12/2/25,
12/9/25
The RV was
tagged on
12/3/25.
The tag was
removed
on 12/4/25.
12/7/25
RV
CA License #9MBD743
White RV with gray and
green detailing
12/5/25 12/9/25 12/12/25
5th Wheel Trailer
License unknown
White 5th Wheel with green
trim
1/8/26 1/10/26 1/13/26
Vehicle Information Vehicle Description Arrived Called/Reported Tagged Moved
RV
CA License #3EMV96
White RV with faded blue
and purple trim
Model: SeaBreeze
2/16/26 2/17/26 2/18/26
RV
CA License #9EMD349
White RV with pink and blue
trim
3/1/26 3/3/26
RV
CA License #4DMV996
White RV with tan and
burgundy trim
3/1/26 3/3/26
RV
CA License #8BRV295
White RV with teal green and
grey detailing
3/4/26 3/6/26
5th Wheel Trailer
CA License #1KW2883
White 5th wheel trailer with
red and grey pinstriping
3/10/26 3/11/26 3/11/26
5th Wheel Trailer
License #: Unknown
White and grey 5th wheel
trailer
3/10/26 3/11/26 3/12/26
RV
CA License #63470B
White and blue RV
Make/model: Vacationer
5/6/26 5/9/26 5/13/26
RV
CA License #63470B4
White and blue RV
Make/model: Vacationer
5/16/26 5/20/26 5/21/26
RV
CA License #63470B4
White and blue RV
Make/model: Vacationer
7/14/26 7/22/26
RV
CA License #63470B4
White and blue RV
Make/model: Vacationer
7/28/26 7/31/26 8/3/26
RV
CA License #5DHD039
White and green/multi-
colored details
7/29/26 8/1/26 8/3/26
Note: This log documents more than 50 separate incidents of oversized vehicles parked in front of or adjacent to The Foster
Museum at 940 Commercial Street, many involving the same vehicles returning multiple times. Reports were filed with the
Palo Alto Police Department Abandoned Auto Hotline and individual officers including Officer Brill and Officer Jun.
From:Giselle Roohparvar
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Support for Agenda Item #10 OSV Parking Pilots — and Recommendations to Strengthen the Program
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 11:40:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Staff,
I am a Palo Alto property owner writing in strong support of the proposed Oversized Vehicle
(OSV) parking pilots. My property is immediately adjacent to the 1000 block of East Meadow
Circle, which is specifically included in the alternating-side pilot, so I have a direct interest in
seeing this program succeed.
I appreciate the City's approach of pairing enforceable restrictions with designated parking,
services, and accountability for people currently living in vehicles. I urge Council to approve
the pilots.
I would, however, encourage Council to treat them as the first step toward a stronger,
neighborhood-wide strategy, particularly because I am already seeing evidence of the
displacement problem the City is anticipating.
First, please measure success by what happens to the surrounding neighborhood—not
simply whether RVs leave the designated streets.
The 1000 block of East Meadow Circle is primarily commercial, but it sits within a residential
neighborhood and immediately adjacent to homes and community uses. Since the recent
restrictive signage went up, I have personally observed what appears to be spillover into
surrounding areas: on two separate occasions I have seen RVs parked in front of Ramos Park,
and I have also observed an RV parked directly in front of residential homes on East Meadow.
I recognize these observations are anecdotal, but they are precisely the type of displacement
the City should be monitoring. I encourage the City to establish baseline OSV counts before
the pilot and then track, by street, OSV counts, duration, complaints, citations, tows and
sanitation issues—not just on the pilot streets but throughout the surrounding neighborhood. If
the data show that vehicles are simply spilling over from restricted streets onto nearby
residential streets, the City should have a clear mechanism for expanding restrictions
rather than considering the pilot successful.
Second, East Meadow Circle and other sensitive locations should receive heightened
enforcement priority.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
East Meadow Circle is close to schools, parks and heavily used bicycle paths, in addition to
being embedded in a residential neighborhood. San José's OLIVE program provides an
excellent model: it prioritizes enforcement based on factors including proximity to schools and
parks, waterways and storm drains, vehicle concentrations, sanitation issues, and pedestrian
and bicycle safety. San José now conducts citywide inventories and establishes up to 50
temporary tow-away sites annually, with a supplemental program for lower-priority locations.
Palo Alto could adopt similar objective criteria, allowing limited enforcement resources to be
directed toward the locations where OSVs create the greatest public impact.
Third, make "rotation" meaningful.
A restriction is much less effective if an RV can simply move a short distance across the street
and return. Cupertino's ordinance, which took effect in 2025, allows residents limited
overnight permits but requires an oversized vehicle to move at least 1,500 feet after a permit
expires and prohibits returning within that distance for the following 72 hours.
Palo Alto should consider a similar minimum relocation distance and return period in its
longer-term framework so that rotation actually disperses vehicles rather than simply moving
them from one block or parking space to another.
Fourth, the City needs to solve the practical towing and storage constraint.
The ability to tow is only useful if the City has sufficient towing and storage capacity. Palo
Alto should determine the true all-in cost of towing, storage and disposal and structure its
contracts accordingly.
The City should also look beyond Palo Alto for storage capacity. San Francisco provides a
particularly useful local example: SFMTA has used a primary storage facility in San
Francisco together with a designated long-term storage facility at 2650 Bayshore
Boulevard in Daly City. Vehicles requiring longer-term storage can be moved to the Daly
City facility, demonstrating that a city does not necessarily need to locate all of its impound
capacity within its own boundaries.
Palo Alto could explore a similar arrangement with a neighboring jurisdiction or private
industrial/storage operator.
Fifth, I encourage Palo Alto to explore an RV buyback program paired with housing
assistance.
This is one of the most promising developments in neighboring cities. Berkeley has tested an
RV buyback model paired with shelter and housing services, and Sunnyvale's City Council
voted in April 2026 to pursue an RV buyback program alongside interim housing and
designated OSV permit parking. Sunnyvale's approach is particularly interesting because it
concluded that conventional safe parking was not a viable solution at meaningful scale and
instead moved toward a combination of enforcement, permitted parking, housing and vehicle
buyback.
This provides something enforcement alone cannot: an exit strategy. For people willing to
transition out of vehicle living, a properly structured buyback and housing program could
permanently remove vehicles from the public right-of-way rather than repeatedly moving
them from one neighborhood to another.
Finally, I encourage Council to use the pilot period to evaluate whether Palo Alto should
eventually move beyond a list of individual restricted streets toward a more comprehensive
framework based on objective criteria such as street width, pedestrian and bicycle safety,
proximity to schools and parks, sight distance, sanitation impacts, and demonstrated
neighborhood displacement.
I support the City's efforts to provide meaningful alternatives and services for people currently
living in vehicles, but I also believe residential neighborhoods should not be used as de facto
long-term RV parking or housing. Residents deserve streets that are safe, sanitary, accessible
and appropriate for their intended use.
I urge Council to approve the proposed pilots, but also to build in a clear escalation
mechanism: if the pilot merely moves RVs into adjacent residential streets, the City
should respond by expanding enforcement rather than considering the pilot successful.
The goal should not simply be to move the problem. It should be to reduce the impact of
oversized and lived-in vehicles on Palo Alto neighborhoods while creating realistic
pathways out of vehicle living for those who need them.
Thank you for your work on this difficult issue and for taking the concerns of affected
neighborhoods seriously.
Respectfully,
Giselle R.
Palo Alto, CA
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu,
George; City Mgr
Cc:Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao,
Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci
Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez;
Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave
Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna
Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete;
Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong;
Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace
Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman,
Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue
Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid
(external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar;
Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker;
Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa
Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn
Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon;
Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann
Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart
Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria;
Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston,
Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin
Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio
Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka
Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan;
Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny
Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian
Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Gary Gechlik; Susan
Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Bulatao, Eric
Subject:City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Problem/Solution
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 1:13:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Community,
Here is another alternative proposal/solution for the OSV parking problem that was recently submitted to
the City.
Please let your city leaders know how you view this alternative versus the proposal by the City staff and
submitted to the City Council for approval.
Best,
Bob Marinaro
Begin forwarded message:
From: Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com>
Subject: City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Problem/Solution
Date: August 18, 2026 at 9:02:39 AM PDT
To: "Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov"
<Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>,
"Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org"
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Lauing
<Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>, Keith Reckdahl
<Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>, Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@paloalto.gov>, "Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov"
<Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov>, "George.Lu@paloalto.gov"
<George.Lu@paloalto.gov>, "CityMgr@paloalto.gov"
<CityMgr@paloalto.gov>, "McDonough, Melissa"
<Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>
Cc: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>, Loren Brown
<loren.brown@vancebrown.com>
8-18-2026
Palo Alto City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Manager
Staff,
I would like to offer a potential solution to the OSV parking problem
that the City has been experiencing for years and has yet to solve.
This proposal is not all of my own making; I have also incorporated
elements that have been suggested by others.
Loren Brown
OSV PARKING PROBLEM ORIGINS:
First, we need to understand the problem. Associated with the high
cost of housing and the deterioration of livable wages in this country,
people began living in recreational vehicles or oversized vehicles
(OSVs). Between 10 and 15 years ago, OSVs began parking in
increasing numbers on City of Palo Alto streets. The number of
OSVs in Palo Alto has since grown to between 150 and 250 in 2026
(including OSVs parked in the Life Moves lot on Geng Road) . The
problem can be defined as an influx of OSV dwellers deciding that
Palo Alto is their home and having few parking alternatives other
than parking their OSVs on public streets.
CITY OF PALO ALTO RESPONSE TO OSV PARKING
PROBLEM:
The City of Palo Alto (like many municipalities) likely did not
anticipate the large number of OSVs that came to call Palo Alto
home. Because the City did not anticipate the large number of OSVs
parking on Palo Alto streets, the City did not take action to either
limit the total number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto or to prevent the
OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business districts and residential
neighborhoods.
Parked OSVs are incompatible with business districts and residential
neighborhoods, but because the City was not proactive in preventing
OSVs from parking on City streets, the OSVs, over time, became
“entitled” by City Council, by City Staff, and by City of Palo Alto
Code Enforcement. City Council is apparently unwilling to impose a
City-wide ban on OSVs parking on Palo Alto streets.
To date, the City of Palo Alto has been unwilling to tackle this issue
head-on and find a comprehensive solution. Yes, the City has
effected some changes that have slightly reduced the magnitude of
the OSV parking problem; however, the OSV parking problem is still
large in magnitude. Every attempt by the City to lessen the negative
impact of OSVs in business and residential neighborhoods has been
ineffective because the City is unwilling to ban OSV parking in Palo
Alto, unwilling to cap the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto, and
unwilling to find an alternative location for the OSVs to park.
CURRENT STATE OF THE OSV PARKING PROBLEM:
The inability of the City to date to enact an effective and
comprehensive solution to the OSV parking problem has resulted in a
very large set of unhappy business owners, business tenants, business
customers, and Palo Alto residents. OSV residents are not happy
with the reception they receive from business owners, business
tenants, business customers, and Palo Alto residents. City leaders,
City staff, and City code enforcement personnel are not happy with
the situation either.
CREATION OF OSV PARKING PROGRAM AND PROGRAM
GOALS:
It is time for City leaders to develop a comprehensive and effective
OSV parking program. The OSV parking program needs to
accomplish the following goals:
1. Immediately stop all OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business
districts and residential neighborhoods.
2. Prevent additional out-of-town OSVs from migrating to park on
Palo Alto streets.
3. Provide designated locations where OSVs that are currently
parking in Palo Alto can park.
4. Provide behavioral rules for OSV occupants to adhere to while
parked in Palo Alto.
5. Decrease the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto over time.
6. Other?
OSV PARKING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PROGRAM
ELEMENTS:
1. The City of Palo Alto creates off-street OSV parking for
approximately 150 OSVs. Total capacity = the current number of
OSVs parking on CPA public streets + the number of OSVs parking
in the Life Moves lot on Geng Road)
2. The City of Palo Alto caps the number of OSVs parking in Palo
Alto as of a designated date (these OSVs become pre-existing). After
the designated date, no new OSVs (OSVs migrating to Palo Alto
from outside Palo Alto) can begin parking in Palo Alto without
express approval by the City.
3. The City of Palo Alto creates an OSV registration system and a set
of behavioral rules for OSV registrants. The purpose of the
registration system is for the City to identify every OSV/OSV
occupant that is parking on Palo Alto public property. With an OSV
registration system, the City can then detect pre-existing OSVs from
new migrating OSVs that arrive in Palo Alto after the designated date
and attempt to park their OSVs on public property.
4. The City of Palo Alto requires all pre-existing OSVs to register
their OSVs. Any OSVs that are unwilling to register in the City’s
OSV parking program must immediately leave Palo Alto.
5. The City of Palo Alto provides all registered OSVs the privilege
of parking in one of PA’s designated OSV parking locations if and
only if the OSVs commit to complying with City of Palo Alto OSV
Parking Program rules. All OSVs then parking on public property in
Palo Alto must relocate to City-designated OSV parking locations.
OSVs are banned from parking anywhere else in the City of Palo
Alto.
6. The OSV Parking Program rules define where OSVs can park as
well as define acceptable living behaviors. The OSV Parking
Program rules also require OSV occupants to join a City of Palo Alto
wait list for more permanent housing (non-OSV housing).
7. If/when a more permanent housing option becomes available,
OSV occupants must either accept the housing assignment and
remove their OSV from Palo Alto, or they must relocate their OSV
outside of the City of Palo Alto.
8. Over time, the number of OSVs parking on public property will
decline for the following reasons:
a). OSVs will accept more permanent housing options.
b). OSVs will decide to vacate Palo Alto.
c). There will be no new out-of-town OSV’s migrating to Palo
Alto.
9. Over time (as the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto declines),
the City of Palo Alto can shrink or eliminate some/all of its
designated OSV parking locations as well as the extent of public
services provided to parked OSVs.
OSV PARKING PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
1. The OSV Parking Program eliminates OSVs from parking in Palo
Alto business parks and residential neighborhoods (thereby
revitalizing those neighborhoods).
2. The OSV Parking Program respects current OSV dwellers and
improves their living conditions.
3. The OSV Parking Program reduces/eliminates the current friction
between OSV occupants, business owners, business tenants, business
customers, and Palo Alto residents.
4. The OSV Parking Program puts an end to out-of-town OSVs
migrating to park in Palo Alto. With no influx of OSVs into the City
of Palo Alto, the number of OSVs parking on public property will
decrease over time (thereby reducing the City of Palo Alto's OSV
Parking Program costs).
5. OSVs are concentrated in designated areas, thereby making it
easier for the City of Palo Alto to provide services to the OSV
community (i.e., sanitation services, Wi-Fi, power, water, etc.)
6. Police Department code enforcement costs associated with
responding to OSV parking issues should decrease.
CITY RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR THIS OSV PARKING
PROGRAM:
1. City of Palo Alto Staff time required to formalize and implement
the OSV Parking Program.
2. Land in the form of parking spaces for approximately 130 OSVs
(150 total required less 20 spaces at Geng Road Life Moves lot = 130
OSV parking spaces). These spaces can be on Coyote Hill Road,
Embarcadero Road, the Caltrans lot at Highway 101 and San Antonio
Road, on City-owned surplus land located on Geng Road directly
across Geng Road from Life Moves or other City-owned land.
Virtually all of this land can be utilized for this purpose with little
cost.
3. City of Palo Alto funds to prepare designated land for OSV
parking use (gravel surfacing, perimeter fences, portable toilets,
power, etc.).
4. City of Palo Alto funds to provide limited services to parked
OSVs.
5. City of Palo Alto funds for OSV Parking Program registration
system and OSV Parking Program administration.
6. City of Palo Alto funds for street signage?
7. Other?
MISCELLANEOUS:
1. A program element could be included that allows existing City of
Palo Alto residents who lose their housing and are forced to live in an
OSV to register (after the designated date) their OSV in the OSV
Parking Program.
END
Sent from my iPad
From:Scott Van Duyne
To:Council, City
Cc:rmarinaro@mac.com; Barry Katz; Rebecca Sanders
Subject:Regarding Aug. 24 RV Pilot: Please Consider a Distributed, Citywide Alternative
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 3:40:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am a Palo Alto resident writing about the RV parking pilot scheduled for Council
consideration on August 24.
I support the City's effort to create a humane, orderly system for people living in
vehicles. But I believe the proposed pilot has a fundamental weakness: it
concentrates a citywide responsibility on a very small number of streets.
The proposal would provide 20 permitted spaces on Coyote Hill Road and 17 near
the end of Embarcadero Road -- 37 spaces in total -- while the City counted 133 RV
dwellers in May. At the same time, parking restrictions would be imposed on 22
commercial and industrial blocks, where people spend their working days making a
living. And many of these streets are adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
I would ask Council to consider a different model: distributed permitted parking
throughout Palo Alto, with no more than one vehicle-dwelling permit on any
eligible block or defined street segment.
City staff could determine eligibility based on street width, fire access, bike lanes,
driveways, visibility, parking demand, and other legitimate safety constraints. Not
every block would qualify, nor would every qualifying space necessarily be occupied.
This approach has several advantages.
It distributes responsibility fairly rather than concentrating impacts on a few
businesses and neighborhoods. It avoids creating large clusters that can produce
sanitation, parking and neighborhood problems. And one RV per block would make
routine street sweeping and sanitation much easier: permit holders could simply be
required to move during scheduled cleaning.
Importantly, this model could retain the constructive parts of the current proposal—
insurance, the $15 permit, a good-neighbor agreement, housing-service participation,
sanitation requirements and enforcement.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
The City's own analysis reportedly recognizes that a geographically limited pilot may
simply cause unpermitted oversized vehicles to move into areas outside the pilot. A
distributed system addresses that problem directly: instead of repeatedly moving
concentrations from one neighborhood to another, manage the population by
dispersing permitted spaces throughout the city.
Before committing to concentrated locations, I respectfully ask Council to direct staff
to answer one straightforward question:
How many safe, eligible spaces would Palo Alto have if vehicle-dwelling
permits were distributed citywide at a maximum of one per qualifying block or
street segment?
If that number is sufficient to accommodate most or all of Palo Alto's vehicle-dwelling
population, I believe this alternative deserves serious consideration as a pilot.
If Palo Alto considers providing safe parking a community responsibility, then the
fairest policy is for that responsibility to be shared by the whole community, not
disproportionately by a handful of streets and neighborhoods.
Thank you for considering this alternative on August 24.
Sincerely,
Scott Van Duyne
Palo Alto Resident
From:Giselle Roohparvar
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Follow-up - Item 10, Aug. 24 Oversized Vehicle Pilot
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:15:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Staff,
I recently wrote in strong support of the proposed Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking pilots,
while urging Council to build in a clear escalation mechanism to address displacement into
surrounding neighborhoods and community areas.
I am writing ahead of Monday’s vote because I am now seeing exactly the type of
displacement I raised as a concern.
Oversized vehicles are now parking in the Mitchell Park lot. I observed two there this
morning, and I have seen as many as eight. They park parallel across the stalls rather than
within them, meaning each vehicle occupies roughly two parking spaces. (See attached
picture.) At eight vehicles, that represents approximately sixteen public parking spaces
displaced.
This is significant because Mitchell Park is not simply another parking area. It is one of Palo
Alto’s most heavily used community facilities, serving the library, Community Center, fields
and playground, pickleball courts, and near-continuous youth programming. It is also adjacent
to a school and a heavily used bicycle corridor.
More importantly, this is now the second park where I have observed OSVs after previously
reporting RVs at Ramos Park. I have also observed an RV parked directly in front of
residential homes on East Meadow.
That makes the issue larger than whether RVs leave the pilot streets.
The pilot should measure success by what happens beyond the pilot streets
My concern is that a narrowly defined pilot could produce a misleading result: RVs disappear
from the restricted streets, the City records that as success, and the vehicles simply relocate to
nearby parks, residential streets, or other public facilities.
That is not a reduction in the problem. It is a relocation of the problem.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
I therefore urge Council to make displacement itself a trigger for escalation, rather than
merely something the City monitors.
Specifically, I recommend that the City establish predetermined criteria under which
restrictions or enforcement areas expand when OSVs begin concentrating in surrounding
sensitive locations.
Those triggers could include:
Sensitive public facilities: OSV concentrations at parks, schools, libraries, community
centers, or other heavily used public facilities should trigger additional enforcement or
restrictions.
Residential displacement: An increase in OSVs on surrounding residential streets
following implementation of the pilot should trigger expansion of the restricted area.
Concentration: Multiple OSVs gathering in a single location should be treated as a
concentration problem rather than as a series of individually permissible parking events.
Repeated relocation: Vehicles repeatedly moving among nearby locations should not
be considered a successful outcome simply because they have moved off the original
restricted street.
This would give the City a predictable, objective framework rather than requiring Council to
revisit the issue each time a new neighborhood experiences spillover.
Mitchell Park illustrates why this matters
Mitchell Park is precisely the kind of location that should receive heightened attention under
an objective enforcement framework.
In my previous letter, I pointed to San José’s OLIVE program, which considers factors
including proximity to schools and parks, pedestrian and bicycle safety, sanitation issues, and
vehicle concentrations when prioritizing enforcement.
Mitchell Park scores highly on several of those factors.
The parking capacity issue also has a direct traffic-safety dimension. The lot already serves
substantial family and youth activity, and the adjacent school (Fairmeadow Elementary)
directs families to use the lot for drop-off and pickup in order to keep queues off East
Meadow. When the lot fills, traffic backs up heavily on East Meadow between Middlefield
and Waverley, reintroducing congestion onto a street used by young children walking and
biking to both Fairmeadow Elementary and JLS next door.
I would therefore ask that the City include Mitchell Park and the surrounding streets in its
baseline OSV counts before the pilot begins, and continue tracking them throughout the
pilot. The same should be done for other parks and sensitive community facilities surrounding
the pilot areas.
Please incorporate the escalation mechanism into Monday's action
I support moving forward with the pilots on Monday. The situation has been under discussion
for long enough, and I do not want to slow down much-needed action from the City.
But the pilot will be much more effective if the City incorporates the escalation mechanism at
the outset, rather than waiting for displacement to become a larger problem and then having
to restart the policy discussion.
This does not require a complicated new program. The City can establish baseline counts,
identify sensitive locations and surrounding streets, and define objective thresholds that trigger
expansion of restrictions or enforcement when displacement occurs.
That would allow Council to approve the pilots Monday (or after a short 30-day turnaround, if
time is needed) while also ensuring that the pilots are designed to evolve when the data show
they are not achieving their intended purpose.
The goal should be straightforward: reduce the impact of oversized and lived-in vehicles on
Palo Alto neighborhoods—not simply move them from one location to another.
I continue to support the City's efforts to pair enforcement with services and realistic
alternatives for people living in vehicles. At the same time, residential neighborhoods, parks,
school-adjacent areas, and community facilities should not become a rotating network of
substitute RV parking locations.
I urge Council to approve the pilots on Monday and incorporate a clear, objective
escalation mechanism into their implementation so that demonstrated displacement triggers
expansion rather than being counted as a successful outcome.
Thank you for your consideration and for your work on this difficult issue.
Respectfully,
Giselle R.
Palo Alto, CA
From:Greg McShea
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Regarding the new OSV parking proposal
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 10:08:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
I am a long time (30+ year) Palo Alto resident writing to provide feedback on the city's
latest proposal to address OSV (over sized vehicle) parking in the city. The proposal
produce by the committee should be considered a non-starter and the committee
itself should be disbanded as they clearly are not trying to serve Palo Alto residents,
but serving the OSV dweller community instead.
As I read about the latest proposal in the PA Weekly article I could not help but feel
very angry at the continued unwillingness or inability for Palo Alto city council to
respect residents wishes and either enforce current laws, or pass new ones to
address the OSV parking problem that has plagued the city for nearly a decade now.
While responsible city councils in towns like Mountain View and Menlo Park are
listening to their constituents and have passed stricter regulations on OSV parking,
with the current proposal the Palo Alto city council seems to want make Palo Alto a
mecca for even more OSVs.
The duty of city council members is to serve their constituents and PA council
members are NOT doing this with the latest proposal. The OSV dwellers have no
standing here, they are NOT residents. They do not pay rent or property taxes, and
have no legal address to establish residency. They are squatters who have exploited
the goodwill of Palo Alto for a very long time. I'm sure there are some true hard cases
among the RV dwellers who have nowhere else to go, but suspect there are just as
many, if not more, who have chosen this lifestyle to avoid long commutes or live free
the financial obligations that come with having a residence. It is beyond me why the
city even feels a need to serve the OSV dweller community, and continuously place
the needs of this community above the wishes of its own residents.
I often walk/jog around East Meadow Circle and to this day there are still so many
OSVs there, nearly 50 from what I can tell. I have observed the following behaviors in
this area on a regular basis:
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
1. I see the mess the OSVs leave on the rare occasion that a vehicle moves out,
which the city has to clean up at residents' expense.
2. The OSV dwellers extend the bump out section of their RVs in to the street,
effectively narrowing the street for traffic.
3. The OSV dwellers mark the area around their vehicle with cones as if they are
laying claim to the property as their own.
4. The OSV dwellers store/dump personal items on the city strip/sidewalk.
5. Some of the OSV dwellers turn public spaces around their vehicles in to their own
personal workshops.
6. The OSV dwellers park extremely close together making it difficult for pedestrians
to cross the street
7. There is often a sewage like smell near some of the vehicles leading me to believe
human waste is not being properly disposed of.
8. And, they run their gas generators for hours on end causing pollution from the
noise and fumes. Palo Alto passed an anti-idling ordinance to prevent residents from
running their cars for too long, but non-resident OSV dwellers are allow to run their
generators (which pollute so much more than a modern car) for hours on end. This is
a clear example of the City of Palo Alto having a double standard where they are
prohibiting residents from engaging in a harmful behavior but turning a blind eye to
the non-resident RV dwellers engaging in a significantly more harmful behavior.
Why have these behaviors from the OSV dwellers been tolerated/allowed? Yet with
the latest proposal from the committee it seems the city is willing to welcome more
our OSVs to our city with little to no regulations to address behaviors like mentioned
above. I was astonished to read that not only will the committee proposal fully allow
OSV permit parking in 2 locations in the city, it will also allow non-permitted OSV
parking on over 2 MILES of city streets.
Regarding the price of the OSV parking permit, the bargain price of $15 a month will
just serve to attract more OSVs to our city, is that the city council's goal? While I am
not in favor of the permitted parking, if it is to happen the fee should be much, much
higher. You charge your own city residents $42 A NIGHT to camp in Foothills park but
somehow the non-resident OSV dwellers are given the bargain price of $15 A
MONTH for similar accommodations. Another double standard where non residents
are being treated much better than actual city residents.
I will close with a short story. About 15 years ago I had an older vehicle of mine that I
parked on the street in front of my house. The vehicle was rarely used and would sit
on the street for weeks at a time. Eventually I guess a neighbor complained and I
received a notice on the car of the 72-hour parking limit (which I was not previously
aware of) and potential towing. THAT SAME DAY I tried to move the car but it would
not start since the battery had died, so my son and I pushed the car into our driveway
to immediately remove it from the street and be in compliance with the law. I did this
because I wanted to be a good citizen and I genuinely feared the potential
enforcement consequences and my car being towed.
Years later, after seeing how the city has handled the OSV problem I feel like a fool
doesn't seem to be much enforcement of anything by the City of Palo Alto. Most
issues (including OSV parking) that I entered in to the 311 app or city's website form
never are addressed and never receive any response.
I urge you to do your duty and respect the wishes of your actual residents instead of
non-resident OSV dwellers. Shut down the OSV parking proposal from the committee
that will do nothing but encourage more OSV parking in the city, aggressively enforce
our existing laws against OSV dwellers (e.g. 72 hour parking limit, illegal dumping)
and to pass new laws to further reduce/eliminate OSV parking in the city like our
neighboring cities have done.
-Greg McShea
From:Shweta Bhatnagar
To:Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Cc:Nose, Kiely; McDonough, Melissa
Subject:Comments for Item 10 (OSV Pilot) - 8/24 Council Mtg
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 2:39:59 PM
Attachments:image001.png
2026-08-20_Stanford OSV Pilot.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council,
Attached please find a letter from Stanford University regarding the Oversized Vehicle Pilot to
be discussed at your upcoming August 24, 2026, City Council meeting. Please feel free to
contact us if you have any questions or need any additional information.
With regards,
Shweta
Shweta Bhatnagar
Senior Director, Government Affairs
Office of Government Affairs
Stanford University
702-290-9217 |shwetab@stanford.edu
Docusign Envelope ID: 133E5D8F-AF5C-8354-8367-0B073864FC10
Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council August 20, 2026
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Comments on proposed Oversized Vehicle street parking pilot program
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 12-month pilot program for Oversized
Vehicle (OSV) street parking. We appreciate Staff’s extensive efforts to develop a program that addresses
ongoing neighborhood, business, public health and safety impacts associated with OSVs.
Stanford has a long history of support for the unhoused in our local region. For example, the Haas Center
for Public Service and Stanford Medicine students and clinicians have for many years served with
LifeMoves, Peninsula Healthcare Connections and other organizations through clinical placements,
internships, courses and student service groups. And though we share the common value for helping the
unhoused, Stanford has serious concerns with the Coyote Hill Road OSV parking location as it will
significantly increase wildfire threat and could compromise habitat species management and cultural
resources.
While Stanford also has concerns about the location’s proximity to the Stanford Research Park (SRP)
related to attraction and retention of tenants (SRP comprises 18% of Palo Alto’s sales and use tax), we’ve
focused our comments on safety and environmental risk.
We are concerned about locating the OSV pilot in Palo Alto’s vulnerable Wildland Urban Interface
(WUI). Around-the-clock human activity in this WUI area is certain to increase wildfire risk with the
potential for devastating fire and smoke impacts to the City, its residents and businesses. Fire ignition
from OSV parking is not uncommon. BBQ ashes, floating embers, and smoking are all common causes.
The proposed parking area is adjacent to open space with natural grass, which in the summer is very dry,
presenting a unique wildfire risk to the community in this unmonitored area. There have been two fires in
the past year near this location – one next to Deer Creek Road and the other near Coyote Hill Road. These
fires were in close proximity to buildings in the Stanford Research Park. The Coyote Hill fire occurred
just this past July and was caused by human activity. The Deer Creek fire in 2025 burned a number of
acres very quickly before being suppressed by responding Palo Alto firefighters. Stanford's Fire Marshal
and retired Palo Alto Fire Captain, Rich Dean, who was on scene during the Deer Creek fire, believes this
incident would have developed into a much larger fire had Stanford, only by pure luck and circumstance,
not had a mowing contractor working in the same field where and when the fire originated. The mowing
contractor was able to control the fire until the Fire Department arrived. The fire was rapidly moving
toward an upslope tree line. If it had reached the tree line, the fire would have been significantly more
difficult to control and could have potentially reached Stanford Research Park buildings. Increasing
wildfire risk in the WUI is inconsistent with our extensive efforts and investments to reduce wildfire risk
across all Stanford lands.
Stanford Real Estate
Academy Hall Stanford Fire Marshal
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor 480 Oak Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 Stanford CA 94305-2040
T: 650.723.8902 T: 650.725.2129
Docusign Envelope ID: 133E5D8F-AF5C-8354-8367-0B073864FC10
We are concerned that an OSV pilot program on Coyote Hill Road may negatively impact the
environmentally sensitive Deer Creek. Acknowledging the importance and fragility of our local
watersheds, Stanford has placed a conservation easement over Deer Creek aimed to protect natural
resources, preserve wildlife habitats, and maintain the ecological integrity of this area. As stewards of
these conservation lands, we are concerned that domestic animals and OSV dwellers could encroach into
the easement and negatively impact flora and fauna.
We appreciate the opportunity to share these comments, and we look forward to full and careful
consideration of these safety and environmental concerns associated with the proposed 12-month pilot
program. We also hope that the City Council will include outreach to affected Stanford Research Park
tenants as part of its implementation plans.
Sincerely,
Robert Reidy Rich Dean
V.P. Land, Buildings & Real Estate Fire Marshal
Stanford University Stanford University
From:luizinhouuuu@icloud.com
To:Council, City
Subject:URGENT – RVs Being Used as Homes – Tow Warning
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 3:17:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Mayor and City Council Members,
I am reaching out to ask for your urgent help regarding several people who are
currently living in RVs in Palo Alto and have recently received 72-hour tow
warnings.
These are not abandoned vehicles. These RVs are our homes. We are living in
them because we currently do not have the financial means or another realistic
housing option available to us.
There are several of us in the same situation. We are not trying to disregard the
City’s parking regulations or create problems for the community. We are
simply trying to find a safe and legal way to remain housed while we work
through an extremely difficult financial situation.
The possibility of our RVs being towed is extremely serious for us because, if
our RVs are removed, we will have nowhere to live and nowhere else to go.
We have already contacted the City’s Transportation Department and the
Human Relations Commission, but we have not yet found a realistic solution.
We are asking the Mayor and City Council to please help us connect with the
appropriate City officials and find a way to address this situation before our
RVs are towed.
We would be very grateful if someone from the City could meet with us in
person, hear our situation, and help us identify any possible temporary or long-
term solution.
We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for help because these
RVs are currently our homes, and we genuinely have nowhere else to go.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you for taking the time to read this and for any assistance you can
provide. We sincerely hope the City will work with us to find a humane, safe,
and legal solution.
Sincerely,
Luiz Santos
Enviado do meu iPhone
From:Jeff Truskey
To:Council, City
Subject:RV parking and Homelessness
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 7:01:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
As a 20 year resident of Palo Alto, I am writing to oppose the “compromise” on RV parking.
The proper approach is to severely limit parking for RVs as San Francisco does or outright ban
overnight RV parking as Cupertino does. Everyone likes to be a “humanitarian” with someone
else’s money, but City Council cannot ignore the real life negative impacts of the RV created
problems.
On another point, how does the City Manager have the authority to open libraries and other
facilities to the homeless? This should be publicly discussed by the City Council with the City
Council making such a decision.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Jeff Truskey
Palo Alto, Ca.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:DiHuyen Van Ho
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu,
George; City Mgr
Subject:Action Item 10: OSV pilot feedback
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 8:44:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Palo Alto City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Manager Staff,
I am writing to inform you about the tremendous emotional distress that your pilot
program of OSVs has caused me. No criteria for selecting the streets included in the
pilot were presented. One clear aspect is that the Ventura neighborhood is heavily
targeted, especially Olive Avenue.
If you view Bob Marinaro's weekly spreadsheet, you will see that the maximum
number of OSVs on Olive has been 3. And yet you are proposing an unlimited
number.
This intentional targeting makes me feel like a second-class citizen. Now, the city is
further undermining the quality of life and depreciating property values by allowing
OSVs to park along the entire length of Olive Avenue. OSV parking comes with an
uptick in trash, animal and human waste, unsafe biking, noise and air pollution from
generators.
Historically, the Ventura neighborhood has the lowest property values in all of Palo
Alto. Furthermore, Olive Avenue was one of the few streets where people of color
were allowed to purchase a home. Including Olive Avenue in the pilot program is
blatant discrimination against people of color, people of low income, and immigrants.
To answer Ms. Griffin’s comments as printed in the Daily Post article on Wednesday,
August 18, “Living an RV lifestyle can be so much fun….” I would say I do respect
other people’s choices, provided they are responsible for their own fun and not use
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
taxpayers’ money for their fun.
Please don’t lecture me about “You don’t know what it is like to be poor”. I came to
this country in 1980 with two empty hands. I did not even possess the most basic
skill of speaking English. That did not prevent me from being a law-abiding citizen or
from behaving in a civilized manner. Please don’t tell me that because RV dwellers
are poor, they can live on my street rent-free and trash the street in the process.
I would like the city to answer the following questions:
1. Signage has been posted. Signage has been amended. Signage has been
completely ignored by OSV dwellers. Why is the city considering spending more
money on more signage?
2. Has the ad hoc committee consulted with Menlo Park to see how they were able
to ban OSVs without any budget expenditure?
3. What are the criteria for a street or a block to be included in the pilot program?
4. I am directly impacted by the plan. How come I was not notified? (Note
recurrent theme: being treated like a second-class citizen -> aggravated
emotional distress)
In Summary, drop your plan and go with Loren Brown's plan, or else remove Olive
Ave completely from the list.
With respect from a law-abiding citizen,
D.H., homeowner, Olive Avenue
From:Derek Gurney
To:Council, City
Subject:RVs are too big for 2800-3200 Park Blvd, which is on a Safe Route to School
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:24:21 PM
Attachments:image.png
image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Council,
I recently learned of the plan to allow long-term RV parking on the 2800-3200 block of Park
Blvd.
Allowing RVs to park in this area will require cyclists, including the students who use it as a
Safe Route to Gunn High School, to veer into the car lane while riding. Here's a screenshot of
a satellite view to demonstrate this.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Notice that the space in the bike lane beside the RVs is much narrower than the area beside the
cars, as RVs are 1.5 to 2 feet wider than even the average SUV and about 2 feet wider than the
average car.
Below is a photo of a bicycle beside a parked car in the 2800-3200 block of Park Blvd. The
photo shows that the bicyle lane is sufficient but not overly generous for passing a parked car.
I wasn't able to take the equivalent photo beside an RV, but I think its fair to assume that ther
extra 2 feet of width of an RV over would require a cyclist to leave the bike lane in order to
pass the RV. Multiply that by several RVs and the bike lane is no longer effective in providing
a Safe Route.
And here's a section of the Gunn Safe Route to School map indicating that 2800-3200 Park
Boulevard is part of the Safe Routes network
I hope this information convinces you that the 2800-3200 Block of Park Blvd is an
inappropriate place for long-term RV parking. Moreover, I would urge you to direct staff to
remove all the blocks where there is a bike lane. Bike lanes and long-term RV parking are not
compatible.
Yours truly,
Derek Gurney
From:Ken Joye
To:Council, City
Subject:staff report #2606-6479
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 8:55:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
In the past, I have spoken in-person before Council about vehicle dwellers, must submit my
input in writing regarding agenda item #10 for the 24 August 2026 meeting.
When this topic was before you previously, I stated that I was glad that staff used the term
“neighbors” when discussing vehicle dwellers and I urge you to frame your thinking in that
manner.
I also urge you to look closely at the wording used in the staff report which describes the
second pilot program before you. That pilot is said to “prohibit OVS parking on alternating
sides of the street on a series of streets”.
Of course, that pilot could have been said to permit parking on alternating sides of the street.
This leads me to some observations:
It is an inconvenient truth that 85% of the streets identified for the second pilot are south of
Oregon Expwy. City Council members bristle whenever residents discuss a perceived
north/south divide but you cannot argue that the neighborhood and business impacts of this
program are equally distributed across Palo Alto despite Council adopted values emphasizing
equity.
Another inconvenient truth is that 30% of the streets are residential and all of those lie within
the NVCAP boundaries. I do not recall any part of the NVCAP discussions identifying that
area as a place to permit vehicle dwellers.
I would like to propose that you consider two additional spaces for the second pilot program:
(1) 200 Block of Hamilton Ave
(2) the runway of the municipal airport
Each of those is rich in symbolic value. Allowing vehicle dwellers to live on alternating sides
of the street in front of City Hall would show that the City Manager and City Council are fully
supporting a humane response to the affordability issues in our community. Converting the
municipal airport to a place for vehicle dwellers would significantly reduce the GHG
emissions from pleasure craft, reduce the spread of lead-filled emissions over East Palo Alto
residents and support our S/CAP goals.
(Naturally, if the airport runway were needed for some sort of emergency response, the
vehicles parked there could be moved for the duration of the emergency response.)
thank you for considering this perspective and for your service to our community,
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood, Palo Alto
15% North, 85% South; 30% residential blocks (all NVCAP)
South 4000 Block of Transport Street
South 900 Block of Commercial Street
South 900 Block of Industrial Avenue
South 100 Block of Page Mill Road <Residential>
South 2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard <Residential>
South 200-400 Block of Olive Avenue <Residential>
South 2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street
South 200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue <Residential>
South 1000 Block of Elwell Court
South 1000 Block of Corporation Way
South 1000 Block of East Meadow Circle
North 2400 Block of Embarcadero Way
North 2400 Block of Faber Place
From:Rebecca Sanders
To:Council, City
Cc:Dave Price; Robert Marinaro; Barry M Katz
Subject:NO NO NO - Monday Night August 24 - OSV
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 10:57:53 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:
Your generosity in offering permanent parking in the disadvantaged neighborhoods while
protecting privileged areas is elitist and Nimbyist.
Why not start with parking OSVs all around City Hall and other City owned properties? And
for the remainder, let all neighborhoods share equally in solving this problem. If rich people
had to deal with this in front of their homes, you bet there'd be some action.
The City's lack of will to enforce existing laws has caused this problem, yet you propose to
solve it on the backs of working people in this town.
Where is your moral compass in this? And don't talk to us of compromise. We have borne the
brunt of this sad business in South Palo Alto for years. I personally have had regular campers
outside my fence non-stop for over 5 years, running their generators, defecating and tossing
garbage over the fence into my yard for my grandchildren to discover.
Why are you proposing to weigh down already embattled Ventura with OSVs? Why are you
going to permanently persecute the businesses in the commercial zones? What is your motive,
to drive us out of town, to drive us out of business? You are not listening to us! What's with
tone deaf City Hall?
Seriously.
Sincerely,
Becky Sanders
Disgusted in Ventura
From:Loren Brown
To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; McDonough, Melissa; Gaines, Chantal
Cc:Loren Brown; News@padailypost.com; gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org
Subject:OSV Program Comments/Suggestions
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 12:49:53 PM
Attachments:American Legal Publishing.png
Geng Road 10.5 Acre Property.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
8-21-2026
Dear City of Palo Alto Leaders,
The staff-proposed “solution” on Monday’s City Council Agenda FAILS to solve the OSV parking problems in Palo Alto. The City cannot allow OSV’s to
continue to park in Palo Alto business districts. Allowing OSVs to park on only one side of a street is a non-solution. Staff has their proposal half correct -
the key is finding more alternative land where OSVs can park, even if the land can only be used on a temporary basis. The below email succinctly identifies
the OSV parking problem and suggests how/where the City can find alternative locations for OSV parking. City staff needs to revise the proposal sent to
City Council for review/approval to move OSV parking from Palo Alto business districts to alternative land designated by the City.
Loren Brown
3-06-2026
Dear City Representatives,
I attended the City Council Study Session OSV parking on Monday, February 23rd, and left very depressed, frustrated, and angry. It is my conclusion that
the City of Palo Alto is taking the wrong path forward with respect to OSV parking on the streets of Palo Alto. To date, the City’s plan to deal with the
huge problem of OSVs parking on City streets is not comprehensive, has not identified an ultimate solution, and has no timeframe to end the problem. In
this email, I am going to frame the OSV parking issue and then offer the City suggestions on how the City can quickly and comprehensively resolve the
OSV parking issue in a cost-efficient manner.
Loren Brown
Property Owner/Landlord on Park Blvd.
ORIGINS OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO BUSINESS DISTRICTS:
OSVs began parking in approximately five Palo Alto business districts approximately 8-10 years ago. Parking of these OSVs (in certain cases) was a
violation of the City’s existing laws (as codified in the City’s Municipal Code). Despite complaints lodged by property owners and commercial tenants of
parked OSVs, which were observed violating the City’s municipal code, enforcement was largely non-existent, weak or ineffective. Lax regulation of
parked OSVs in commercial business districts merely led to an increased number of OSVs parked in Palo Alto business districts. In response to the
violations that my company reported to the City, the City responded that OSV parking issues were a part of a greater homeless problem, which the City
wanted to deal with more comprehensively. And so, the continued lack of police department enforcement, coupled with a City Council philosophy, resulted
in even more OSVs parking in the Palo Alto business parks. The Palo Alto Weekly reported on February 23, 2026, that the number of OSVs parking on the
streets of Palo Alto had doubled between 2023 and 2025. As of last fall, there were over 200 OSVs parking in six specific areas of Palo Alto (see the list
below). The Palo Alto Weekly also reported on February 23, 2026 that neighboring cities to the north and south of Palo Alto have all but banned OSV
parking, driving much of the rise in the population of OSVs in Palo Alto. In conclusion, the OSV parking problem in Palo Alto business parks, etc. is
a result of the City not enforcing its own regulations, not timely responding to a growing issue before it became a huge problem, allowing
incompatible uses immediately adjacent to eachother in Palo Alto neighborhoods, etc., and the City not being willing to do what is required to
eliminate the OSV parking problem on public streets. It is not a problem that the Palo Alto property owners, tenants, or residents could/can head off
because the OSVs are parking on city streets, where city streets are the exclusive domain of the City of Palo Alto.
LOCATION OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO (Six General Areas):
1. Embarcadero Road/Faber Place/Embarcadero Way.
2. Elwell Court and Corporation Way.
3. Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue/Olive Avenue /Sheridan Avenue/Portage Avenue/Ash Street/Acacia Avenue/Orinda Street.
4. Fabian Way/East Meadow Circle.
5. San Antonio Road/Transport Street, Commercial Street, and Industrial Avenue.
6. Other: Including Mitchell Park, Greer Park, Colorado Avenue, Amarillo Avenue, etc.
Note: The City of Palo Alto effectively forces OSV parking into these six locations through inconsistent enforcement of the City’s Municipal Code by the
police department. Enforcement of illegal OSV parking in downtown Palo Alto, California Avenue, Professorville, Crescent Park, Old Palo Alto is
purposely high, while enforcement in the above-listed areas is purposely lax.
CURRENT MAGNITUDE OF THE OSV PARKING PROBLEM IN PALO ALTO:
Palo Alto citizen, Robert Marinaro, reported to the City that as of February 13, 2026, there are approximately 180 OSVs parking on the public streets in
Palo Alto (excluding OSVs parking at the Life Moves facility on Geng Road). On or about November 19, 2025, the total number of OSVs parked on City
streets was approximately 217. As of March 3, 2026, the number of OSVs parking on City streets may be closer to 150 OSV’s (to be confirmed by Bob in
his next count).
NATURE OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO:
The OSV parking issue is a two-prong issue; it is a housing-affordability issue, and it is a residential/business neighborhood deterioration issue.
A) Housing Affordability Issue: The housing-affordability issue is related to a greater long-term, national/regional housing crisis that may never be
solved in our country, our state, our county, or the City of Palo Alto. The cost housing in a building (house, apartment, etc.) is now unaffordable to a subset
of Americans. The high cost of housing relative to income levels has resulted in a large number of people living on the streets or in their vehicles (including
OSVs). This email does not address this issue nor try to solve the housing affordability issue related to OSVs in Palo Alto.
B) Residential/Business Neighborhood Deterioration Issue: The residential/business neighborhood deterioration issue within Palo Alto is created by the
simple incompatibility of OSVs parking in both residential neighborhoods and business parks (as documented to the City staff innumerable times over years
and years). Parking of OSVs in business and residential neighborhoods is a zoning use incompatibility.
Zoning use incompatibility refers to the spatial conflict between different types of land development, such as placing residential areas near high-noise,
polluting, or high-traffic industrial zones
. These conflicts often reduce property values, create nuisances, and hinder the community. Parking of OSVs in Palo Alto residential/business
neighborhoods results in a variety of objections from the adjacent business and residential properties, which include visual blight of OSV vehicles, blocked
sidewalks, littering (trash, human waste, etc.), safety concerns, difficulty leasing property where OSVs park, lost rental income where properties cannot be
leased due to OSVs continuously parked in front of properties, negative impacts to businesses operating where OSVs are continuously parked. etc.
Mitigation strategies for zoning use incompatibility include strict zoning separation, buffer zones, or phasing out nonconforming uses to protect the quality
of
life.
CITY OF PALO ALTO ACTIONS TAKEN TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS:
A) Municipal Code Chapter 10.47 Large Vehicle Parking.
B) Enforcement of Municipal Code Chapter 10.47 Large Vehicle Parking.
C) Emergency Ordinance amending Municipal Code to prohibit unattached trailer parking - effective December 8, 2025.
D) Emergency Ordinance amending Municipal Code to prohibit vanlording - effective December 8, 2025.
E) Police Department Enforcement of Items D and E.
ARE THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS EFFECTIVE?
NO: There are still a huge number (in excess of 150 OSVs) of OSVs parked on City of Palo Alto streets in business and residential neighborhoods.
DEFICIENCIES WITH THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS:
A) The City is not yet fully committed to removing OSVs from parking on City streets. The City Council is not willing to enact an outright ban on OSV
parking on City streets. By not banning OSVs outright, the City Council has effectively granted OSVs an entitlement to park on City streets - resulting in
hesitation on the part of the City to adopt additional measures required to eliminate OSV parking on City streets.
B) The City has not seriously pursued identifying and procuring off-street land for the purposes of providing safe parking for OSVs.
C) The City has not taken action to relocate OSVs from parking in existing City of Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods.
D) The City has not taken action to prohibit additional OSVs from locating in Palo Alto (Prohibiting additional OSVs from locating in Palo Alto would cap
the OSVs' parking in Palo Alto at their present level).
E) Existing City of Palo Alto Police Department policy on towing OSVs in violation of the City’s Municipal Code is capped by towing yard space
availability. OSVs then know that enforcement of OSV parking regulations is lax.
F) Existing City ordinances and enforcement do not serve to decrease the number of OSVs parking on City streets. Instead, existing City ordinances and
enforcement allow OSVs to merely relocate their parked location on City streets (similar to a game of musical chairs where no chairs are ever eliminated).
This allows new OSVs to begin parking their OSVs on the streets of Palo Alto.
WHAT THE CITY OF PALO ALTO NEEDS TO DO TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF OSVS PARKING IN PALO ALTO BUSINESS AND
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS:
A) Enact an OSV Permit Program where all OSVs must be registered in the OSV Permit Program in order to park their OSV in Palo Alto. Enacting this
program will serve to cap the number of OSVs at their current level. New OSVs that want to park in Palo Alto must meet Program eligibility criteria
(eligibility criteria to be created and determined by the City). If the number of OSVs is not capped, new OSVs will just replace every OSV that leaves Palo
Alto or finds alternative housing.
B) Enact a program element designed to find alternative housing for those people currently living in OSVs who have obtained a permit. Once housing is
found for the redeints of each OSV, that OSV will no longer be allowed to park on City of Palo Alto streets or in a City of Palo Alto Safe Parking lot.
C) Identify, procure, and zone land that can/will be used for OSV Safe Parking lots. This land should not be located near business or residential
neighborhoods.
D) Relocate OSVs parked on City streets to newly-created Safe Parking locations.
E) Amend the Municipal Code to ban all OSV parking on City of Palo Alto streets.
F) Revise City policies to fully enforce the City’s Municipal Code on OSV parking (including immediate towing of OSVs from City streets).
PROCUREMENT OF LAND IS THE KEY ELEMENT REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS:
Realistically, the OSV parking problem in the six Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods is going to continue to exist until an alternative location
is found for the OSVs to park. The City Council is both unwilling to allow OSVs to park in other areas of the City and unwilling to force OSVs out of their
existing locations.
WHAT KIND OF LAND IS NECESSARY FOR OSV PARKING?
A) Land that can be procured very soon. The OSV parking problem in business/residential neighborhoods will not be solved until an alternative OSV
parking site can be identified, procured, zoned, and set up to house OSVs.
B) Publicly-owned land. It is unrealistic to think that the private sector will contribute/donate land to the City of Palo Alto for OSV parking use. Buying
private-sector land will also be very expensive. Land for OSV Safe Parking will likely come from the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara or State
of California (i.e. Caltrans).
HOW MUCH LAND IS NEEDED?
Currently, land is needed to park between 150 and 175 OSVs plus any support amenities required for a Safe Parking facility. A parcel of land that could
accommodate this number of OSVs would mean that NO OSVs would need to park on City of Palo Alto business district or residential streets. The City of
Palo Alto determined in August 2025 that a 13,334 SF parcel at 2000 Geng Road could accommodate 13 parked OSVs. Using this data, approximately 3.5
to 4.2 acres of land would be required to accommodate 150 to 175 parked OSVs.
If the City can cap the number of OSVs permitted to park in Palo Alto and then decrease this number by finding OSV residents alternative housing
situations, the amount of land required to park OSVs would decrease over time. If the City can reduce the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto as a result
of the new van lording ordinance, the land requirement could also be lessened.
HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME IS THE LAND NEEDED TO HOUSE OSVs?
This is up to the City to decide. Does the City plan to have a permanent OSV Safe Parking program (in perpetuity) or does the City plan to entirely phase
the OSV Safe Parking program out over a finite time span? Land for parking OSVs is required only for the finite period during which the City operates a
Safe Parking program. The amount of land required for the Safe Parking program depends on the size of the Safe Parking program operated by the City.
PUBLIC LAND PROCUREMENT IDEAS:
As the land requirement for OSV parking likely reduces over time (see above discussion), potential sources of land for OSV parking can include a
temporary use of land that is not currently used for other purposes, yet may be earmarked/dedicated for another long-term use (i.e. parkland, Caltrans right-
of-way, etc.). As the City can find alternative housing for OSV residents, the amount of land required to park remaining OSVs in the City’s Safe Parking
program decreases. Land required to park an initial 150 to 175 OSVs can come from some combination of the following potential land sources.
A) Street parking on the City of Palo Alto portion of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road: There is a length of roadway on each of these streets
that is undeveloped on each side of the street. There is OSV parking potential of approximately 300 yards on Deer Creek Road and 450 yards on Coyote
Hill Road. If all of this roadway length were used for OSV parking on both sides of the roads, approximately 1,500 yards of roadway could accommodate
between 100 and 150 OSVs (depending upon the average length of OSV). Both streets are wide enough to accommodate OSV parking on each side of the
street. There are some hills on these roads that may be too steep for OSVs to park. There is a VTA busroute on Deer Creek Road. As the City of Palo
Alto controls these roadways, this location could be put into service quickly. Concentrating OSVs at this location will be more efficient for the City than
the current OSV parking locations. Trash/water/electricity/sanitation/transportation services offered by the City would be more efficient, and police
department enforcement costs would be dramatically reduced (because there would be no complaints from businesses/residents). This land option is a very-
inexpensive option for the City of Palo Alto and is immediately available (subject to signage and pavement re-striping).
B) Street parking on the County of Santa Clara-controlled portion of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road: There is a length of roadway on
each of these streets that is undeveloped on each side of the street. There is a considerable length of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road under County
control. If all of this roadway length were used for OSV parking on both sides of the roads, the combined capacity of Palo Alto-controlled streets and
County-controlled streets may be sufficient to accommodate the entire contingent of OSVs currently parking in Palo Alto. Both streets are wide enough to
accommodate OSV parking on each side of the street. There are some hills on these roads that may be too steep for OSVs to park. There is a VTA
busroute on Deer Creek Road. As the County controls this section of roadway, the City would have to negotiate its usage for OSV parking with the County.
Concentrating all OSVs at the Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road locations will be more efficient for the City than the current OSV parking locations.
Trash/water/electricity/sanitation/transportation services offered by the City would be more efficient, and police department enforcement costs would be
dramatically reduced (because there would be no complaints from businesses/residents). This land option is a very-inexpensive option for the City of Palo
Alto and is available fairly quickly (subject to negotiating a deal with the County, installing signage, and re-striping pavement).
C) 1.81 Acre San Antonio/101 CalTrans Property (currently leased/used by Ciardella’s Garden Supply): This site could potentially accommodate
77 OSVs. The City would need to equip this site similarly to their Geng Road Safe Parking Site. The City would need to negotiate a lease with Caltrans.
Note: State of California laws (i.e., SB211) authorize Caltrans to lease (for a nominal amount), non-surplus property to a local government for shelter
(including interim housing). A copy of the lease between Caltrans and Ciardellas was provided to the City Manager’s office last year.
D) Geng Road 10.5 Acres: In 2015, the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course was reconfigured. After the reconfiguration, a 10.5-acre area of land became
unused and is currently undeveloped and unused (See attached aerial photos showing this property). While this parcel of land may be part of the original
Municipal Golf Course land dedicated as parkland, it is not currently utilized as publicly accessible parkland. This land abuts Geng Road and is adjacent to
the OSV Safe Parking facility located on Geng Road that is operated by Move Mountain View. Where a local shelter crisis exists, the State of California
Government Code 8698.4 allows cities to temporarily use undeveloped parkland for temporarily housing a Safe Parking facility. This site could be an ideal
location for a temporary Safe Parking lot (i.e. immediately available, no land purchase/lease cost to City, immediately adjacent to Move Mountain View
Safe parking facility on Geng Road, not adjacent to businesses/residents, can be easily/cheaply transformed to a Safe Parking lot, is of sufficient size to
accommodate all 150-175 OSVs, other than a temporary parking surface and perimeter fence, no other improvements to this land need to be made - OSVs
that utilize this parking lot can use Safe Parking amenties at 2200 Geng Road, etc. See attached literature supporting this site as a temporary OSV Safe
parking lot.
Suggestion: The City should identify a 4-acre section of this land that is most adjacent to 2200 Geng Road and create a Safe Parking lot for OSVs that can
use/share any amenities at 2200 Geng Road. Once the OSV parking lot is established, the City should require any/all OSVs that are then parking on Palo
Alto streets to instead park at this OSV lot or be banned from parking their OSV in Palo Alto. The City should then work with OSV residents to find them
alternative housing. The City would then decrease the size of this temporary OSV parking lot over time to the point where there are no OSVs left at this
parking lot, and the land can be restored for parkland use.
E) Stanford Industrial Park (Stanford land GUP): Stanford University owns vacant land adjacent to Coyote Road and Deer Creek Roads that could be
utilized as temporary parking for OSVs. The City of Palo Alto would have to negotiate the upcoming County/Stanford GUP to secure land for Palo Alto
OSV parking use and the duration of that use.
F) Buena Vista Mobile Home Park: I drove through the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park today. There are approximately 10 unoccupied vehicle spaces
at this site that could potentially be used to park OSVs. The City of Palo Alto should work with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority to determine
whether there is capacity at this property to house OSVs that currently park on City of Palo Alto streets.
CONCLUSION: The City of Palo Alto needs to take immediate action to define a Safe Parking Program (program duration and size) and then take action
to procure the land necessary to operate the Safe Parking program. Once the land has been procured, the City of Palo Alto needs to enact a ban on OSVs
parking on City streets.
From:Deborah Trilling
To:Joye, Ken
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: staff report #2606-6479
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 1:14:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Thank you Ken for your thoughtful suggestions. I still do not support any OVS on Park as it is
too dangerous for the numerous bikers (many kids and teens) who use the street to grt to
school.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 11:54 AM Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> wrote:
In the past, I have spoken in-person before Council about vehicle dwellers, must submit my
input in writing regarding agenda item #10 for the 24 August 2026 meeting.
When this topic was before you previously, I stated that I was glad that staff used the term
“neighbors” when discussing vehicle dwellers and I urge you to frame your thinking in that
manner.
I also urge you to look closely at the wording used in the staff report which describes the
second pilot program before you. That pilot is said to “prohibit OVS parking on alternating
sides of the street on a series of streets”.
Of course, that pilot could have been said to permit parking on alternating sides of the
street. This leads me to some observations:
It is an inconvenient truth that 85% of the streets identified for the second pilot are south of
Oregon Expwy. City Council members bristle whenever residents discuss a perceived
north/south divide but you cannot argue that the neighborhood and business impacts of this
program are equally distributed across Palo Alto despite Council adopted values
emphasizing equity.
Another inconvenient truth is that 30% of the streets are residential and all of those lie
within the NVCAP boundaries. I do not recall any part of the NVCAP discussions
identifying that area as a place to permit vehicle dwellers.
I would like to propose that you consider two additional spaces for the second pilot program:
(1) 200 Block of Hamilton Ave
(2) the runway of the municipal airport
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Each of those is rich in symbolic value. Allowing vehicle dwellers to live on alternating
sides of the street in front of City Hall would show that the City Manager and City Council
are fully supporting a humane response to the affordability issues in our community.
Converting the municipal airport to a place for vehicle dwellers would significantly reduce
the GHG emissions from pleasure craft, reduce the spread of lead-filled emissions over East
Palo Alto residents and support our S/CAP goals.
(Naturally, if the airport runway were needed for some sort of emergency response, the
vehicles parked there could be moved for the duration of the emergency response.)
thank you for considering this perspective and for your service to our community,
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood, Palo Alto
15% North, 85% South; 30% residential blocks (all NVCAP)
South 4000 Block of Transport Street
South 900 Block of Commercial Street
South 900 Block of Industrial Avenue
South 100 Block of Page Mill Road <Residential>
South 2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard <Residential>
South 200-400 Block of Olive Avenue <Residential>
South 2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street
South 200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue <Residential>
South 1000 Block of Elwell Court
South 1000 Block of Corporation Way
South 1000 Block of East Meadow Circle
North 2400 Block of Embarcadero Way
North 2400 Block of Faber Place
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VNA Civic
Engagement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
VNACivic+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/VNACivic/F489F274-
C2C2-44BA-8CC3-C387CB71BD77%40gmail.com.
From:Eric Nordman
To:Council, City
Subject:RV Parking Plan
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 1:27:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members:
In general the proposed RV plan seems to be an appropriate solution to a difficult situation.
However, Park Boulevard should be removed from the list as it is a heavily used bike route
with significant car traffic and many bicyclists would end up riding in the door zone.
The Daily Post article said that the pilots would cost $823,800, while citywide restrictions
would cost $4.5 million to design and install signs and to monitor and enforce restrictions. I
don't understand why $4.5 million would be required and hope that a cheaper solution can be
found.
Sincerely,
Eric Nordman
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Patrick Butler
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Nose, Kiely
Subject:Regarding: Palo Alto City Council Meeting of August 24, 2026., Agenda Item #10
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 2:04:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hon. Members of the City Council:
I respectfully urge the members of the City Council to reject the recommendations of the ad
hoc committee on the subject of persons living in their vehicles on our streets in current
violation of our codes and laws. I appreciate the work of the three ad hoc committee members
but the over five million dollars in recommendations would simply continue our city as a
magnet for individuals who have been lawfully excluded by our neighbors and want a place to
stay without paying for rent, utilities, trash collection or sewage service.
I believe that a survey of the residents and business owners of our city would show an
overwhelming opposition to this plan to shove illegal RV and trailer parking into the south of
our city.
On August 14, 2026 Palo Alto Online published a very comprehensive report on the
recommendations of the ad hoc committee that are before you tonight. The article
included maps and lists of addresses of this convoluted plan to move illegally parked vehicles
south and a plan to alternate street sides for such parking while collecting a $15. fee. What
also needs focus is the statement by our City Manager Ed Shikada that in addition to the
$800,000. plus for the program an additional $4,100,000. would be required for signage,
enforcement and administration. That is a lot of signs.
If you want to feel the pulse of our city on this subject I suggest that you take a minute to scan
the 38 published comments to that August 14 article. All are, the last time I checked, opposed
to the plan:
38 Comments From the Palo Alto Online August 14, 2026 Article
JS1 says:
August 14, 2026 9:14 am at 9:14 am
Staff proposal is mostly a tone-deaf non-solution. The ONLY element of
the proposal that has merit is allowing OSVs to park on Coyote Creek
Road and Embarcadero Road (where there are no adjacent businesses or
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
residents).
Continuing to allow OSVs to park in Palo Alto business and residential
neighborhoods is NOT a solution (even if only on one side of the street).
The City needs to find additional parking areas for OSVs that are not in Palo
Alto business and residential neighborhoods. Deer Creek Road, city-owned
land off Geng Road and CalTrans property at 101/San Antonio are all viable
locations for OSV parking.
City Council and City Staff: MOVE ALLOWABLE OSV PARKING COMPLETELY OUT
OF PALO ALTO BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS NOW. Until you
take action to do this, you have not solved the most objectionable part of the
OSV parking problem.
Reply
PA Concerned Residentsays:
August 14, 2026 10:13 am at 10:13 am
Part 1 should satisfy Palo Alto’s need to be “accommodating.” Part 2
should be dead on arrival!
Reply
Online Namesays:
August 14, 2026 10:21 am at 10:21 am
What are the plans for enforcement of existing laws and removal of
violators?
Reply
Moctod says:
August 14, 2026 11:02 am at 11:02 am
“The program followed a series of meetings by the council’s recently
established Oversized Vehicles Impacts and Services Ad Hoc
Committee, which is chaired by Councilmember Ed Lauing and includes council
members Julie Lythcott-Haims and Keith Reckdahl.”
Are these the meetings that included those who are living illegally on our
streets along with our City staff, but excluded the residents of Palo Alto?
This is the sort of solution that I would expect from Julie L-H who did such a
terrible job on the Churchill crossing meetings, but I am disappointed that Ed
Lauing was involved.
Reply
Anne Houghtelingsays:
August 14, 2026 11:04 am at 11:04 am
I don’t understand: The city would allow RV parking on certain streets
(none in northern PA, at first glance) for six months, but then they can
stay on the same street for another six months if they move to the other side
of the same street? So they have permission to park one year on the listed
streets?
Reply
MJHsays:
August 14, 2026 11:24 am at 11:24 am
Prior to approximately 2014 sleeping overnight in a street parked
vehicle was (is?) a Palo Alto city municipal code violation which the
police enforced. Around that time the Palo Alto Weekly reported the case of a
woman who was cited for sleeping in her car parked on the Stanford section of
El Camino, but not living in her car. Does anyone know if the ban on overnight
sleeping in vehicles parked on city streets is still technically a code violation the
city could still enforce?
Reply
Online Namesays:
August 14, 2026 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm
“This is the sort of solution that I would expect from Julie L-H who did
such a terrible job on the Churchill crossing meetings, but I am
disappointed that Ed Lauing was involved.”
So true. Her outright and repeated lies about the student petition deserved to
be called out for what they were. The petition called for the return of human
crossing guards which is quite a stretch for her to keep saying the students
demanded closing Churchill.
How much money was wasted after staff was instructed to explore closing
Churchill — and only Churchill — even though more suicides have occurred in
South Palo Alto and most suicides occur among middle aged people, not teens.
Given her biases and disregard for PA residents while pushing her own
agendas, a larger question is why she keeps getting appointed to the most
visible and important commissions / task forces.
Maybe Mayor Veenker can enlighten us?
Other OSV questions are:
A) why the city thinks spending MILLIONS of dollars on signage is a good use of
our money when it pleads poverty and threatens to cut human crossing guards
and library hours,
B) who is paying for the OSV utilities: us, the vanlords and/or the OSV dwellers,
C) what if anything is being done to determine the employment status of the
OSV dwellers and to oust those who are gainfully employed and simply prefer
saving money and not paying rent.
Reply
Concerned Residentsays:
August 14, 2026 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm
I’m so incredibly tired of this city council who does nothing to serve the
people who actually elected them—an overwhelming majority of whom
do not want OSVs in residential or business areas (or in Palo Alto generally).
The city staff are completely incompetent and clearly don’t care about Palo Alto
at all. Couldn’t find better pencil pushers. Reduce the staff so we stop funding
nonsense people with our tax dollars.
Reply
Charlessays:
August 14, 2026 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm
“I’m so incredibly tired of this city council who does nothing to serve
the people who actually elected them—an overwhelming majority of
whom do not want OSVs in residential or business areas (or in Palo Alto
generally).”
Yes, just say no. And then enforce it.
Reply
connie kettendorf says:
August 14, 2026 4:55 pm at 4:55 pm
I laughed out loud when I saw that Meadow Circle will be a part of the 6
months parking allowed on one side of the street, then switcheroo! Of
course! OSV parking will continue here in south Palo Alto! Of course it will! Did
you ever doubt that our end of town would NOT be looked at for remedy!?
What about the businesses there on the Circle? Does the Council care little for
the employees who must make their way through the vans there, past the
vandwellers, employees who must sequester themselves on breaks because it
is uncomfortable to stroll the street?
Please, Reader, drive around Meadow Circle and see for yourself. I doubt Julie
Lythcott Haimes has done so. Of course, she said in the paper that she would
welcome them on her street, so perhaps some of the vans should set up camp
in front of her house?
The truly needy should be offered the help described, but only a few of the 40
to 60 vans on Meadow Circle belong to the truly needy. The vast majority of the
van dwellers there are employed; some own houses at a distance; some own
the boats, motorcycles and beautiful cars parked along the Circle as well as late
model vans.
Could those engineers rent an apartment together? Could Stanford allow
parking on its vast campus?
Palo Alto is a generous city. We have two food baskets, an Emergency Shelter
Program, the Opportunity House , a strong social service division, the housing
on San Antonio, services from St. Vincent de Paul and Goodwill, vouchers from
the churches, Hotel de Zinc, (may still be operative) overnight parking in the
church lots, on and on.
The city council members vying for higher office are terrified of being called
heartless so fail to act. It is time to elect officials who act responsibly. When will
the wishes of the Palo Alto residents be honored?
We will spend close to a million dollars on signage, etc. for OSV, but the City
cries poormouth when it comes to funding basic fire safety. South Palo Alto
continues to be vulnerable to fire since Fire Station 4 has inadequate firefighter
coverage. With only four brave firefighters, FS4 can launch an ambulance or
the engine but not both at the same time. Would the money spent on serving
the vans be better spent staffing another firefighter RTC at Fire Station 4?
Stanford has SIX firefighters, but south Palo Alto gets the slim pickens…… yet
again.
We should pay Bob Marinaro 100K for the work he has done documenting the
OSVs. Without his work and advocacy, nothing would have been done. He has
continued as a terrier nipping at the heels of city hall; they hoped he would just
give up and go away. In fact, our city manager would have hired outside
consultants to examine the problem of the OSVs, paid them 300K, and then
concluded there was no real issue.
Elect Bob for city council!
Reply
M says:
August 14, 2026 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm
This just expands where illegal vehicles take over streets and
neighborhoods, and now it appears permanently with Council’s
blessing. They will be on both sides of the street, and the city will do what they
are best at doing — expensive studies with zero concrete actions. Perhaps
these council members could offer their driveways and the streets in front of
their residences instead.
Reply
connie kettendorf says:
August 14, 2026 5:18 pm at 5:18 pm
@M: You are correct. Julie Lythcott Haimes has said in the paper she
would “welcome them in her neighborhood.” As you say, she should
indeed offer her driveway! She just remodeled her upscale property there; a
van in front will complete her lovely home.
Reply
connie kettendorf says:
August 14, 2026 5:22 pm at 5:22 pm
@M: You are correct. Julie Lythcott Haimes has said in the paper she
would “welcome them in her neighborhood.” As you say, she should
indeed offer her driveway! She just remodeled her upscale property there; a
van in front will complete her lovely home.
Reply
Marc says:
August 14, 2026 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm
I guess it’s time to let the city know how people feel
Proposed Ballot Initiative
The Palo Alto Public Spaces and Municipal Resources Protection Act
Section 1. Title
This measure shall be known as the “Palo Alto Public Spaces and Municipal
Resources Protection Act.”
Section 2. Findings and Purpose
The People of the City of Palo Alto find and declare:
(a) Vehicles used as long-term or permanent dwellings parked on public streets
create impacts on neighborhood safety, sanitation, traffic flow, and residential
quality of life.
(b) City resources are limited, and residents have a right to determine how
municipal funds are prioritized.
(c) This measure is intended to regulate specific conduct on public property
and city expenditures — not to criminalize a person’s housing status.
Section 3. Prohibition on Vehicle Habitation on Public Streets
(a) No person shall use any RV, camper, trailer, van, car, or other vehicle parked
on a public street, alley, or city-owned lot as a place of residence, overnight
sleeping quarters, or long-term dwelling.
(b) The City shall enforce existing and amended vehicle-parking time limits (e.g.,
72-hour or shorter posted limits) uniformly on all vehicles regardless of the
occupant’s housing status.
Section 4. Prohibition on City-Sanctioned Safe Parking Programs
(a) The City of Palo Alto shall not establish, fund, permit, or otherwise authorize
any “safe parking” program, off-street vehicle-dwelling lot, or similar site
intended to allow overnight habitation in vehicles, whether on public or private
property within city limits.
(b) The City shall not enter into contracts, leases, or permits with any third
party for the purpose of operating such a site.
Section 5. Prohibition on Direct or Indirect City Support for Homeless Services
(a) The City of Palo Alto shall not appropriate, grant, or otherwise direct city
funds, staff time, city-owned property, or in-kind resources to any program
whose primary purpose is providing shelter, housing assistance, meal service,
storage, hygiene services, or case management targeted at unhoused
individuals.
(b) This includes indirect support such as subsidized leases of city property, fee
waivers, or referral partnerships with outside agencies for such services.
Section 6. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, or clause of this measure is held invalid,
the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
Section 7. Effective Date
This measure shall take effect 2 days after certification of the election results,
per California Elections Code.
Reply
connie kettendorf says:
August 14, 2026 10:28 pm at 10:28 pm
Amen.
Reply
Online Namesays:
August 14, 2026 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm
Absolutely, add Julie’s driveway to the list!
Add Mayor Veenker’s driveway, too, since she’s long postponed the OSV
community “listening session” now scheduled for the August 24th CC meeting
— which is obviously 10 days AFTER this plan was released with no community
input.
Evidently listening to us FIRST would be too sensible; instead we’ll again have to
fight City Hall to try to eliminate the worst problems. What a frustrating
insulting waste of everyone’s time.
The headline of this excellent article reads “Palo Alto looks to limit vehicle
dwelling with new permit program” but it’s unclear how PA’s limiting anything,
esp since staffers concede this costly pilot program will simply push vehicle
dwellers into other PA neighborhoods.
Neighboring communities HAVE limited their vehicle dwellers, effectively
pushing them into PA. Maybe they’ve listened to their taxpayers? For example
Mountain View businesses have withheld almost $3,000,000 in taxes to protest
the harm done to their businesses and the declining property values since
who’d want to shop, buy or rent in the middle of an RV haven?
Given PA’s poor track record on community outreach, I also wonder if this
article is the first PA residents and businesses learned their streets were slated
to become OSV havens. Also seeing Transport St on the list reminds me of the
poor business owner on Transport who’s repeatedly complained on Bob
Marinaro’s email list that reaches 165+ people including the Mayor, the OSV
Committee, City Council and city staff that PAPD keeps giving parking tickets to
his employees but never to the OSVs blocking access to his business.
Finally it would have been “polite” if any of our “leaders” had thanked Marinaro
for his efforts and/or bothered to respond to specific complaints or questions
raised on that biweekly email list.
Reply
Annettesays:
August 14, 2026 9:47 pm at 9:47 pm
I sometimes wonder why we need a council. They go in circles. They
talk about important issues for years (Exhibit A on that: grade
separation). They wordsmith into the wee hours, eventually coming up with
something that often creates new problems. And starting at least as far back as
Frank Benest, Council has effectively forfeited control of the city to the city
manager, a position that is not elected. Maybe we should look at changing the
charter and electing a City Manager and Mayor who have to answer to the
voters every four years. The status quo is a very costly model that is riddled
with shortcomings.
Connie Kettendorf, one of the commenters on this issue, often posts details
about city shortcomings that should be addressed. Ditto “Online Name”. The
Churchill issue was poorly handled. And not fully staffing and equipping a fire
station that serves a growing area of town is just plain stupid. Are we trying to
emulate LA’s Mayor Bass here?
Robert Marinaro has saved the city thousands of dollars and oodles of time by
compiling critical information about the OSV problem. It’s very clear that a
solution is needed NOW. ASAP. Not next March.
Housing is a serious, complicated issue. I certainly don’t have the answers, but I
doubt building market rate housing is going to help much. Maybe ask the RV
dwellers what they think about that. Affordability is likely the central problem,
and that has been true for at least a decade. I don’t think legislation can make
any city affordable. It’s time to stop pretending about that.
Reply
Gary G.says:
August 14, 2026 9:58 pm at 9:58 pm
I was asked about the issue. It is RV Squatting. It is counter productive
to proper zoning and construction. A city needs to have clear laws and
enforce those laws for practical reasons, not the ‘humanitarian’ approach.
These are a small group of transient libertarians affecting the quality of
traditional neighborhoods. The Governor and Courts have ruled that done
right, and consistently, a municipality does not have to accept RV Squatting.
Basically, we have a choice, supporting RV Squatters or little kids. No mother in
her right mind is going to let her little kids go out to play without constant
supervision in a town that actively promotes a set of values discordant with
raising a young family. So the more we tolerate RV Squatting, the more we
send a message that we are not that family oriented as a municipality. Problem
is the Pacifica Case, Sean Geary et al, vs. City of Pacifica. Before we make any
decision, Palo Alto has to have a clear and consistent policy. You cannot go
picking and choosing, and have to document clearly your choices. In 2025, the
municipality chose to expand RV Squatting Services, while other townships
decided the opposite. This is not about owning an RV. It is about the
complicated and very real relationship of purchasing a home or renting an
apartment and paying a great deal of money to live in Palo Alto, without
receiving any corresponding services for high taxes.
Reply
Online Namesays:
August 14, 2026 10:48 pm at 10:48 pm
“In 2025, the municipality chose to expand RV Squatting Services, while
other townships decided the opposite.”
And when PA people complained, we were assured that County meetings
would be the panacea. Julie Lythcott-Haims waxed enthusiastic about the
wonders of cooperation and the need for more listening sessions.
I remember that and thinking how transparently lame that latest stalling
technique was because it was absurd to expect the other communities to jump
at the chance to take back the RV dwellers they’d worked so hard to limit.
And sure enough those County-wide meetings were never mentioned again.
Annette brings up excellent points about why we need a council that
accomplishes little, provides no obvious oversight of City Manager spending or
performance and wastes an inordinate amount of time virtue-signalling while
supporting the poor behavior of their like-minded buddies like Peterson even
though he was so prone to temper tantrums he called PAPD EIGHT — 8 —
times in a single day to demand special treatment and then blamed his ouster
on his pro-density stance, not his behavior.
You can’t virtue signal that one away claiming incumbents deserve support (if
they agree with you) regardless of their actions.
Yes, the housing issue is complicated but it’s become a team sport / litmus test
where objectivity and attention to detail have largely been lost as well as any
pretense that the housing push is about affordability and helping to keep the
kids and poor Grandma close. Maybe start asking tough questions of the big
tech employers and demand they contribute to solving the problems instead of
throwing money at the most compliant candidates.
Let’s hope people pay attention during the CC election and demand real
substantive answers, not happy talk. Let’s also consider limiting campaign
contributions. Do your research on where the money and endorsements
comes from.
Reply
Lilysays:
August 14, 2026 10:54 pm at 10:54 pm
The proposed Coyote Hill Road site raises a fire-safety concern that
deserves much more attention. The City proposes concentrating up to
20 inhabited oversized vehicles along a road immediately adjacent to dry
grassland, and the staff report itself says that landscaping will be needed “to
reduce fire risks along Coyote Hill Road.” Many inhabited RVs use generators,
propane, and outdoor cooking equipment, all potential ignition sources. Before
approving this location, the City should explain what Fire Department review
has occurred, what restrictions will apply to generators, fuel, propane,
barbecues and other ignition sources, particularly during high-fire-risk
conditions, and how those restrictions will be monitored and enforced. Fire-
safety rules are only meaningful if there is a realistic plan for ensuring
Reply
Bystandersays:
August 15, 2026 7:35 am at 7:35 am
Questions, questions? Does this permit then actually allow them to be
called Palo Alto residents? Do they get any city services such as trash
pick up as a result of these permits? Will road sweeping mean that they have to
move at least once a week? Can a permit give them a street address if these
are numbered spaces?
Reply
Jsydow says:
August 15, 2026 8:21 am at 8:21 am
I almost laughed when I read the city council’s proposal. Based on what
they have done or rather not done on the push for housing and
allowing builders to erect 7 stories bookings in residential areas and
concentrated density in south Palo Alto I’m not surprised. They are so out of
touch with the tax paying residents that elected them. How about enforcing
current laws and codes? Would they even know how many OSV vehicles are
parked in Palo Alto if it wasn’t for Bob Marinara? What have they been doing
date the past few years on this issue-it isn’t new but residents have put up with
the noise pollution and threats for OSV dwellers for several years. Why are they
now just waking up with a ridiculous plan? Assume the OSV dwellers will
comply with the new plan, what if they don’t? Allow another 3-4 years before
they come up with a “solution”? Other cities have come up with reasonable
solutions. So much so that the word is out-park your OSV in Palo Alto, they
don’t do anything.
Reply
Annettesays:
August 15, 2026 8:57 am at 8:57 am
AMEN to the comments posted by Gary G, and Lily’s observations are
highly concerning. The AdHoc committee needs to scrap the proposed
plan and start over. I suggest they invite Robert Marinaro, Gary G, Lily, and a
fire safety advocate to the table.
Reply
connie kettendorf says:
August 15, 2026 9:37 am at 9:37 am
Lily is correct. There will be an increased fire danger when the vans
take up residence next to the dry grasses.
The fire danger in the hills is colossal! When looking at our fire response a year
ago, I was quite dismayed and shocked when I realized the vulnerability of the
hills, in the face of a modest fire response capability there. However, I have had
to focus on Fire Station 4 in south Palo Alto, ringing the alarm that south Palo
Alto has prolonged fire response times because the engines must come from a
distance. (Fire Station 4, staffed by only 4 brave firefighters, can launch an
ambulance OR a fire engine but not both at the same time. The Philz fire was
an 8 minute 20 second response time from several miles away, so we lost that
shopping center.)
So… the fire coverage in the hills is also necessarily a prolonged response time.
I urge those who live there to research your safety and organize. Ask for
written statistics: apparatus availability, manpower, geographic coverage.
Please know that a RESPONSE time is not a DISPATCH time; don’t be fooled.
As Annette said, it is time to elect our City Manager, rather than appoint him.
He squandered 24 million of our 1.02 billion dollar income on consultants, who
produced little. All the while, the PAFD has been underfunded and
undermanned since 2011.
Yes! Lily is correct to sound the alarm as to the increased fire danger posed by
this lame OSV plan. However, regardless of the OSV plan, the hills are at great
risk.
Our fire response would be better served by a fire board which answers
directly to Council, such as many a city of our size and wealth has. Instead, we
have an at-will fire chief at the mercy of the City Manager. Our wonderful chief
cannot ask Council for funding; our city manager has been disinterested in
bringing our fire response up to minimal county standards. Look at the LAFCO
report, in which Palo Alto was pillaried.
Listen to Lily!
Thank you for your attention to these comments,
Patrick Butler
Palo Alto
From:David Adams
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu,
George; City Mgr; City Attorney
Subject:Action Item 10: OSV pilots, 8/24
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 2:07:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney,
I find it difficult to see anything good about your pilot 2. It may just be the most stupid, ill conceived and ill
thought through idea to emanate from City Hall. Additionally, the report is so poorly written I could not
discern whether it was AI slop or human written.
You must withdraw this nonsense and instead implement Loren Brown's alternate proposal.
I'll concentrate on just one aspect; allowing OSVs to park the length of Olive Ave. I am a home owner on
Olive, lived here for 29 years so I know more about it than any of you. Olive is a residential street with 25
single family homes. You have just blighted 25 homes; no outreach and no notification from the city. I
learned about it from reading the local paper. Can you imagine the extreme emotional distress you have
caused.
The report does not include the criteria for choosing the streets in pilot 2. What was it? You receive Bob
Marinaro's spreadsheet each week which shows the max number of OSVs on Olive historically as 3. Why
did you decide to allow an unlimited number on Olive? You take a problem, make it a million times worse
then, no doubt, you will say it's solved. And the report says it is designed to 'reduce neighborhood
impacts'! You must be thinking of your own neighborhoods because you're certainly not thinking of mine.
How will it operate? Will OSV owners on Transport, Commercial and Industrial parked on the disallowed
side be told they will be towed unless they move to Olive? What will be the city's role in herding them to
Olive?
I'm not fooled into thinking this will be a pilot. On completion I'm certain you will make it permanent
because you favor OSV owners over residents.
Let me tell you some of the impacts we will have:
I will not be able to exit my driveway safely with OSVs parked either side.
Emotional distress from having people living outside my front door for 6 months.
Security and privacy issues.
Trash and other human waste left on the sidewalk and median.
Noise and pollution from mobile generators.
Dog feces left on my property.
Potential for illegal use of utilities
As written, Appendix E Section 2 states that parking on the non-OSV side of the street will be restricted to
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
certain vehicles. These do not include vehicles of residents. Therefore, for 6 months I won't be able to
park my car outside my house because it's not permitted. For the other 6 months I won't be able to park
my car outside my house because the space will be occupied by OSVs bumper to bumper.
Lastly, I come to the most serious issue and this one makes my blood boil. There are many young
families with small kids who play out front. Any Tom, Dick, Harry, pervert, pedophile, or other type of
undesirable can roll up, swing their door open and start living right there. Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl,
Lauing, Shikada; what on earth are you thinking? You seem willing to put our most vulnerable citizens at
risk but not your own. I would like you to tell me why that is. Just today there is an item in the Police
Blotter for an individual 'arrested for brandishing a weapon and resisting police' on E. Meadow Circle.
City Attorney take note; if something bad was to happen it is now public record that you have all been
warned.
Also, take note, by allowing OSV parking only on certain streets the City of Palo Alto has effectively
diminished the economic value of affected properties, amounting to an inverse condemnation (regulatory
taking) and actionable nuisance under California law (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 19).
Also, take note, if you follow through with this I will be applying for a reduction in property tax.
These reasons are why cities ban OSV parking on residential streets. Unbelievably, you want to
encourage it.
David Adams
Home Owner, Olive Ave.
From:Erik Jacobsen
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed OSV Pilot Programs
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 3:59:13 PM
Attachments:IMG_1724.heic
IMG_1727.heic
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I am a resident of Palo Alto writing with some input on the proposed pilot programs related to the
parking of Oversized Vehicles (OSV).
I am supportive of the idea of testing out a permit-based program as suggested in the first pilot
program.
I am also generally supportive of the second program prohibiting parking on specific streets for 6
month periods, but there appear to be some inconsistencies in the streets selected for the program.
If the purpose of the programs is "to address ongoing neighborhood, business, public health, and
safety impacts associated with OSVs used for habitation while also providing a more structured and
humane response for individuals living in those vehicles” as stated, then it seems that the streets
chosen for OSV parking should be located away from primarily residential neighborhoods.
Of the 13 streets listed, they are all primarily non-residential streets with the surprising exception of
Olive Avenue (at least 23 homes plus several ADUs, by my count). Lambert Avenue also has a
section of single family homes (at least five), and East Meadow Circle is adjacent to multi-family
housing.
Currently, all overnight parking is prohibited on one side of the 300 block of Olive Street, and
overnight OSV parking is prohibited on the other side. Is the intent to remove those existing
restrictions and encourage more OSV parking?
As the Executive Director of the California Family Foundation, I am very supportive of helping
people in need find viable housing options. We are trying to be part of the solution to that challenge
by providing low-income housing for families in the area, including some residences on Olive
Avenue. While many of the streets proposed in the pilot seem appropriate for the test outlined by the
City, Olive Avenue doesn’t belong on the list. I would also remove the residential portion of
Lambert Avenue, and the section of East Meadow Circle adjacent to multi-family housing.
I’ve included some photos of Olive Avenue so you can see some of the residences that OSVs would
be camped in front of, if I’m understanding the proposal correctly. It doesn’t seem appropriate and
consistent with program goals to encourage OSV parking directly in front of homes where families
and children live.
Thank you for your work in trying to address this challenge.
Erik Jacobsen
Executive Director
California Family Foundation
From:Sherry Listgarten
To:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Lines of RVs on select Palo Alto streets is not the answer to our affordable housing crisis
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 6:34:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I do not think that encouraging RV living on select streets in Palo Alto is an appropriate way to address our
affordable housing crisis.
There is no doubt that we have a grave affordable housing crisis. Although Palo Alto has in the past done more to
support affordable housing than many other Peninsula cities, the affordable housing we have today is being razed by
developers in order to build more lucrative housing and hotels. New state laws are exacerbating the situation.
We are losing the battle.
But your proposal to support and encourage RVs on select streets in the city is in my view going to do more harm
than good. Our Mayor preaches unity, but the proposal is inherently divisive, segregating RV dwellers and pitting
some parts of Palo Alto against others. RV residents hide in their dark and hot vehicles, afraid to emerge in a hostile
environment. And the local residents and business owners are upset to see their streets and sidewalks crowded by
permanently parked large vehicles, their air disturbed by the sound and smell of generators, and landscaping
sometimes impacted with waste. The neighborhood they have invested in, and only their neighborhood, has become
an RV lot.
We have got to find a way to build proper affordable housing, which the state is apparently refusing to help with. (In
fact, this whole development/gentrification push is now causing affordability problems even in inland areas.) Maybe
we could couple stricter RV enforcement with an affordable housing fee on all residents. I would certainly prefer a
tax that would fund affordable housing to one planned for Cubberley. And I live near Cubberley...
Short of proper affordable housing, I would suggest that we distribute RVs equally throughout the city, one on every
block or two, exclusively for low-income RV "households". The RV folks can move in front of a new
house/building on their block(s) every week or two and get to know more people that way. Many blocks might even
rally to support their local RV family. We want these folks to be integrated into our community, not locked away in
a dark and hot vehicle, afraid of emerging.
We need to get the socioeconomic profile of Palo Alto back into balance. It was urgent before, and now the state is
making it both more difficult and more urgent. But turning select streets into RV lots cannot be the answer. It is
divisive, it is unfair, and it doesn't make sense for RV residents or the local residents. We can do better.
-- Sherry.
From:Frances Perry
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments on some issues
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 7:36:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
On RV parking rules:
Rules that apply to all vehicles would seem to be better than rules that apply to RVs only. Some cities alternate
parking on street cleaning day to the even/odd numbered sides so that the gutters are really cleaned. We could do
that here and vehicles would need to be moved at least once a week. In some of our residential streets parts of the
gutters are never cleaned. I guess we would need to have a lot of signs announcing this and be prepared to tow
vehicles on the wrong side of the street.
On transitional housing for the homeless:
I was surprised when at the opening of the new transitional housing for the homeless near the end of San Antonio
Road, that it was called the first such facility in Palo Alto. The Opportunity Center was the first. It was built to be
transitional housing for the homeless and provide services to them. Before it was finished, we looked around and
realized that there was no housing to transition to, so it became low income housing with services for the homeless.
Now that it has a water problem. Rather than helping them fix it, I read that the city wants to take money from them
via fines. The Opportunity Center is closer to bus lines and train lines than the other place (sorry, I forgot its name).
On RV parking:
We just need to open a big KOA camp. It also makes sense to do the same that the surrounding communities are
doing so that we don’t become a magnet because it is more attractive.
Frances H. Perry
Richardson Court
From:Angela Dellaporta
To:Council, City
Subject:OSVs
Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 7:40:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
Having read many of the letters written to the city council regarding
experiences and opinions about OSV policy in Palo Alto, I sympathize with
those who are upset about garbage strewn on the sidewalk, unwanted
noise, vehicles blocking views of intersections, and unenforced rules. I can
also understand those who feel that they or their children are threatened by
some behaviors. It may indeed be true that some people are using their
OSVs as cooling stations, or as a way to avoid a long commute from a
distant community where they can afford to rent a home.
However, I want to encourage the city council – as well as all of those who
are feeling umbrage at the imposition of lost parking spaces, and at the loss
of a pretty view outside of their front windows, and at the possibility that a
customer may not be able to see their business signs – to consider the
plight of those who are having to live in their vehicles. Those impositions
are small matters compared to the struggle of having to live in an OSV. I
am sure that if the OSV dwellers had the privilege of having a permanent
home in which to sleep, to cool off, to bring up their children, or to study,
they would certainly make use of that privilege.
I live on one of the residential streets on which several long-term OSVs
sidewalk, but only a little. I have rarely seen or heard from the inhabitants of
these vehicles – except for the one time that I saw a child’s small hand in
the open window of an OSV parked in the shade. They do need to run their
generator sometimes, which can be annoying – but I ask myself what choice
they have inside a metal “home” when their child may become dehydrated
on a warm summer day? And I ask myself what I would do if I were in their
position.
I encourage the city to enforce all existing laws regarding noise or “partying”
(that is, noise outside of legal volume and hours restrictions); and laws
regarding garbage and littering; and laws regarding parking where sight
lines are obstructed, such as the corners of intersections, and business
addresses; and laws regarding parking that blocks driveways. I also
encourage the city to find ways to accommodate the people who are of
necessity resorting to OSVs in our neighborhoods – perhaps through
building or finding housing for those who need it; or offering plenty of
usable, safe parking spaces for OSVs near public transit lines.
I support the idea of offering a temporary but renewable permit which could
allow those who obey ALL garbage and noise laws to stay in the
neighborhoods that have become home to them, until they can manage to
rent or buy their own homes. (Of course, we must acknowledge that
someone who is making minimum wage is unlikely ever to be able to rent or
buy their own home in the Bay Area.) Proper screening must of course be
done to ensure that anyone who could pose a threat to children -- or to
anyone -- is not offered one of these permits. And anyone who broke the
permit agreement in any way would have their permit revoked. A permit
process would cost the city, of course, but there will be no remedy to this
problem without cost. The wealthy residents of Palo Alto can afford to pay.
Those of us who own property in Palo Alto are among the most privileged
people in the world. Can we really turn our backs on those who work in our
city, but cannot afford to rent in this most expensive of areas? Yes, the
OSVs are unsightly, and do not “fit” into upscale Palo Alto neighborhoods.
We may not like to see the evidence that our lifestyle is supported by those
who live on minimum wage and who cannot afford to live here. Perhaps it’s
a good thing for us to be reminded – by the sight of the objectionable OSVs
– of the consequences of the financial policies and wealth inequality in our
country.
Angela Dellaporta, Resident of the Ventura Neighborhood
From:Dana Dahlstrom
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu,
George; City Mgr; Robert Marinaro
Cc:Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao,
Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris
Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy;
Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman;
Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia
Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo;
David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong;
Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz
Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird,
Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette
Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external);
Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon
Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker; Richard
Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron
Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia
Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra
Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten;
Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman;
Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd
Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad;
Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin
Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio
Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka
Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan;
Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny
Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian
Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Gary Gechlik; Susan
Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Problem/Solution
Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 9:11:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Loren,
I appreciate your thoughts but have some different views;
see my responses below.
> the City is unwilling to ban OSV parking in Palo Alto,
> unwilling to cap the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto, and
> unwilling to find an alternative location for the OSVs to park.
A ban like Menlo Park's would probably be effective
and relatively efficient to enforce.
Capping OSV numbers by issuing permits would require
significant administrative overhead, and perversely
favor those who squatted first on public streets.
Finding legal places to store large vehicles should be
up to their owners, not the rest of the public.
> 1. Immediately stop all OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business districts and residential neighborhoods.
> 2. Prevent additional out-of-town OSVs from migrating to park on Palo Alto streets.
> 3. Provide designated locations where OSVs that are currently parking in Palo Alto can park.
> 4. Provide behavioral rules for OSV occupants to adhere to while parked in Palo Alto.
> 5. Decrease the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto over time.
This strikes me as overcomplicated.
I would make the single goal simply to stop
long-term storage of vehicles on public streets
by enforcing existing codes and statues and,
as needed, enacting new ones applicable to all.
To that end perhaps the city could limit parking
any OSV to, say, a number of days per month
on streets anywhere in the city. This would be
less restrictive than a total overnight ban.
I'm inclined to oppose goals (2) and (3) above.
I would rather out-of-town vehicles pass through
than local ones occupy streets continually; and
I want less, not more, public resources directed
toward long-term storage of private vehicles.
Those resources have many better uses
to benefit the public at large.
Dana
From:Chris Schremp
To:Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Council, City
Cc:Loren Brown; Dmitri Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Chris Schremp; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin
Swindells; Christine Schremp; brianhama@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Bryna Chang;
h.etzko@gmail.com; garygech@gmail.com; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson;
Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian)
Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen
Subject:Formal Submission for August 24 Action: Strategic Code Execution vs. Citizen Ballot Initiative
Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 12:56:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Veenker, Mr. Shikada, and Members of the City Council,
Ahead of the August 24 meeting regarding Staff Report #2606-6479, our neighborhood
coalition, alongside local business and property stakeholders, wants to ensure the Council
fully understands the operational, legal, and democratic choices before you.
We are not merely voicing frustration; we are providing formal notice of a clear, unified path
forward—and the mechanisms our coalition will consider if the Council chooses not to fulfill
their obligation to taxpayers and protect our community.
OUR REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL
One Simple Ask—Amend PAMC § 10.44.020 for Citywide Application
Please direct the Council to enact PAMC § 10.44.020 to expand overnight OSV parking
restrictions citywide across ALL public streets (residential, commercial, and industrial),
modeled on successful measures in Menlo Park and Mountain View.
Border-Signage Execution: Activate this citywide restriction by deploying the
California Vehicle Code § 22651(n) border-signage model, placing legislative notice
signs at municipal entry points. This enforces overnight OSV restrictions across all
streets within 30 to 45 days at a fraction of the cost, fully backed by the City
Attorney’s acknowledgment of Grants Pass.
Massive Taxpayer Savings (est. $45,000 Total Cost): Deploying the CVC §
22651(n) border-signage model requires installing approximately 20 to 30 legislative
entry signs at Palo Alto’s municipal boundaries, completely bypassing the multi-
million-dollar block-by-block signage requirements assumed in staff reports.
This model requires zero roadway restriping, zero red curb painting, and
utilizes existing PAPD/Code Enforcement shifts—saving over $775,000 in
taxpayer funds compared to staff's proposal.
Off-Street Transitional Alternatives: Decouple street parking code enforcement
from long-term housing services. If the City seeks transitional parking options, it
should utilize designated off-street surplus land—such as City surplus land on Geng
Road or the state-owned Caltrans parcel near Highway 101/San Antonio—rather than
using public streets as un-zoned, rent-free lots.
Why We Oppose the Proposed Pilot: Reject "Pilot #2," an $823,800 experiment that does
not ban OSVs, but instead institutionalizes a 6-month street shuffle for up to 125 vehicles
while staff explicitly admits it will create spillover onto surrounding blocks.
FORMAL NOTICE OF CITIZEN BALLOT INITIATIVE
If the Council declines to enact a permanent, enforceable, citywide OSV parking restriction,
our coalition—alongside partner neighborhood and business groups across Palo Alto—is
fully prepared to launch a formal Citizen Ballot Initiative Campaign.
Under Article VI of the Palo Alto City Charter, residents hold the constitutional right to
propose ordinances directly to the voters:
Achievable Threshold: Enacting a citywide ordinance requires signatures from just
6% of registered voters (~2,630 signatures based on published figures). Given
widespread community frustration across residential and commercial districts, our
coalition is confident we will meet this threshold swiftly.
Citywide Application: The drafted initiative will establish a single, narrow mandate:
a uniform, citywide prohibition on overnight OSV parking across all public streets
(residential, commercial, and industrial).
Under California law, once certified signatures are submitted, the Council will either be
forced to adopt the citywide prohibition ordinance as written or place it on the next
municipal ballot.
CORE PRINCIPLES FOR THE AUGUST 24 DECISION
To move past administrative gridlock, the City Council must recognize four fundamental
realities ahead of Monday’s session:
1.
A Primary Duty to Tax-Paying Residents & Businesses: Mayor Veenker and the
City Council were elected by—and are funded by—the tax-paying residents and
property/business owners of Palo Alto. Your primary municipal duty is to protect
public safety, maintain the public right-of-way, and enforce local codes for the citizens
and local businesses that support our community.
You have an opportunity to meet tax payer requests for a full City Wide
ban AND save tax payers roughly $775,000
2.
Vehicle Habitation is Separate from Housing: Menlo Park successfully enacted its
citywide OSV parking restrictions (passing 4–1) by treating street parking strictly as a
traffic and safety regulation, separate from social services. Conflating municipal
parking enforcement with solving regional homelessness creates an impossible
bottleneck. When housed teachers, service workers, or city staff are priced out of
Palo Alto, they make the difficult choice to commute or relocate to affordable regions;
they do not get to convert public thoroughfares and bike lanes into un-zoned
residential spaces.
3.
Leniency Drives Migration: The reality is that many OSV occupants stay in Palo
Alto specifically because our lack of enforcement makes us so accommodating.
Vehicle dwellers are mobile and resourceful—when surrounding cities enforce their
laws, vehicles adapt and relocate to legitimate facilities, RV parks, or less restrictive
jurisdictions. The City does not need to solve the entire Bay Area housing crisis
before it can clear an unshielded gas generator or an OSV blocking a bike lane on
East Meadow or Transport Street.
4.
Palo Alto Has Proven Its Commitment to Housing: Palo Alto has already
demonstrated extraordinary commitment to affordable housing, such as the major
municipal partnership to preserve the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Preserving
structured, zoned affordable housing is a legitimate city function; allowing
unregulated, hazardous street habitation on residential and commercial blocks is not.
CONCLUSION
The City Council does not need to force taxpayers into an unnecessary, expensive ballot
battle to achieve basic municipal safety. You already have the legal authority, the municipal
code, and a clear, unified proposal sitting on your desks.
We strongly urge the Council to reject open-ended, 12-month "alternating side" pilots on
August 24 and instead amend PAMC § 10.44.020 to establish a citywide overnight OSV
prohibition across all public streets, executed via the CVC § 22651(n) border-signage
model.
Regards,
Chris Schremp
Palo Alto Resident & Stakeholder
From:Gary Gechlik
To:Chris Schremp
Cc:Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Council, City; Loren Brown; Dmitri
Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin Swindells; Christine Schremp;
brianhama@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Bryna Chang; h.etzko@gmail.com; Roger Smith; Peter Xu;
Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Charlie
Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen
Subject:Re: Formal Submission for August 24 Action: Strategic Code Execution vs. Citizen Ballot Initiative
Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 1:14:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
It is not about right or wrong, it is all about a legal theory of law and economics that was developed on the East
Coast that proved to be true, Broken Windows:
Theoretical explanation: The reason the state of the urban environment may affect crime
consists of three factors: social norms and conformity; the presence or lack of routine
monitoring; and social signaling and signal crime. In an anonymous urban environment,
with few or no other people around, social norms and monitoring are not clearly known.
Thus, individuals look for signals within the environment as to the social norms in the
setting and the risk of getting caught violating those norms; one of the signals is the
area's general appearance.
RV Squatters are not criminals, but the presence of unregulated RV Squatting leads to higher crime. Crime
prevention is not cheap. It comes down to closed door negotiation sessions with our Police Union. Why is the
budgeting for Police so high in Palo Alto and so low in Saratoga, because of a 'need to be right'.
The more we recognize, there is no universal 'need to be right', or 'get our own way', in running a Municipality, the
better our outcome will be and the lower our costs. There is no benefit to badgering the existing council members
who have created a policy based on humanitarian principals. The best approach, go out and vote and choose city
councilor members that are hard nosed operational boots on the ground soldiers of our City who are simply not
international humanitarians and are local Joes.
Do we honestly think that tree branches that abut high powered electrical lines that are three phase simply cut
themselves. You should drive up to Skyline and watch the PG&E teams that cut these branches. There is no
negotiation with 3 phase power at 12,000 volts to 21,000 volts phase to phase.
It is the same with RV Squatters, what is the point of negotiation and land locked schemes to satisfy a random group
of non-tax paying citizens. To satisfy any legal requirements of potential litigation, they can park at the Palo Alto
Facilities near the Municipal Service Center where they can be consistently registered and given a time constraint of
parking. Our staff is there anyway, and the Police can politely approach the RV Owners and the direct them to Palo
Alto Municipal Land where there is camera surveillance.
Gary
DrGary.Vote
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Dave Stellman
To:Chris Schremp
Cc:Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Council, City; Loren Brown; Dmitri
Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin Swindells; Christine Schremp;
brianhama@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Bryna Chang; h.etzko@gmail.com; garygech@gmail.com;
Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane;
Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen; Chris Schremp
Subject:Re: Formal Submission for August 24 Action: Strategic Code Execution vs. Citizen Ballot Initiative
Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 1:19:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
I agree 100% as a commercial property owner in Palo Alto. If this simple, legal and cost
saving proposal is not followed we need to vote to override the city council who is not
representing the majority.
On Aug 22, 2026, at 12:56 PM, Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com>
wrote:
Mayor Veenker, Mr. Shikada, and Members of the City Council,
Ahead of the August 24 meeting regarding Staff Report #2606-6479, our
neighborhood coalition, alongside local business and property stakeholders,
wants to ensure the Council fully understands the operational, legal, and
democratic choices before you.
We are not merely voicing frustration; we are providing formal notice of a clear,
unified path forward—and the mechanisms our coalition will consider if the
Council chooses not to fulfill their obligation to taxpayers and protect our
community.
OUR REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL
One Simple Ask—Amend PAMC § 10.44.020 for Citywide Application
Please direct the Council to enact PAMC § 10.44.020 to expand overnight OSV
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
parking restrictions citywide across ALL public streets (residential, commercial,
and industrial), modeled on successful measures in Menlo Park and Mountain
View.
Border-Signage Execution: Activate this citywide restriction by
deploying the California Vehicle Code § 22651(n) border-signage model,
placing legislative notice signs at municipal entry points. This enforces
overnight OSV restrictions across all streets within 30 to 45 days at a
fraction of the cost, fully backed by the City Attorney’s acknowledgment
of Grants Pass.
Massive Taxpayer Savings (est. $45,000 Total Cost): Deploying the
CVC § 22651(n) border-signage model requires installing approximately
20 to 30 legislative entry signs at Palo Alto’s municipal boundaries,
completely bypassing the multi-million-dollar block-by-block signage
requirements assumed in staff reports.
This model requires zero roadway restriping, zero red curb
painting, and utilizes existing PAPD/Code Enforcement shifts
—saving over $775,000 in taxpayer funds compared to staff's
proposal.
Off-Street Transitional Alternatives: Decouple street parking code
enforcement from long-term housing services. If the City seeks
transitional parking options, it should utilize designated off-street surplus
land—such as City surplus land on Geng Road or the state-owned
Caltrans parcel near Highway 101/San Antonio—rather than using public
streets as un-zoned, rent-free lots.
Why We Oppose the Proposed Pilot: Reject "Pilot #2," an $823,800
experiment that does not ban OSVs, but instead institutionalizes a 6-month
street shuffle for up to 125 vehicles while staff explicitly admits it will create
spillover onto surrounding blocks.
FORMAL NOTICE OF CITIZEN BALLOT INITIATIVE
If the Council declines to enact a permanent, enforceable, citywide OSV
parking restriction, our coalition—alongside partner neighborhood and business
groups across Palo Alto—is fully prepared to launch a formal Citizen Ballot
Initiative Campaign.
Under Article VI of the Palo Alto City Charter, residents hold the constitutional
right to propose ordinances directly to the voters:
Achievable Threshold: Enacting a citywide ordinance requires
signatures from just 6% of registered voters (~2,630 signatures based
on published figures). Given widespread community frustration across
residential and commercial districts, our coalition is confident we will
meet this threshold swiftly.
Citywide Application: The drafted initiative will establish a single,
narrow mandate: a uniform, citywide prohibition on overnight OSV
parking across all public streets (residential, commercial, and industrial).
Under California law, once certified signatures are submitted, the Council will
either be forced to adopt the citywide prohibition ordinance as written or place it
on the next municipal ballot.
CORE PRINCIPLES FOR THE AUGUST 24 DECISION
To move past administrative gridlock, the City Council must recognize four
fundamental realities ahead of Monday’s session:
1.
A Primary Duty to Tax-Paying Residents & Businesses: Mayor
Veenker and the City Council were elected by—and are funded by—the
tax-paying residents and property/business owners of Palo Alto. Your
primary municipal duty is to protect public safety, maintain the public
right-of-way, and enforce local codes for the citizens and local
businesses that support our community.
You have an opportunity to meet tax payer requests for a full
City Wide ban AND save tax payers roughly $775,000
2.
Vehicle Habitation is Separate from Housing: Menlo Park successfully
enacted its citywide OSV parking restrictions (passing 4–1) by treating
street parking strictly as a traffic and safety regulation, separate from
social services. Conflating municipal parking enforcement with solving
regional homelessness creates an impossible bottleneck. When housed
teachers, service workers, or city staff are priced out of Palo Alto, they
make the difficult choice to commute or relocate to affordable regions;
they do not get to convert public thoroughfares and bike lanes into un-
zoned residential spaces.
3.
Leniency Drives Migration: The reality is that many OSV occupants
stay in Palo Alto specifically because our lack of enforcement makes us
so accommodating. Vehicle dwellers are mobile and resourceful—when
surrounding cities enforce their laws, vehicles adapt and relocate to
legitimate facilities, RV parks, or less restrictive jurisdictions. The City
does not need to solve the entire Bay Area housing crisis before it can
clear an unshielded gas generator or an OSV blocking a bike lane on
East Meadow or Transport Street.
4.
Palo Alto Has Proven Its Commitment to Housing: Palo Alto has
already demonstrated extraordinary commitment to affordable housing,
such as the major municipal partnership to preserve the Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park. Preserving structured, zoned affordable housing is a
legitimate city function; allowing unregulated, hazardous street habitation
on residential and commercial blocks is not.
CONCLUSION
The City Council does not need to force taxpayers into an unnecessary,
expensive ballot battle to achieve basic municipal safety. You already have the
legal authority, the municipal code, and a clear, unified proposal sitting on your
desks.
We strongly urge the Council to reject open-ended, 12-month "alternating side"
pilots on August 24 and instead amend PAMC § 10.44.020 to establish a
citywide overnight OSV prohibition across all public streets, executed via the
CVC § 22651(n) border-signage model.
Regards,
Chris Schremp
Palo Alto Resident & Stakeholder
From:Dick Jacobsen
To:Council, City
Subject:Pilot 2 OSV Parking Ordinance
Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 1:26:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
September 22, 2026
RE: Proposed OSV Pilot Programs
Dear City Council Members,
It was almost 30 years ago that the Olive Avenue owners and tenants began their collaborating work with
Hewlett Packard and the City of Palo Alto on the development standards to be applied to HP’s
redevelopment of the 9.8-acre 395 Page Mill Road site which was to include a new 225,000 square foot 3-
story office building and parking for 850-cars. The outcome of that collaborative effort shielded the Olive
Avenue neighborhood from the impacts of the new development and served not only to preserve but also to
enhance the character of the Olive Avenue single family residential neighborhood.
No traffic was permitted to enter or exit the newly redeveloped HP site from Olive Avenue. The 3-story office
building was to be located on the Page Mill Road frontage of the property. On the Olive Avenue side of the
property a landscaped buffer zone would protect and enhance the single-family residential neighborhood.
The Olive Avenue side of the HP property included an approximately 70-foot-wide buffer area made up of a
landscaped parking reserve, a flood control bioswale, and a 5-foot-high berm planted with a double row of
trees extending along most of the Olive Avenue residential frontage
The pine trees, planted so many years ago, now stand almost 70-feet high and the overall feeling of the
landscaping is that of a forest which now provides a natural home for rabbits, lizards, squirrels and a variety
of other wildlife. We are very grateful for the outcome of that collaborative effort.
For those not familiar with the Olive Avenue residential neighborhood, it, for the most part, consists of small
(about 1100 square feet), 2-bedroom-1-bath single story homes all built in the mid-1940’s. The occupants of
those houses primarily consist of lower-income families with a wonderful ethnic diversity – Polynesian,
Hispanic, African American, Asian, and White. Most of the homes in the 300-400 block have been made
available to lower income families at rental rates well below current market value to provide an affordable
alternative for housing in Palo Alto for families who otherwise could not afford to live here. Some of the
families include small children.
We are grateful for the City’s concern for those who are living in OSV’s. We concur with the City’s suggested
OSV Pilot 1 parking ordinance for low-income OSV families which includes registered permits, and a
commitment to a “Good Neighbor Policy”. We hope that works out well. Regarding the city’s proposed OSV
Pilot 2, however, we have some serious concerns.
The city’s stated goal for both OSV Pilots is to “reduce the impact on business and residential
neighborhoods”. We were therefore surprised to find that among the 13 streets included in OSV Pilot 2 there
were two single family residential streets included, one of them being our own Olive Avenue. We request that
Olive Avenue be removed from OSV Pilot 2 due to the largely very negative impact it would have on our single-
family home neighborhood replacing our connection with the protective berm and planted natural forest area
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
with a virtual wall of parked OSV’s.
Thank you for your very careful consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Jacobsen
Olive Avenue Property Owner
56 Year Resident of Palo Alto
From:Matthew Bryant
To:Council, City
Subject:Regarding staff report #2606-6479 and agenda item #10 on 24Aug26 meeting agenda
Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 11:32:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear distinguished members of Palo Alto City Council and staff,
I am writing once again to express my opposition to the staff report and recommendations
regarding agenda item #10 during the 24Aug26 meeting. The broader issue is described as
permitting over-sized vehicle (OSV) parking on Palo Alto city streets.
My family and I have spoken up during previous meetings to discuss the OSV parking and
how they have affected our neighborhood on Pepper/Ash/Olive/Park/El Camino Real streets.
I have stated that we support the rights of everyone to have access to stable, affordable
housing resources. UCSF has conducted California unhoused studies which have
concluded that stable, affordable housing is the primary or core need for people that are
unhoused. Anything less than that will not help the unhoused. Therefore, Palo Alto’s plan to
create programs that promote OSV parking on city streets with permits, restricted to certain
streets, during specific dates/times of the year, with limited access to basic sanitation and clean
water will not work because it is not housing. Permitting OSV parking on our streets will
lead to continued unhoused neighbors living in vehicles in poor conditions on our streets
at very high risk of public health outbreaks.
I agree with many of the hundreds of Palo Alto neighbors who have spoken up about their
concerns regarding permitting OSV parking to continue on our streets. I have highlighted a
few below.
- How were the OSV parking dates/times/street locations selected? The majority of the
streets selected for OSV parking are in South Palo Alto. This Palo Alto neighborhood
continues to be marginalized.
- Since we don’t know how the OSV parking locations were selected in the report, I propose to
add the entirety of Palo Alto Avenue parking along San Francisquito creek, the Oregon
Avenue feeder road along Oregon Expressway, and work with Caltrans to repaint Oregon
Expressway itself to allow street parking, and let’s not forget to add Sand Hill Road, too.
Adding these wide, open, and long stretches of roadway will allow hundreds more OSV
parking spaces and showcase to the world that the City of Palo Alto is the most
compassionate OSV parking city in the Bay Area.
- Did the City of Palo Alto consider using the many acres of public space and open land
for additional OSV parking?
- OSV are heavy vehicles and therefore damage local city streets, in addition to posing a
safety risk to drivers by blocking the ability to see traffic/pedestrians/bicyclists due to
‘daylighting' along streets.
Thank you for your public service to Palo Alto. We appreciate you reading our thoughts on
these important matters as they directly impact our neighborhood and the image and reputation
of Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Dr. Matthew Bryant
471 Pepper Ave, Palo Alto
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr
Cc:Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero;Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; AnnLafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn
Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang;
Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott;Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Kaye Crawford; Jim Crawford; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Jon Hellesoe; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Rosalie Cook; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam
Subject:Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob"s Pre-Council Meeting Count (8/22/26)
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 12:43:12 AM
Attachments:RV Inventory_22Aug26.xlsxImpacts to the Community_06Aug26.docxScreenshot 2026-08-22 at 11.59.26 PM.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto City Council, OSV Ad Hoc Committee, and Concerned Residents and Businesses,
I thought it might be beneficial to do one more OSV count before the August 24th City Council Meeting where the OSV Phase II Plan will be discussed. I’m sorry to report that our count is holding pretty static at 140-ish. As mentioned earlier we have seen the numbers fall from when I first started counting in October 2025 from 220 to the current number of 140. A reduction of 36%, but 140 OSVs on our streets is still way more than the community
would like to see. And way too many if they happen to be parked in front of your residence or business.
Aside from the count the climate on the streets is deteriorating. I’ve seen video of vandals destroying property, stealing electricity, and now using intimidation by those who feel emboldened by their tenure on our streets. This has to stop! As I take my count on the 21 affected streets I have increasingly been yelled at by those who think they have a right to squat on our streets because the City has been reluctant to take a hard stand to protect the hard-
working tax-paying residents and businesses that fund the basic operations of this City.
Please see the last image of this message to understand how this situation has devolved into an almost Blackboard Jungle atmosphere. And if you are unfamiliar with the 1955 film Blackboard Jungle - Google it!
When I mentioned in one of my earlier e-mails that I was followed for about three blocks after walking East Meadow Circle with my wife a resident of condominiums on East Meadow Circle sent me the following the comment - - "I beg you to please be careful. None of us walk on East Meadow any longer. It is not safe. Please don’t go there especially with your wife.”
Is this the Palo Alto that we want? And since we are on the movie theme who can forget the line “ I’m Mad As Hell and I’n Not Going to Take it Anymore,” from the movie “Network” in 1976.
I’m very happy to know that an increasing portion of our community is understanding the consequences of an overly accommodating City government and are focussed on demanding that we do not want OSVs in our residential neighborhoods and business/commercial districts. The current situation is intolerable and we want a sea change for the better. We want to see a City government that prioritizes the needs of the community - that
prioritizes the needs of its constituents, the very people that put every council member in their position!
The time is Now to make this right. Let’s seize the opportunity!
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
E. San Antonio Rd Next to Homekey Transitional Housing Facility (8/21/26). No Parking Zone. I called it in yesterday and it was gone today.
East Meadow Circle in front of Echelon Townhomes
East Meadow Circle in front of Google Buildings
East Meadow Circle - - BMW Motorcycles (Average cost $19,500). This guy in the window was yelling at the top of his lungs as I was riding away. These folks feel so entitled. They have been allowed to stay here unfettered for so long that they feel as though they have a right to be here and I am intruding on their domain!
Fabian Way
Elwell Ct.
Faber Places - - 15 OSVs on a short street segment
Embarcadero Way - - 11 OSVs on a short street segment
Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park
Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - The guy in the van has been here forever and the RV is new this weekend I believe
Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - Lets get these OSVs out of our parks!
Matadero Ave, - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens
Orinda St. - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens
Ash St - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood
Portage Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood
Page Mill - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood
Sheridan Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood
Palo Alto Daily Post Police Blotter - - Friday 8/21/26
From:Gerson Bers
To:Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr
Cc:Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero;Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; AnnLafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; TarynSanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang;Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen;Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Kaye Crawford; Jim Crawford; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Jon Hellesoe; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Rosalie Cook; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam
Subject:RE: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob"s Pre-Council Meeting Count (8/22/26)
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 8:29:45 AM
Attachments:image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Robert,
Many thanks for your work on this issue.
The moment CPA took down the “No RV Parking” signs in our neighborhood…the RVs were back in force…and your data demonstrates this.
Over the past week I have met many of our neighbors in the Transit/Commercial/Industrial small business enclave.
To a person, not a one had been contacted by CPA regarding selling our curbs to the RV squatters OR the zoning change from light industrial to high density residential.
Total disrespect to the property and business owners here.
The City Council needs to hear from us in mass.
I urge all our neighbors to attend the council meeting Monday evening.
Gerson Bers
990 Commercial, LLC.
From: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2026 12:24 AM
To: Palo Alto City Council 2026 <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov>; Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Patrick Burt <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>; George Lu <George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov>; Ed Shikada <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>
Cc: Josh Becker <senator.becker@senate.ca.gov>; Marc Berman <Assemblymember.Berman@assembly.ca.gov>; Leslie Bulbuk <Leslie.Bulbuk@asm.ca.gov>; Nicole Fernandez <nicole.fernandez@sen.ca.gov>; Margaret Abe-Koga <District5@bos.sccgov.org>; Christopher Jenson <Christopher.Jensen@PaloAlto.gov>; Eric Bulatao <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>; Stephen Lindsey <stephen.lindsey@cityofpaloalto.org>; Nick
Marinaro <njmarinaro@gmail.com>; Jennifer Kain <kainjennifer@google.com>; Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>; Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com>; Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com>; Dana Dahlstrom <danadahlstrom@yahoo.com>; Ceci Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>; Chris Berg <chris@carpetworksflooring.com>; Taly Katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net>; Barry Katz
<bmkatz1950@gmail.com>; Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com>; John Schafer <JSchafer@andersonhonda.com>; Jeanette Baldwin <jeanettebaldwin@gmail.com>; Alina Martinez <amartinez@andersonhonda.com>; Micah Murphy <Manager@parkerpaloalto.com>; Danielle Dunne <danielle.dunne@wework.com>; David Famero <david.famero@intapp.com>; Carly Lake <carly@bioscienceprop.com>; Sandy Freschi
<sandy.freschi@vancebrown.com>; Theron Bullman <tbullman@pacamgroup.com>; Dave Stellman <davstellman@gmail.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Lydia Kou <lydiakou@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Osbaldo Romero
<osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Bryna Chang <bryna.chang@gmail.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Pete Moffat <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob Hakmo
<Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; David Perez <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Nancy Powers <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Stacey Tomson <staceytomson@gmsshields.com>; CMEI Wong <cmei@wongelectric.com>; DMA Wong <dma@wongelectric.com>; Jin Wong <jin.wong@gmail.com>; Maggie Madlangbayan
<mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org>; K Norris <knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org>; Elidia Tafoya <etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org>; Scott Hayes <shayes236@gmail.com>; Victor Sloan <vic52@victor-aviation.com>; John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net>; Kandace Kopensky <kkopensky@ifrep.com>; Moiz Sonasath <sonu786@gmail.com>; Peter Longanecker <plonganecker@sayrayautorepair.com>; Karsyn Smith
Development <karsyn@smithdevelopment.com>; Raphael Zahnd <raphael.zahnd@gmail.com>; Riley Cooke <rcooke@paweekly.com>; Sophie Pigman <sophie.pigman@paloalto.gov>; Nathan Baird <nathan.baird@paloalto.gov>; Palo Alto Daily Post <News@padailypost.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>; Louis Hsiao <louis@popconcepts.com>; Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>;
Ann Lafargue Balin <alafargue@mac.com>; Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>; Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com>; Maury Green <mauryg3@comcast.net>; Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>; Joseph Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>; Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>; Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net>; Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>; William Ross <wross@lawross.com>; Ron Chun
<ron.chun.esq@gmail.com>; Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Becky Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>; Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>; Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Janet Hartley <jhartley@spiekercompanies.com>; Charlie Weidanz <charlie@paloaltochamber.com>; Kevin Mayer <mayer.zimmer@gmail.com>;
Boris Folsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>; Ian Halker <Ian.Halker@cbre.com>; Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>; Heather Brownlee <heather_brownlee@yahoo.com>; Ken Brownlee <Kenneth.Brownlee@gmail.com>; Robin Holbrook <robineholbrook@gmail.com>; Cassandra Paige <Acacia@DividendHomes.com>; Brad Watson <bradwatson888@yahoo.com>; Alisa Pendicini <apedicini@dividendhomes.com>; Ron
Ellickson <rellickson@yahoo.com>; Chantal Gaines <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu <gu_zt@yahoo.com>; Stephanie Wansek <stephanie.wansek@gmail.com>; Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com>; Taryn Sanford <tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM>; Maia Harris <mharris@jaypaul.com>; Sayuri Kabutogi <skabutogi@inphatec.com>; Bernadette Zimmerman
<Bernadette.Zimmerman@Sofia.edu>; Doreen Chew <doreen_usa@yahoo.com>; Kshama Jirage <jirage.kshama@gmail.com>; Jenni Simon <jennivlnelee@yahoo.com>; Subadhra Arunasalam <subadhra@att.net>; Robert Russell <russell_robert@hotmail.com>; Doug Bacon <dougbacon@yahoo.com>; Chuan Wang <wangchuan1989@gmail.com>; Shchopra <shchopra21@gmail.com>; Al Dorsky <ADorsky@yahoo.com>;
Phil Wettersten <philwettersten@gmail.com>; Ann Wettersten <annwettersten@gmail.com>; Todd Jin <todd_jin@yahoo.com>; Emily Emily <emilyki79@gmail.com>; Daryl Savage <darylsavage@gmail.com>; Anil Rachakonda <arachak@gmail.com>; Linda Vanderhule <lindavanderhule@gmail.com>; Adriana Hernandez <ahernandez@padailypost.com>; Stuart Kreitman <stuart.kreitman@gmail.com>; Scott Petersen
<scottepetersen@gmail.com>; Alex Smelik <shmeltex@gmail.com>; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow <Jsydow@comcast.net>; Deborah j Marinaro <djmarinaro@mac.com>; Doria Summa <doriasumma@gmail.com>; Boyd Smith <boyd@smithdevelopment.com>; Lund Smith <lund@wsjproperties.com>; Milan Milan <milan@willisandproperties.com>; Elliott Lee <Lee@PalomoArchery.com>; Robert Berkovich
<rberkovich@yahoo.com>; Letizia Rodriguez <scheduling@franztermite.com>; Brennan Pang <brennan.pang@ridepanda.com>; Brad Eggleston <Brad.Eggleston@paloalto.gov>; Raphael Ruis <rafael.rius@paloalto.gov>; Lo Ria <ria.lo@paloalto.gov>; Alex Andrade <Alex.Andrade@PaloAlto.gov>; Bob Kennis <ckennis@comcast.net>; Shani Kleinhaus <shanibirds@gmail.com>; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen
<peggyc3@hotmail.com>; Martin Cuyegkeng <martin.cuyegkeng@gmail.com>; Julia Sun <jsun39872@gmail.com>; Aki Hirsa <akietaki@yahoo.com>; Colin Swindells <colin.swindells@gmail.com>; Andrew Li <ali@lfrep.com>; Evan Mathews <evan@mathewscarlsen.com>; Efrain Monttano Velazquez <efrain@mathewscarlsen.com>; Ignacio Montelongo Jr. <jr@mathewscarlsen.com>; Joseph Montelongo
<Joe@mathewscarlsen.com>; Nayirie Tashjian <ntashjian@alpfamed.com>; Fernanda Prado <fprado@alpfamed.com>; Dave Rubenstein <drubenstein@andersonhonda.com>; Johnny Vo <jvo@andersonhonda.com>; Priyanka Raghuraman <praghuraman@hammonplating.com>; Andrew Koo <andrew.koo@paloaltoelectricmotor.com>; Joseline Sotomayor <Joseline@paloaltoelectricmotor.com>; Dmitri Samsonov
<argument@gmail.com>; Gerson Bers <gbers@abbae.com>; Mike Emrick <memrick@mozartdev.com>; Anand Srinivasan <sanand108@gmail.com>; Zohar Gillai <zgillai@gmail.com>; Maria Orlova <marlova123@gmail.com>; Marc Husemann <Marc.Husemann@tesa.com>; Niklas Sprungmann <Niklas.Sprungmann@tesa.com>; Kara Apple <Kara.Apple@paloalto.gov>; Joe Sinnott <joe@jsinnott.net>; Linda Zausen
<llzausen@att.net>; Danny Whelan <dwhelan@pacamgroup.com>; Gulya Timokhina <gtimokhina@gmail.com>; Matt Lynch <matt@gryphonstrings.com>; Oksana Selavri <oksana.selavri@gmail.com>; Chuck Karish <chuck.karish@gmail.com>; Fred Bailin <fbalin@gmail.com>; Dave Adams <david_94306@yahoo.com>; Christian Hothem <cahothem@Pacamgroup.com>; Aditya Jain <adityamo@gnail.com>; Anjali Jain
<Anjali.jain78@gmail.com>; Jenny Lee <jenny.lee.jen@gmail.com>; Arun Bodapati <bodapa@gmail.com>; Soumya Bodapati <soumyagsr@gmail.com>; Yingxi Liu <yingxi.ut@gmail.com>; Susan Dorsky <sdorsky@yahoo.com>; Dave Price <dp-2006@sbcglobal.net>; Elaine Goodman <egoodman@padailypost.com>; Brandon Cartwright <bcartwright@padailypost.com>; Clark Penado <clarkpenado@gmail.com>;
Francescarael Rael <Francescarael@me.com>; Kaye Crawford <kayedc@aol.com>; Jim Crawford <kayedc@aol.com>; Lena Yarovaya <yarovaya@hotmail.com>; Kenneth Russell <kenneth.b.russell@gmail.com>; Jon Hellesoe <jonhellesoe@bos.sccgov.org>; Ryan Judd <ryan@juddproperties.com>; Evan Reade <evanreade@aol.com>; Rosalie Cook <Rosalie.Cook@sofia.edu>; Kay Satit <kay711@gmail.com>; Sooji Nam
<Sooji.nam@cbs.com>
Subject: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob's Pre-Council Meeting Count (8/22/26)
Palo Alto City Council, OSV Ad Hoc Committee, and Concerned Residents and Businesses,
I thought it might be beneficial to do one more OSV count before the August 24th City Council Meeting where the OSV Phase II Plan will be discussed. I’m sorry to report that our count is holding pretty static at 140-ish. As mentioned earlier we have seen the numbers fall from when I first started counting in October 2025 from 220 to the current number of 140. A reduction of 36%, but 140 OSVs on our streets is still way more
than the community would like to see. And way too many if they happen to be parked in front of your residence or business.
Aside from the count the climate on the streets is deteriorating. I’ve seen video of vandals destroying property, stealing electricity, and now using intimidation by those who feel emboldened by their tenure on our streets. This has to stop! As I take my count on the 21 affected streets I have increasingly been yelled at by those who think they have a right to squat on our streets because the City has been reluctant to take a
hard stand to protect the hard-working tax-paying residents and businesses that fund the basic operations of this City.
Please see the last image of this message to understand how this situation has devolved into an almost Blackboard Jungle atmosphere. And if you are unfamiliar with the 1955 film Blackboard Jungle - Google it!
When I mentioned in one of my earlier e-mails that I was followed for about three blocks after walking East Meadow Circle with my wife a resident of condominiums on East Meadow Circle sent me the following the comment - - "I beg you to please be careful. None of us walk on East Meadow any longer. It is not safe. Please don’t go there especially with your wife.”
Is this the Palo Alto that we want? And since we are on the movie theme who can forget the line “ I’m Mad As Hell and I’n Not Going to Take it Anymore,” from the movie “Network” in 1976.
I’m very happy to know that an increasing portion of our community is understanding the consequences of an overly accommodating City government and are focussed on demanding that we do not want OSVs in our residential neighborhoods and business/commercial districts. The current situation is intolerable and we want a sea change for the better. We want to see a City government that prioritizes the needs of
the community - that prioritizes the needs of its constituents, the very people that put every council member in their position!
The time is Now to make this right. Let’s seize the opportunity!
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
E. San Antonio Rd Next to Homekey Transitional Housing Facility (8/21/26). No Parking Zone. I called it in yesterday and it was gone today.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
East Meadow Circle in front of Echelon Townhomes
East Meadow Circle in front of Google Buildings
East Meadow Circle - - BMW Motorcycles (Average cost $19,500). This guy in the window was yelling at the top of his lungs as I was riding away. These folks feel so entitled. They have been allowed to stay here unfettered for so long that they feel as
though they have a right to be here and I am intruding on their domain!
Fabian Way
Transport Street - - One of the ways businesses have to keep the OSVs from taking up their valued parking
Elwell Ct.
Faber Places - - 15 OSVs on a short street segment
Embarcadero Way - - 11 OSVs on a short street segment
Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park
Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - The guy in the van has been here forever and the RV is new this weekend I believe
Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - Lets get these OSVs out of our parks!
Matadero Ave, - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens
Orinda St. - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens
Ash St - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood
Portage Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood
Page Mill - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood
Sheridan Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood
Palo Alto Daily Post Police Blotter - - Friday 8/21/26
ABB promotes sustainability. Please consider the environment before you print. | This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 19 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and the disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication. Please check for any defects or viruses before opening or using any attachments. There is no warranty that this e-mail is virus free or without error. Allana Buick & Bers, Inc. is not liable if an attachment is altered without its written consent. Thank you.
Palo Alto On Street OSV Count
Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs
###############################################################################################################################
& 10/22/25 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29 & 4/11 & 8/4
1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 17 0 2 1 5 4 6 3 4 12 11
2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 8 7 8 9 8 9 12 10 11 9 11 10 9 9 8 8
3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 56 53 52 49 53 48 41 43 43 41 40 40 39 38 37 38 39
4 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 1 1 1 4 4 2 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
6 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 11 11 11 12 11 6 5 4 6 8 7 7 7 5 6 6 5
7 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 13 15 13 11 11 3 3 5 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 3 3
8 San Antonio Rd.East of 101 - -- -- -- -- -- -5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0
9
10 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 10 10 11 11 11 4 4 6 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4
11 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 12 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 6 6 2 3 1 1 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 8 8 4 5
13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 15 8 10 5 9 6 9 6 7 8 6 7 9 10 8 9 9
15 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 10 11 7 7 6 9 9 11 11 11 10 11 10 10 12 12 11
16
17 Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot - -- -- -- -4 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
18 Greer Park Greer Park Parking Lot - -- -- -- -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
19 Ames Av./Ross Rd.At Intersection with Ross Rd.- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 1 0 0 2 0
200 197 195 180 165 168 138 136 119 120 120 123 123 123 116 117 124 123
20 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
21 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 (2 segments)Between Oregon Expressway & Portage Ave.1 0 0 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 3 4 6 5
23 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 6 4 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 5 5
24 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
25 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3
26 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
27 Matadero Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.- -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
28 Acacia Ave.Between El Camino & Ash St.- -- -- -- -- -3 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 7 5 3 0 0
29 Page Mill Between Park Blvd. & RR - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
20 20 20 19 13 12 11 15 12 12 13 13 15 20 14 14 17 17
Total:220 217 215 199 178 180 149 151 131 132 133 136 138 143 130 131 141 140
Delta:9 -2 -16 -3 2 -31 2 -20 1 1 3 2 5 -13 1 10 -1
Days since first count: ########29 43 60 99 115 129 141 159 170 185 199 213 231 248 262 286 305
Months since first count: ########1.0 1.4 2.0 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.6 6.1 6.5 7.0 7.6 8.2 8.6 9.4 10.0
Yellow OSVs on new street Palo Alto City Council: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Green Utility construction Bob Marinaro: E:Mail: rmarinaro@mac.com, Cell: 650-269-5936
Ash Street Numerous auxillary vehicles in addition to OSVs Abandon Vehicle Hotline: 650-329-2258
Some columns may be hidden to facilitate easy one page viewing
Ventura Area
RV Inventory_22Aug26 8/24/2026 12:53 PM
OSV IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY
8/6/26 11:43 AM
• Safety – residents do not feel safe in their presence (especially women)
• Obstruct egress (sight lines) to the point of several reported accidents (on E. Meadow
Circle)
• Dump trash in street
• Dump trash is business dumpsters including large items (mattresses, etc.)
• Steal water
• Steal electricity
• Dump waste in sewers and in bushes
• Prevent deliveries to back loading docks
• Block traffic such as when OSVs double park for waste removal
• Take up needed parking spaces for businesses and other facilities – they also reserve
parking spaces adjacent to their OSVs using chairs, cones, etc.
• Intimidate business/institution customers & students
• Noticeable increase in crime in OSV dense neighborhoods
• Liability issues associated with children playing on private property adjacent to OSVs
• OSV slide-outs: dangerous, impedes traffic flow, and blocks bike lanes
• Inhibits business owners and property managers from leasing vacant properties
• Decreases property values which in turn decreases property taxes and revenue to the
city
• Discourages property development
• General blight and reduction of quality of life for tax-paying residents and businesses
• Services such as food trucks that once came by for lunch no longer stop by (E. Meadow
Circle)
• Financial - - Additional costs incurred by businesses:
o Additional utility costs
o Installation of locks on dumpsters
o Installation of cameras and security monitoring systems
o Installation of barriers (bollards with chains across driveways, gates, etc.)
o Installation of audio systems to inconvenience OSV dwellers (Faber Place)
o Additional trash pickup costs and additional burden to business owners who have
to properly sort out trash from recycled materials
File: Impacts to the Community_06Aug26.docx
From:David Richardson
To:Council, City
Subject:Oversized Vehicle Parking on City Streets
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 1:54:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council,
I think it is beholden on all of us to find more ways to accommodate the unhoused in our city.. Complaints about too
much traffic or not enough parking and other complaints have prevented housing development in California and the
nation for decades so that in this state we are 2 million homes short. It’s a matter of residents losing their housing
because those who are earning more money can afford the housing that they cannot. We have a problem that we
have to help solve. Everyone needs and deserves a place to live many of whom are earning a living.
RVs seem poised to become part of the solution; they already exist where other transient housing does not and we
are short of housing for those who work in our city who have no place to live. It seems we should try to meet their
challenges without automatically banning them.
Some measures that help:
1. Provide sewage, water, cleanup, and any other basic services that prevent the communities from becoming
eyesores. Make rules to minimize impact.
2. Perhaps setting up a required training program on how to be a good neighbor in an RV and evict any one who is
not.
3. Listen to residents and neighbors to accommodate their needs as much as possible and of course look for locations
with minimal impact. Challenge neighbors and businesses to help with solutions in their areas.
4. Perhaps having someone as a liaison between neighbors and businesses and RV residents could be a catalyst for
solving issues that come up.
5. Pilot projects should help iron out the kinks.
6. Working with neighboring communities is also important and necessary.
Solutions may not be perfect so compromise may be in order in some specific situations. There is no doubt that
homelessness is a serious problem that will be difficult to solve given how many homes short we are everywhere.
But we need to tackle this program head on.
Sincerely,
David Richardson
Palo Alto Resident
P.S. Coyote Hill Road is the only parking reasonably close to the Matadero Creek Trailhead. Where will there be
parking for that trail after the pilot program is initiated? Stanford research Park has restricted parking everywhere.
From:Oksana Selavri
To:Council, City
Cc:Robert Marinaro
Subject:public comment for August 24th meeting - stop making Palo Alto a dumping ground for RVs
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 2:02:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
City Council and members,
This has to stop! We have seen worsening of the RV situation at Echelon residential complex
after Phase 1 and street cleaning has been implemented.
We now have RVs boldly parking right in front of our complex! when before they were
abusing the East Meadow circle area. Enough is enough! Please support Palo Alto residents in
their plea and NOT the people who are abusing the street space by flooding it with their boats,
motorcycles etc!
Oksana Selavri
Echelon Community
Fabian Way and East Meadow circle
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Kelly Brieger
To:Council, City
Cc:Steve Perna
Subject:SRI Letter Regarding Agenda Item #10 – Proposed OSV Pilot Program
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 3:22:03 PM
Attachments:image001[44].png
SRI letter to PA City Council OSV.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am sharing a letter from SRI’s Steve Perna regarding Agenda Item #10, the proposed
overnight OSV parking pilot program, in advance of tomorrow’s meeting. We respectfully
request that you include it in the public record for the Council's consideration. Please let us
know if you have questions or would like to discuss. Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
Kelly Brieger on behalf of Steve Perna, President, Integrated Systems & Solutions, SRI
Kelly (Ryan) Brieger
Director, Communications | Curator, PARC Forum
sri.com | LinkedIn | YouTube | Facebook | Subscribe
SRI | 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, CA | www.sri.com
City of Palo Alto August 23, 2026
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Proposed Oversized Vehicle (OSV) pilot program, Agenda Item #10
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council:
I am writing on behalf of SRI to provide our perspective about the proposed overnight OSV parking pilot program. Our
company has long supported efforts to address housing insecurity throughout our community, and our position on this
proposal stems from operational necessity, not indifference to the community.
For 80 years, SRI has been recognized internationally as a world-class research organization. We want employees,
customers, and visitors to experience a campus that reflects our storied history and the amazing innovation being
developed every day.
SRI is in the initial stages of a significant modernization as we relocate our headquarters from Menlo Park to 3333
Coyote Hill Road in Stanford Research Park. This new HQ will support our team of more than 300 onsite Bay Area
employees, which is expected to reach full capacity over the coming months.
As we plan this transition, safety and security are a top priority for employees and visitors. The Coyote Hill entrance/exit
has limited visibility, and OSV parking nearby would create a safety hazard for vehicles and cyclists.
If OSVs are permitted to park directly along our property line, that would also create a greater security burden. We
anticipate this could require additional investment in signage, lighting, physical barriers, and potentially 24/7 guard
service. These costs would fall to SRI as a direct result of the program .
Our commitment to support the community remains strong. In fact, as part of the sale of our Menlo Park property, we
worked with the developer and Menlo Park City Council to secure hundreds of units of dedicated low -income housing.
This investment reflects a strong contribution to addressing housing insecurity in the local area.
Before the Council makes a decision, we respectfully request clarity on a few items:
- Will the city add marked street parking in the area shown on the city drawing?
- Will the city reduce the four-lane section of the road to two lanes and add a sidewalk?
- What level of street parking is permitted for others along Coyote Hill?
- Has a traffic study been performed to understand the impact?
We appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns about the proposed plan to permit OSV parking in front of SRI’s
Coyote Hill headquarters.
Sincerely,
Steve Perna, SRI, President of Integrated Systems and Solutions
From:Pepper Person
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Subject:8/24/2026 City Council Meeting Item 10: Use Existing OSV Data to Design Safer, Measurable Pilots
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 3:42:21 PM
Attachments:PA_OnStreet_OSV_Counts1.png
PA_OnStreet_OSV_Counts2.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are long-time Palo Alto residents, and we are writing regarding Item 10 on the 8/24/2026
City Council Meeting Agenda: the proposed oversized-vehicle (OSV) parking permit program
and alternating-side parking pilot.
We support the City’s effort to develop an orderly and humane response to vehicle dwelling,
including using pilots rather than premature permanent policy. But a useful pilot must begin
with the evidence already available, test identifiable hypotheses, protect public safety before
implementation, and avoid merely transferring impacts among streets and neighborhoods.
We respectfully ask Council to condition authorization on four requirements before
activating location-specific restrictions.
1. Use the natural experiment that has already occurred
The City already has a meaningful longitudinal dataset: at least 16 displayed count periods
covering ~262 days, from October 2025 through approximately July 10-11, 2026.
[Credit: Bob Marinaro; 7/25/2026 email forward included in 2026-07-27 City Council
Emails.pdf retrieved 8/23/2026 from https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/]
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
The counts show two distinct phases. First, the citywide OSV count fell from 220 to 131, i.e.,
~40%. But then the decline stopped. During the final ~3.4 months, the displayed counts
were 131, 132, 133, 136, 138, 143, 130, and 131, with an average of ~134 and identical first
and last values.
Overall, this two-phase structure shows an initial reduction followed by a relatively stable
equilibrium. However, subsequent changes increasingly involved OSV location rather than
continued citywide disappearance.
The Ventura Area (see image) illustrates this point. Its total declined from 20 to 14, but within
the area:
Ash, Portage, Olive, and Acacia increased collectively from 6 OSVs to 10 and reached
15 at one count.
Their share of the Ventura total increased from 30% to 71% and exceeded 84% at one
observation.
Park, Sheridan, and Lambert declined collectively from 13 OSVs to 2.
Therefore, an area-wide decline masks substantial concentration and redistribution
among adjoining streets. Acacia’s appearance as a “new street,” sustained across more than
ten observations, is particularly relevant evidence of spillover rather than a single-count
fluctuation.
These changes cannot be attributed automatically to one cause. They occurred amid Phase
I enforcement, construction, lost curb capacity, transportation changes, and other
interventions. That is precisely why the existing series must be incorporated into the pilot
design. January 2027 should not be treated as an unaffected baseline.
The Council should preserve the October-2025-to-launch period as a formal pre-pilot phase,
continue standardized counts (in partnership with Bob Marinaro), and identify the timing of
enforcement, construction, signage, traffic-control, and other relevant changes.
2. Design experiments capable of answering causal questions
The staff report correctly predicts that the restrictions are likely to produce spillover.
But the proposal does not establish a sufficiently detailed baseline or comparison framework
to determine how much spillover the pilots cause, where it goes, or which of the simultaneous
interventions produced it.
The two pilots also test different hypotheses.
For the alternating-side pilot, the City should determine whether restrictions improve street
sweeping, visibility, sanitation, and access; whether OSVs move across the street, to adjoining
streets, or outside the city; and how OSVs and their auxiliary vehicles respond to a side
change.
For the permit pilot, the City should measure participation, compliance, enforcement contacts,
service engagement, housing and safe-parking outcomes, and operating cost per participant
and successful placement.
These effects cannot be separated if all interventions begin simultaneously without
comparison areas. Staff should stagger implementation across matched segments where
feasible and publish the hypotheses, baseline, measurement protocol, intervention dates, and
decision thresholds before implementation.
Measurements should include occupied curb feet, auxiliary vehicles, duration, relocations,
complaints, enforcement, sanitation, traffic effects, and service outcomes, in addition to OSV
counts.
The existing spreadsheet (constructive suggestions; this was a massive effort) could benefit
from refinement and expansion before the pilot baseline measurements begin. For example,
Ash is aggregated into two segments extending from Oregon Expressway to Portage, making
it impossible to isolate Pepper, Page Mill/Oregon Expy, or the individual Ash blocks proposed
for treatment. Pepper Avenue (among others) is not currently counted separately. The
spreadsheet also notes “numerous auxiliary vehicles” on Ash without counting them.
Specifically, Acacia, Portage, Olive, Pepper, the individual Ash blocks, etc., should be
measured separately before outreach or signage causes anticipatory relocation.
The proposed six-month parking periods are also too long for risk management and
experimental evaluation. If a restriction causes unsafe access, severe concentration, or
neighborhood spillover, six months is an unreasonable period to leave that condition in place.
Analytically, assigning one side from January through June and the other from July
through December makes side assignment inseparable from season, construction, school
and traffic patterns, weather, and other time-varying conditions. With only one crossover,
the City will have no replication and little ability to determine whether an observed
Council should authorize a 12-month adaptive pilot, not two fixed six-month exposures.
Staff should use staggered activation, different initial-side assignments on comparable
segments where feasible, and 30-60-day evaluation cycles. Reviews should occur after 14 and
30 days, with comprehensive evaluation no later than 60-90 days.
Shorter evaluation cycles need not require frequent forced relocation. A side assignment can
remain in place while conditions remain within established limits. Changes should be
triggered by evidence rather than an arbitrary calendar, and predefined safety, access,
spillover, sanitation, and concentration thresholds should require prompt mitigation,
modification, or suspension.
Because the citywide count has plateaued despite ongoing enforcement, the evaluation should
also track whether “exit-side” capacity, such as safe parking, case-management placements,
storage, buyback, or similar options, is expanding. Redistribution alone cannot reduce the
population against which the pilots will be evaluated.
3. Establish safety and emergency access as preconditions
Emergency access should not be an outcome the City learns about by waiting for an
impaired response.
For example, Ash, Olive, and Pepper must be evaluated as a connected street system. Pepper
has limited outlets. Its El Camino end can be affected by queues associated with El Camino
and Page Mill/Oregon Expressway, while its eastern access depends on Ash, where OSVs,
trailers, passenger vehicles, and other auxiliary vehicles already reduce maneuvering space.
Restrictions on Ash and Olive may improve some conditions, but they may also concentrate
large vehicles on Pepper (El Camino end), Acacia, Portage, or constrained portions of Ash,
reducing effective street width, sight distance, turning clearance, and redundant emergency
access. Requirements may change depending on what is built; for example, fire code may
require 26' rather than 20' vehicle access for fire hydrants or tall buildings.
Naturally, the same safety requirement should apply to the permit corridors. Coyote Hill
requires verification of fire access, egress, and emergency communications. Embarcadero
requires review of roadway geometry, flood exposure, and airport land-use compatibility.
People directed to those locations deserve the same pre-activation safety analysis as residents
of affected neighborhoods.
Before activating any segment, Council should require written, location-specific
findings from Fire, Police, Public Works, and Transportation addressing:
Clear street width under representative parking conditions;
Swept paths for fire engines, ladder trucks, ambulances, refuse trucks, and tow trucks;
Field testing with actual apparatus where geometric margins are limited;
Intersection turning movements and opposing traffic;
Hydrant, driveway, sight-distance, and daylighting clearance;
Peak traffic queues under the El Camino/Page Mill-Oregon no-turn-on-red condition;
and
Alternative emergency routes if either end of Pepper or part of Ash is obstructed.
The findings and required mitigations should be public before implementation. A street that
cannot maintain applicable emergency-access and operational margins should not be used as
an OSV concentration or foreseeable spillover location.
4. Address cumulative and distributional impacts citywide
The objective should not be merely to reduce OSVs on selected streets. It should be to prevent
excessive concentration and allocate unavoidable impacts according to measurable capacity,
safety, land use, and equity considerations.
Staff estimates that the alternating-side streets could retain ~116 or 125 OSVs, depending on
the period, while the permit locations could accommodate ~37. That represents a nominal
combined capacity of ~153-162 spaces, compared with the latest observed total of 131 OSVs.
The central problem is therefore not solely aggregate capacity. It is whether that capacity is
genuinely usable and how its impacts are distributed among neighborhoods, businesses,
OSV residents, and the transportation network.
The City should:
Establish maximum block-level concentration and occupied-curb-foot thresholds;
Prefer multiple appropriately designed locations over a few concentrated locations;
Evaluate cumulative traffic, bike-lane, parking-removal, development, BMR-housing,
construction, and emergency-access burdens;
Determine whether lower-income or more housing-dense areas would bear a
disproportionate share;
Prevent omitted spillover streets from becoming unregulated de facto OSV zones; and
Continue pursuing regional and off-street capacity so Palo Alto’s streets are not the only
management mechanism.
Requested Council direction
We respectfully ask Council to direct staff to:
1. Incorporate the complete October 2025 to present count series into the administrative
record and pilot baseline.
2. Begin standardized citywide and adjacent-street measurements immediately, including
all potentially impacted streets (with street subsegments clearly separated; e.g., Ash),
auxiliary vehicles, and occupied curb feet.
3. Publish a prospective experimental protocol identifying hypotheses, comparison areas,
intervention dates, outcome measures, and decision thresholds.
4. Use staged implementation and 30- to 60-day evaluation cycles, with mandatory 14-,
30-, and 60-day reviews and predefined modification and stop criteria.
5. Require written emergency-access and traffic-operability findings before activating each
location, including assessing and remediating the connected Ash/Olive/Pepper/Page
Mill network, as well as similarly-impacted areas.
6. Complete a cumulative-impact and distributional-equity analysis before finalizing the
street list.
7. Make the underlying non-personal data and interim and final evaluations publicly
available.
The City has already accumulated ~8.6 months of evidence showing both an initial reduction
and substantial redistribution. It should not spend the proposed funds merely to confirm that
displacement occurs.
A properly designed pilot can answer the questions that remain unresolved: whether permits
and services improve outcomes, whether alternating-side restrictions produce operational
benefits, how displacement can be controlled, and how safety and neighborhood impacts
can be distributed fairly.
We urge Council to make these safeguards part of the authorization now, before outreach,
relocation, and implementation begin.
Warm regards,
Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA
Jieming Robinson, MA, Economics
From:Chris Schremp
To:Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Lythcott-Haims, Julie
Cc:Loren Brown; Dmitri Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Chris Schremp; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin
Swindells; Christine Schremp; brianhama@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Bryna Chang;
h.etzko@gmail.com; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia
Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John
Schafer; Scott Petersen
Subject:Procedural Breakdown on Staff Report #2606-6479: Taxpayer Accountability Matters
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 4:02:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Veenker, City Manager Shikada, and Members of the City Council,
Ahead of Monday’s meeting, I am writing to address a severe procedural breakdown and a
concerning lack of administrative accountability regarding Staff Report #2606-6479.
As residents and taxpayers who fund municipal operations and pay city salaries, we expect
professional, transparent, and responsive governance from City Management and staff.
Their primary responsibility is to protect the public right-of-way, enforce local laws, and
serve the tax-paying citizens and businesses of Palo Alto.
Instead, we learned through multiple conversations this weekend, that the process leading
to this $823,800 staff proposal reflects a complete disregard for community input and
elected oversight:
Bypassing the Council’s Own Ad Hoc Committee: City staff authored this pilot
proposal in an administrative silo, completely bypassing direct collaboration with the
Council’s appointed OSV Ad Hoc Committee.
Premature Public Release Without Committee Vetting: Staff shared this proposal
broadly before giving the Ad Hoc Council members a chance to review, influence, or
shape it.
Ignoring Taxpayer Input & Viable Alternatives: For months, neighborhood
coalitions and local business stakeholders have submitted detailed, legally sound,
and cost-effective proposals. Staff completely ignored this input, choosing instead to
propose an expensive $823,800 "street shuffle" experiment that explicitly predicts
spillover onto surrounding residential blocks.
Through our conversations with civic leaders, we also learned that the Mayor and City Staff
remain hesitant to act due to a fear of potential lawsuits. This fear is completely
The legal authority to prohibit overnight OSV parking is already on the books (PAMC §
10.44.020) and has already been successfully enforced in other Palo Alto neighborhoods.
Furthermore, many of these OSVs are operating in active violation of public safety laws—
failing to move within required timeframes, running unshielded gas generators directly in
the public street, and using our residential blocks as mid-week commuter pads. As
neighboring municipalities have demonstrated, there is no valid legal ground for a lawsuit
as long as the City provides fair advance notice before enforcing a citywide ban. Citing fear
of litigation to avoid enforcing municipal code is an administrative excuse, not a legal
reality.
Because of this fundamentally flawed process, Staff Report #2606-6479 should not
even be brought forward for adoption.
We should not be forced to debate or reject an administrative experiment that failed basic
procedural standards, bypassed the OSV Ad Hoc Committee, and ignores the taxpayers
paying for it.
ACTION REQUESTED: Instead, the Council should set aside this staff pilot entirely.
You should be voting directly on the sound, community-supported proposals
submitted by your taxpayers—initiating the advance notice process for a citywide
OSV restriction and allocating a significantly lower, responsible amount of funds
toward border signage execution.
We urge the Council to hold City Management accountable, set aside Staff Report #2606-
6479 on August 24, and direct staff to execute the clear municipal code enforcement
taxpayers deserve.
Regards,
Chris Schremp
From:Colin Swindells
To:Council, City
Subject:OSV comment - Enact citywide overnight OSV parking restriction + stop the proposed pilot program
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 4:47:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veenker, Mr. Shikada and Councilmembers:
I strongly support a citywide overnight OSV parking restriction via an amendment to PAMC §
10.44.020 and a complete rejection of the proposed pilot to be discussed at the Aug 24
meeting.
As part of a citywide overnight OSV parking restriction, I fully support the Palo Alto City
Council in their efforts to compassionately interact with people currently dwelling in OSVs.
The $823,800 saved by rejecting the proposed pilot program would significantly fund such
initiatives.
I also fully support the City Council's recent plans to revitalize business and residential areas
in Palo Alto. A citywide overnight OSV parking restriction would significantly help this
revitalization.
Specifically, I request the City Council act to stop this wasteful market drag across the 13
linear corridors most impacted by the current OSV situation [1]. Using a midpoint estimated
commercial, industrial and residential value of $8.5 B, a 1.1% overall drag due to this OSV
situation amounts to about $92.5 M (or, about $740,000 per OSV based on the 125 vehicles
targeted by the currently proposed pilot program). Such economic waste is an insult to
everyone involved.
I would also like to highlight the disproportionate burden on residential areas directly fronting
these streets (e.g., Echelon, Park Blvd townhomes). The $92.5 M estimate above is based on:
- Directly Fronting Residential (e.g., Echelon, Park Blvd townhomes): ~$400 M total market
value x 15% drag = -$60 Million
- Adjacent Commercial & R&D Parks: ~$6.5 B total market value x 0.5% drag = -$32.5
Million
In addition to these base market drags, I urge City Council to consider the full yearly business
drags to commercial and R&D park activities across these 13 linear corridors due to direct
impacts of this ongoing OSV situation. Specifically, I estimate annual additional business
costs of $5.5 M - $13.0 M annually:
- Security & Site Fortification costs of $1.8 M - $3.5 M / yr
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
- Sanitation & Site Maintenance costs of $800 k - $1.8 M / yr
- Logistics & Supply Chain Friction costs of $1.5 M - $3.2 M / yr
- Leasing Friction & Soft Rent Discounts costs of $1.4 M - $4.5 M / yr
Over a 10 year period, these additional annual business costs directly resulting from the
unaddressed OSV situation along these 13 linear corridors effectively double the market drag
of $92.5 M.
Please fix this situation as soon as possible with a combination of citywide overnight OSV
parking restrictions and a compassionate transition program for those currently residing in the
OSVs.
Sincerely,
Colin (Swindells) Heschel
Echelon community, Palo Alto
[1] 13 linear corridors most impacted by the OSV situation:
- 4000 Block of Transport Street
- 900 Block of Commercial Street
- 900 Block of Industrial Avenue
- 100 Block of Page Mill Road
- 2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard
- 200-400 Block of Olive Avenue
- 2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street
- 200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue
- 1000 Block of Elwell Court
- 1000 Block of Corporation Way
- 1000 Block of East Meadow Circle
- 2400 Block of Embarcadero Way
- 2400 block of Faber Place
From:Michelle Rosengaus
To:Council, City
Subject:OSVs
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 6:24:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The City of Palo Alto should ban parking of oversized motor homes and vehicles serving
as residences from all Palo Alto streets.
Families living in these vehicles for lack of housing, should apply to the city for help.
Michelle Rosengaus
3704 Ortega CT
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:nellickson@yahoo.com
To:Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Lythcott-Haims, Julie
Cc:"Dmitri Samsonov"; "Robert Marinaro"; "stephanie wansek"; "Chris Schremp"; "Christine Schremp"; "Roger
Smith"; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; "Bryna Chang"; "Peter Xu"; "Barry Katz"; "Ceci
Kettendorf"; "Dana Dahlstrom"; "Lydia Kou"; "Bill McLane"; "Dave Stellman"; "Charlie Weidanz"; "Jeanette
Baldwin"; "Titan (Zhengtian) Gu"; "Becky Sanders"; "John Schafer"; "Scott Petersen"; "Martin Cuyegkeng";
"Loren Brown"; "Colin Swindells"; brianhama@gmail.com; shayes236@gmail.com; "John Seltzer"; vic52@victor-
aviation.com
Subject:Response to the OSV Pilot Parking Program
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 8:06:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Staff,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to City Staff’s proposed pilot program addressing
Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking. As presented, this program will not alleviate the ongoing issues in
Palo Alto’s residential and business corridors. Instead, it will deepen an already untenable situation
and place an even greater burden on the neighborhoods and commercial businesses that have been
forced to manage the consequences after years of inaction by the City.
Our property is located on Embarcadero Way, an approximately 850‑foot‑long, 40‑foot‑wide
cul‑de‑sac. For the past 8-10 years, it has effectively been the Wild West. Although recent months
have brought sporadic enforcement of City ordinances, the reality is that our street has long been
overwhelmed by 14–16 OSVs parked end‑to‑end on both sides. In fact, one OSV resident has
remained on our street for more than two years—note that other business owners report that it’s
been closer to five years.
During this time, we have dealt with vicious dogs, accumulated trash, personal belongings
obstructing both the street and sidewalks, human feces on the sidewalks and lawn, theft, hijacked
water and electricity, and even approximately 25 gallons of human waste poured directly into storm
drains that flow to the nearby Baylands (video available). We have witnessed assaults. We have seen
our street become unsafe, unsanitary, and unrecognizable. And despite clear ordinances, overnight
parking rules are not consistently enforced.
The consequences for businesses have been severe. Customers are afraid to exit their vehicles to
pay their bills. Prospective tenants decline to rent after seeing the conditions. Delivery trucks cannot
safely access our street. Driveway and road sightlines are obstructed, making it dangerous to exit
many of the driveways / parking lots on our street. This is not a manageable situation. It is a crisis.
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
The pilot program submitted by Staff does not solve these problems. It legitimizes them. Allowing
OSVs to continue parking on one side of the street for six months—and then the other—does not
address the root issues. It formalizes and expands them. It asks residents and business owners to
continue bearing the burden of a crisis the City created, tolerated, and allowed to grow. We urge
you to consider how you would feel if these conditions existed in front of your own business or
home.
We ask Council and Staff to return to the drawing board and develop a plan that:
Prevents long‑term OSV parking in all business, commercial, and residential districts in
Palo Alto.
Strengthens and enforces existing ordinances consistently and transparently.
Ensures that solutions do not move, shift, or expand the problem elsewhere in the
City.
Palo Alto deserves a plan that addresses the OSV crisis responsibly and effectively—not a pilot
program that entrenches the very conditions that have harmed our community for nearly a decade.
We urge you to immediately—not in six months, not in a year or more—ban OSV overnight parking
in commercial, business, and residential areas of the City.
Sincerely,
Nancy Ellickson & Scott Hayes
Owners, 2425 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto
From:Thomas Nguyen
To:Council, City
Subject:RV parking on East Meadow Circle
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 9:19:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposal to allow oversized recreational vehicles to remain permanently on East Meadow
Circle.
This proposal should not be viewed simply as a change to parking policy. Permanently permitting RVs to remain on a
residential street effectively creates a location for long-term vehicle habitation in a neighborhood where people have
purchased homes with the reasonable expectation that their residential streets will remain safe, accessible, sanitary, and
consistent with residential use.
Palo Alto already has a law addressing this very issue. Municipal Code §10.44.020 prohibits oversized vehicles from parking
on streets in residential zones between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., subject to limited exceptions. The City’s own definition of an
oversized vehicle includes vehicles exceeding 20 feet in length, 7 feet in height, or 7 feet in width. (City of Palo Alto)
The City therefore should be asking why it is considering creating an exception that would effectively authorize what the
existing ordinance was designed to prevent.
The impact on surrounding homeowners is not theoretical. Permanently stationed RVs can create:
obstruction of sight lines and reduced pedestrian and bicycle visibility;
increased traffic and parking conflicts;
noise and activity immediately adjacent to homes;
sanitation and waste-disposal concerns;
increased demands on public services;
diminished privacy for homeowners whose properties directly face the vehicles;
difficulty accessing curb space and maintaining streets; and
the gradual conversion of a residential street into a de facto vehicle-dwelling area.
The City’s own materials acknowledge that the growing number of people living in vehicles creates additional health and
safety concerns and neighborhood challenges. (City of Palo Alto)
There is also a fundamental policy issue here. A public street is public infrastructure—not private residential land that can
simply be converted into permanent housing sites without considering the effect on the homeowners who live there. If the
City wants to establish designated safe-parking or vehicle-dwelling locations, it should do so through a comprehensive,
transparent process with appropriate sanitation, safety, service, and management provisions—not by effectively turning a
residential street into a permanent RV site.
Most importantly, please do not confuse compassion for people living in vehicles with an obligation to permanently authorize
vehicle habitation on a particular residential street. Those are separate policy questions. The City can provide appropriate
alternatives and services without imposing the consequences of permanent RV habitation on a small group of neighboring
homeowners.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
I respectfully urge the Council not to authorize permanent RV parking on East Meadow Circle and instead to enforce the
City’s existing parking regulations and pursue appropriately designated alternatives that do not shift the burden
disproportionately onto residential neighborhoods.
The residents who live around these vehicles should not have to sacrifice the safety, privacy, accessibility, and residential
character of their neighborhood because the City has not yet developed a comprehensive solution to vehicle habitation.
Please enforce the laws already on the books rather than creating an exception that effectively nullifies them.
Sincerely,
Tom
From:Melinda McGee
To:Council, City
Subject:OSV Pilot Programs Please Vote Against.
Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 10:14:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Addressing RV habitation is a regional challenge that requires coordinated efforts with neighboring cities including
Mountain View, Redwood City, San Mateo, San Jose and San Francisco. Accurate, current data—and thoughtful
boundaries on how local funds are used—will be essential to crafting an effective and fair regional policy.
Clearly a lot of thought and effort has been put into developing these “pilot" programs. Why would Palo Alto be
the only city to run this kind of permit and parking program?
I am adamantly opposed to the pilot programs recommended by the ad hoc committee to the City Council for a
vote on the Monday, August 24, 2026 meeting for the following reasons:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->What are the short and long-term costs of such a “pilot”
program? One year cost? Cost over 2, 5, 10-year use of taxpayer dollars?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->What is the cost of moving 37 OSVs to two different
locations?
Initially, per the ad hoc committee document:
- “The work to prepare the areas for OSVs parking includes: What is the cost of each of these
preparation steps?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Landscaping to reduce fire risks along Coyote Hill Road
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Temporary restriping of Embarcadero Road to allow for OSVs
to park without blocking the bike lane
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Signage installation that clearly states ’parking by permit‘ only
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Outreach to current OSV dwellers to gain participants for the
permit program
Staff also need to execute service contracts for: What is the ongoing cost of these services?
Cost per vehicle? Cost of contractors?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Case management and program support through a formal
solicitation process
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Onsite port-a-potties and hand-washing stations
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Waste management bins (via Greenwaste of Palo Alto)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Signage installation
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Road restriping design and labor
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Who are the 37 vehicle dwellers and why is it the City of
Palo Alto’s responsibility to provide virtually free parking for them with a goal of providing permanent
housing?
The proposed cost of a permit not to exceed $15 is laughable. It will probably cost way more than $15 to
create such a permit. Let’s do the math $15 x 37 =$555.00. How much is the cost of staffing the
permitting process?
WHAT IS THE REAL COST OF PREPARING FOR AND IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAM? Let’s say the real
cost of one year of the designated parking pilot program is $1M/37 vehicles = ~$27k per vehicle.
Why would Palo Alto give its valuable real estate and land to set up an expensive and virtually free
campground to 37 oversized vehicles at a significant cost to the taxpayers?
This is a regional problem. If the people living in vehicles are low-income workers, then their employers need to
take responsibility for providing better pay and parking for them, not Palo Alto taxpayers.
What is Stanford’s responsibility for the contract workers, employees, and students living in OSVs? Stanford
has land and can provide space for their related worker vehicles.
What is the responsibility of other area employers? If employers paid a livable wage, then people would be
able to afford housing and commute to work. Most people cannot afford to live in Palo Alto. We cannot fix that.
People have always commuted to work from housing in less expensive areas.
How do you define “resident?” Is a “resident “anyone who parks their vehicle on one of our streets?”
Again, why would Palo Alto be the only city to run this kind of permit and parking program?
Please City Council – JUST SAY NO TO THIS PROGRAM – and work with other Bay Area communities to deal
with this ongoing problem. The pilot programs outlined are not a solution – it will add huge costs in staff,
management and contractor time and money for a small benefit and will have unintended consequences – the
spaces 37 vehicles moved to new parking will free up space for 37 more vehicles to relocate here as other nearby
communities push out OSVs from their neighborhoods.
Please this is not a common sense practical and cost-effective solution. If you build it, they will come, and come,
and come. Work with the neighboring communities; it is a regional problem. Not Palo Alto’s to solve alone. Please
vote against it.
Thank you.
Melinda McGee
Palo Alto Resident
From:John Melnychuk
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith
Cc:Shikada, Ed
Subject:Vote NO on proposed RV Permit Pilot.
Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 12:15:11 AM
Attachments:Palo_Alto_RV_Flyer_Email_Page_1.png
Palo_Alto_RV_Flyer_Email_Page_2.png
Microsoft Word - Palo_Alto_RV_V27_LOCKED_EDIT_TRULY_FINAL.docx.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vicemayor Stone and City Councillors,
With respect, please:
John Melnychuk,
Fairmeadow, Palo Alto,
(650) 9i06-5656
CITY COUNCIL: VOTE NO ON THE PROPOSED RV PARKING PLAN.
COMPASSION HAS NO LIMITS,
BUT BUDGETS DO.
Help people in need. But do not make RV living on Palo Alto streets the new normal.
Palo Alto is already addressing a $17.1 MILLION General Fund deficit.
WHY ARE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES DEMANDING ACTION?
STREETS
Large RVs crowd streets built for ordinary
cars and SUVs.
BUSINESSES
Parking, customer access and
commercial appearance are harmed.
SAFETY
Large vehicles reduce sightlines and
complicate traffic movement.
SANITATION
Complaints include debris and improper
human-waste disposal.
NEIGHBORHOODS
Concentrated RV living changes daily
use and appearance of streets.
CITY SERVICES
Cleaning, enforcement, Police, Public
Works and staff time add cost.
RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES ASKED FOR RELIEF. THIS PERMIT PROGRAM INSTEAD FACILITATES THE
EXACT CONDITION THEY ASKED CITY HALL TO REDUCE.
ABOUT 4× MORE
≈ $27,000 a year for one added Geng Road RV space — about four times the $6,743 General Fund revenue benchmark per resident
household.
$823,800 / YEAR → $8.2 MILLION / 10 YEARS
Before inflation. Before costs not fully allocated to the RV program.
DON’T ASSUME “PILOT” MEANS TEMPORARY. ONCE A BENEFIT CREATES RELIANCE, IT BECOMES
HARD TO END.
Permits, services and designated places create expectations and reliance. The City should decide what is fair for everyone
before creating a benefit that may become permanent.
HELP PEOPLE. PROTECT THE CITY. DO NOT EXPAND RV LIVING AS AN ACCEPTED CITY PROGRAM.
PALO ALTO RV POLICY • PUBLIC ADVOCACY BRIEF
Compassion matters. Council’s first responsibility is to decide what is best for Palo Alto as a whole.
County benchmark: about $41,639 per person counted as unhoused in the 2025 Point-in-Time census.
Geng Road: ≈ $27,000+ per added RV space.
Council must distribute scarce benefits and burdens fairly across the
whole community.
BEFORE CREATING THIS BENEFIT, THE CITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER:
1
WHO QUALIFIES?
Need deserves compassion. But presence alone should not create a
special claim to scarce City money or public streets.
2
WHY THESE STREETS?
Why should selected neighborhoods and businesses carry impacts
that other Palo Alto neighborhoods largely avoid?
3
WHAT IS SUCCESS?
Success means fewer RVs on City streets and more people in stable
housing - the result the community is asking for.
4
HOW DOES IT END?
What happens after people rely on the benefit? If Council cannot
realistically end it, do not call it temporary.
ONE CITY. ONE STANDARD.
Would Council adopt the same policy if every Palo Alto neighborhood had to accept an equal share?
If not, do not ask selected neighborhoods and businesses to carry a burden the rest of the City would not accept.
GENG ROAD
Excellent humanitarian help. Managed, off-street
+ services.
HOMEKEY
Housing + services. A path toward stability.
PROPOSED PLAN
Facilitates RV street living as an accepted City
program.
THE BETTER DIRECTION: HELP PEOPLE HUMANELY - AND REDUCE RVs ON OUR STREETS.
VOTE NO ON THIS “PILOT.”
KEEP GENG ROAD AND HOMEKEY. SEEK CREATIVE, COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS WITH REGIONAL
PARTNERS.
HELP PEOPLE MOVE TOWARD STABLE HOUSING.
DO NOT MAKE RV LIVING PALO ALTO’S NEW NORMAL.
COMPASSION REQUIRES HELP. GOOD GOVERNMENT REQUIRES FAIRNESS TO THE WHOLE CITY.
City sources: FY2026-27 budget update; Oversized Vehicles staff materials. Geng Road expansion: ≈$270,000 annually for 10 added RV spaces. $6,743 is a General Fund revenue-per-resident-
household benchmark, not a household tax bill or benefit.
PALO ALTO RV POLICY • PUBLIC ADVOCACY BRIEF
From:Anupa Bajwa
To:Council, City
Subject:PETITION TO EXCLUDE OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS FROM PALO ALTO’S PILOT OSV PARKING
PROGRAM
Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 7:43:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Respected Members of the City Council,
This is regarding item #10, "Recommendation from the Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Ad Hoc
Committee to Launch Two Pilot OSV Parking Programs", on the agenda for the City Council
meeting of Monday, August 24, 2026.
As stated in our petition text below, we request that the Olive Avenue blocks be excluded
from the list of allowed parking areas for OSVs in your pilot program. We detail the safety
and operational impacts if OSVs were allowed to park on our residential street.
Residents of 17 of the 22 currently-occupied homes on Olive Avenue have signed this
petition. The signed copy will be delivered to the City Clerk.
Please contact me at this email address if you require further clarification.
Regards,
Anupa Bajwa
Olive Avenue (El Camino Real to Park Blvd)
PETITION TO EXCLUDE OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS FROM PALO ALTO’S PILOT OSV
PARKING PROGRAM
TO: The City Council of Palo Alto and the Department of Transportation
DATE: August 23, 2026
LEAD BLOCK ORGANIZER: Dr. Anupa Bajwa
ADDRESS: 450 Olive Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94306 EMAIL: anupabajwa@gmail.com
STATEMENT OF INTENT:
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of Olive Avenue (bounded by El Camino Real to the west
and Park Boulevard to the east), hereby petition the City of Palo Alto to exclude Olive Ave blocks from the Pilot
OSV Parking Program.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Our request is based on the following specific municipal safety and operational impacts:
1. Sightline Obstructions: The prolonged parking of oversized vehicles along this corridor severely impairs
visibility for residents exiting standard residential driveways, creating an immediate traffic hazard for
oncoming motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Olive Avenue experiences heavy cut-through traffic so clear
visibility is crucial for the safety of residents exiting driveways and for kids riding their bikes to and from
school.
2. Emergency Vehicle & Utility Access: The narrow (35-foot) width of this residential street, combined with
large vehicles parked, creates logistical challenges for municipal waste management, street sweeping
machinery, and emergency vehicles.
3. Preservation of Residential Access: To ensure that street access conforms with the local character and
safety of this residential neighborhood, we must protect street access for current residents and new
residents in apartments, condominiums, townhomes within a block of this neighborhood.
From:Sanne Smith
To:Council, City
Subject:Written comment for agenda item #10 for City Council Meeting 08/24
Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 7:45:50 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 as a parent and as a Traffic Safety Representative for Escondido Elementary in
Palo Alto regarding the proposed oversized vehicle parking restrictions (agenda item #10).
First, I want to express my appreciation for the City's efforts to find a workable solution to the
challenges created by oversized vehicle parking. I particularly appreciate that maintaining
access to bike lanes is part of the motivation behind the proposal. Keeping bike infrastructure
clear and usable is an important part of making Palo Alto safer and more accessible for people
who bike.
I would, however, encourage the City to give particular consideration to the safety of young
bicyclists when determining where designated oversized-vehicle parking should be located.
This is especially important along Park Boulevard between approximately the 2800 and 3200
blocks. Although this area may appear relatively low-traffic on a map, Park Boulevard is an
important bicycle route for Palo Alto students. Children use this corridor to travel between
neighborhoods and schools, including Escondido Elementary, Palo Alto High School, and JLS
Middle School, as well as destinations such as Mitchell Park Library and JLS Pool.
For young cyclists, the issue is not simply whether a bike lane technically remains open.
Visibility and adequate space are critical safety considerations. Large vehicles parked near
intersections and crosswalks can create significant sight-line obstructions, making it harder for
children to see approaching vehicles and harder for drivers to see children. I encourage the
City to ensure that designated parking areas leave ample clear space around intersections,
crosswalks, and other conflict points so that children and drivers have sufficient visibility.
I would also encourage the City to consider the actual width and usability of the bicycle space
alongside designated parking areas. Young children do not always ride in a perfectly
predictable line. A younger cyclist may need to ride alongside a parent or another adult, and
children may need additional lateral space to navigate safely. A bike lane that remains
technically unobstructed but becomes narrow or uncomfortable because of adjacent oversized
vehicles may not function well as a Safe Routes to School facility.
I support the City's effort to develop a reasonable solution to oversized vehicle parking, and I
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
appreciate the recognition that bike-lane accessibility matters. My request is simply that, as
specific street segments are considered, the City evaluates them through the lens of the
youngest and least confident cyclists who use them every day.
In particular, I hope the City will consider sight lines at intersections and crosswalks,
adequate separation from conflict points, and sufficient usable width for children biking
alongside an adult when determining where oversized vehicles can safely be accommodated.
Thank you for considering the safety of Palo Alto's young cyclists as part of this proposal.
Sincerely,
Sanne Smith
Traffic Safety Representative
From:Elena Kadyrova
To:Council, City
Subject:Oversized Vehicle Parking Plan and Student Bike Commute Safety
Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 8:51:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and members of the Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Elena Kadyrova. I live directly on Park Boulevard and I am a mother of three
kids.
Every day I watch my children and many other neighborhood kids bike down Park Boulevard
to get to Escondido Elementary and JLS Middle School, Gunn and Paly. It is a designated bike
boulevard and it is the main safe street on this side of El Camino. It connects Ventura to
Escondido and Paly and it links Mayfield Stanford College Terrace Southgate and Evergreen
Park to JLS and Gunn (see the pictures from the offical Palo Alto bike roads maps in the
attachments ).
Just this year city cleaned Park Blvd and the RVs stopped parking here. Our kids were so glad
they did not have to pass big RVs on their way to school anymore. It felt safe again.
I understand the city needs rules for RV parking. But putting RVs on Park Blvd is very
dangerous for our children.
Large RVs block the view so drivers cannot see small kids on bikes at crosswalks and
intersections. RVs are wide so they make the bike street narrow and force kids closer to
moving cars. Some RVs also have loud dogs that bark and jump suddenly which scares the
kids on their bikes.
Also RVs obstruct the street to John Boulware Park. This is the new park that our city and
neighborhood is so proud of. With oversized vehicles our young kids feel afraid on the way to
go and enjoy the new park.
Please protect our kids on their daily bike ride to school. Please keep Park Boulevard off the
oversized vehicle parking list.
Thank you for listening and keeping our children safe.
-
Elena Kadyrova,
parent and Park Boulevard resident
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Barry Hart
To:Council, City
Subject:Do homework before starting a pilot RV program
Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 9:13:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council -
Please do your homework before deciding on a pilot program.
Ask nearby cities why they completely banned RVs and not attempted to
regulate and limit numbers?
Determine the increase in arson and fires caused by transient population vs
non-transient population in Santa Clara County and on the peninsula.
Have other cities attempted to deter illegal activities of RV residents? Did they
have success?
Review the documented issues that homeowners and businesses have filed
about RV residents and determine if a plan can be reasonably created to make
sure these issue do not continue
There is much information from other cities experiences with RV residents - and Palo
Alto is not really any different. Let's not make a pilot program that ignores these
lessons
Barry Hart
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Aram James
To:Vicki Veenker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Council, City; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke;
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Emily Mibach; Braden
Cartwright; EPA Today; Diana Diamond
Subject:Re: Just Say No To Banning RVs on The streets of Palo Alto without a well-thought-out back up Plan - Email
Details
Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 9:40:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Re: Just Say No To Banning RVs on The streets of Palo Alto without a well-thought-out back
up Plan - Email Details https://share.google/JSjZlSFEXg6d6RB6v
From:Carly Lake
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;
Lauing, Ed; City Mgr
Cc:Steve Bollert; David Waller
Subject:OPPOSE OSV PARKING PILOT - Embarcadero Way
Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 10:10:20 AM
Attachments:image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council,
Bioscience Property Investments writes on behalf of ownership, as the operator and developer of the
commercial building on the 2400 block of Embarcadero Way, to request that this block be removed
from the proposed OSV parking pilot and that the City prohibit long-term RV and OSV parking in this
commercial area.
We have invested heavily in conversion of these buildings to Class A Life Science laboratories and
offices. The block houses employers (including City of PA offices), generates lease revenue, and
contributes directly to the City's tax base. Long-term RV conditions here are actively crushing that
economic driver — not in the abstract, but in dollars: added operating costs, damaged curb appeal,
and leasing activity that stalls every time a prospective tenant tours the block. Every month these
conditions continue, they push tenants and future employers toward more presentable properties
elsewhere, and this corridor loses ground.
As ownership, we already absorb what long-term RV parking does to a block:
We pay for added cleaning just to handle the public space cleanup and monitoring.
Our team has hauled away dumped furniture, bulky items, and garbage, repeatedly.
Campfire ash near our landscaping has killed plants and created a fire hazard.
Persistent odors and waste affect how the property presents to tenants, employees, and
visitors.
Unsafe conditions create an environment of hostility and fear for tenants.
We've reported these conditions through the City's channels repeatedly. Nothing has changed.
Leasing is where this economic damage shows up clearest. Before one high-priority tour, we had to
escalate the RV conditions to the City's economic advisor and coordinate a temporary RV relocation
just to present the property safely. Once we did, we leased roughly 8,000 square feet — nearly half
the building. That's a direct, demonstrated link between RV conditions on this block and ownership's
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
ability to lease space, retain tenants, and keep this corridor economically viable.
The alternating-side pilot doesn't fix this — it just moves the same RVs from one side of the street to
the other every six months, so the impacts, and the economic damage, continue year-round.
Signage, red curbs, sweeping, and towing don't cover the porter costs, cleanup, landscaping
damage, or lost leasing revenue ownership has already absorbed. They manage where the RVs sit,
not whether they're here.
We're not asking the City to manage or rotate RVs on this block. Remove it from the pilot and make
this commercial area a no-OSV-parking zone.
Ownership and the businesses we house are core economic drivers for Palo Alto — the jobs, lease
revenue, and tax base the City depends on. Formalizing long-term RV parking on this block doesn't
just cost us; it erodes the commercial vitality of this entire corridor and the tax revenue the City relies
on. Protect the safety, cleanliness, and economic viability of the Embarcadero Way commercial area
by rejecting this pilot and rezoning the 2400 block.
Sincerely,
Carly Lake
Carly Lake
Principal | BioScience Property Investments
M: 858.692.6952
E: carly@bioscienceprop.com
bioscienceprop.com
From:Carly Lake
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;
Lauing, Ed; City Mgr
Cc:Steve Bollert; David Waller
Subject:OPPOSE OSV PARKING PILOT - Coyote Hill
Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 10:15:46 AM
Attachments:image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council,
Bioscience Property Investments writes on behalf of ownership for 3380 Coyote Hill Road, to oppose
the proposed OSV Parking Permit District.
Coyote Hill Road sits within one of Palo Alto's key commercial and research employment corridors.
The businesses here anchor jobs and generate meaningful tax revenue for the City — revenue that
funds the very services this pilot is meant to provide. Concentrating up to 40 vehicles directly against
these properties threatens that economic base directly: it puts tenant safety, curb appeal, and
marketability at risk, and that risk converts immediately into lost leasing activity, lost jobs, and lost
tax revenue. This isn't a marginal cost to ownership — it risks crushing one of the City's own
economic engines.
We support real solutions for people living in vehicles. We do not support parking dozens of RVs next
to an established commercial area that has no RV activity today. This proposal doesn't manage an
existing problem — it creates one, and ownership bears the cost. The scale alone is disqualifying. The
district would run 1,105 feet and could hold up to 20 OSVs plus a personal vehicle per OSV — as
many as 40 vehicles on this stretch of road. That changes roadway visibility, traffic circulation,
emergency access, and pedestrian and cyclist safety. If demand exceeds capacity, it spills onto
adjacent streets.
The location also adds a fire risk the City cannot ignore. This site sits in the Wildland Urban Interface
next to dry, unmonitored open grassland, with round-the-clock human activity, propane tanks,
generators, and open flame. This isn't hypothetical: two fires broke out near this exact location in the
past year — one near Deer Creek Road in 2025 that burned several acres before Palo Alto firefighters
got it under control, and one near Coyote Hill Road this past July, caused by human activity.
Concentrating OSVs here puts new ignition sources on the driest, least-monitored land around, right
next to sensitive open space and watershed habitat — and next to the businesses that keep this
corridor economically viable.
Ownership is asking the City Council to reject Coyote Hill Road as an OSV Parking Permit
District.
If the Council proceeds anyway, we ask, at minimum, that the City:
Take responsibility for cleanup, property damage, and impacts beyond the designated parking
area.
Set measurable standards for tenant safety, sanitation, fire prevention, environmental
conditions, and property access.
Suspend or relocate the program immediately if those standards aren't met.
Sunset the pilot automatically unless the Council affirmatively re-approves it after evaluating
outcomes and consulting affected property owners.
These conditions are not our endorsement. They are the floor of accountability ownership needs if
you proceed over our objection. Spend the City's resources on long-term housing, case
management, and properly managed off-street facilities — not on new fire and safety risks next to
one of Palo Alto's own economic engines. Ownership is not asking the City to choose between
compassion and commerce — we're asking you to stop funding one by crushing the other.
Reject this permit district.
Sincerely,
Carly Lake
Carly Lake
Principal | BioScience Property Investments
M: 858.692.6952
E: carly@bioscienceprop.com
bioscienceprop.com