Item 16 Public Comment — Palo Alto City Council, October 20, 2025

From: Matt Lynch
To: Council, City
Cc: McDonough, Melissa
Subject: Upcoming City Council Discussion on Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:36:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good afternoon:

My name is Matthew Lynch, and I manage Gryphon Stringed Instruments, located on 211 Lambert Ave in Palo Alto.

On behalf of our store, I would like to present the following for public comment at tonight's City Council meeting regarding OVI:

Gryphon Stringed Instrument has been serving Palo Alto and the greater Bay Area since 1969, and while we are recognized internationally as a leading purveyor of fine stringed instruments, we foremost consider the local community to be our greatest asset.

The derelict RVs on Park Boulevard are of particular concern to those who work at Gryphon Stringed Instruments because we are a retail business. Although we sell instruments online through our website, we still depend on sales to customers from throughout the greater SF Bay Area who drive to the corner of Park & Lambert to shop for specialty instruments, or to have theirs repaired. Some customers have expressed surprise and dismay at the trash surrounding these huge ill-kempt vehicles, not to mention their poor condition, and we hear comments such as: "Is it safe to walk on that side of the street?", and "What happened to Palo Alto?". The urban blight that now characterizes the stretch of Park between Page Mill Road and Lambert Ave discourages customers from surrounding cities, such as Menlo Park and Los Altos, from coming to Gryphon to shop.

Thank you for time.

Sincerely,
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
--
Matthew Lynch, Retail Sales Manager
Gryphon Stringed Instruments
211 Lambert Ave
Palo Alto, Ca 94306
888-493-2131 Ext. 7006
From: Eric Chan
To: Council, City
Subject: Re: [echelonpa] RV Situation in Palo Alto
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:07:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi Palo Alto Council Members,
As a property owner and resident of Echelon Community, I request Palo Alto City not to allow RV parking next to our home, along East Meadow Circle. It is negatively impacting our living conditions, safety and property value.

Thank you.

Eric Chan - Echelon Community
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:33 PM Colin Swindells <[email protected] > wrote:

Dear Council Members and Neighbors,
A summary of health and economic risks related to the current RV situation are described below.

This relates to Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on Monday, October 20, 2025 (Council Chambers & Hybrid @ 5:30 PM):
“16. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts, Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt.” I appreciate your upcoming action to address the health and economic risks that are directly impacting the 254 units of Altaire, Echelon and Vantage communities neighboring the RVs parked along E Meadow Cir in Palo Alto. Specifically, health concerns arise from the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure and basic services that come with living in non- designated areas. Economic concerns include property values, municipal & public services, local businesses, direct neighbor costs and economic stagnation. For example, if only considering property tax revenue losses to the City of Palo Alto due to the This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
particular RV situation neighboring our three complexes (Altaire, Echelon and Vantage), an estimate is $1.5 M - $1.8 M total reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year (see Example Economic Use Case B below). Presumably, overall economic impacts for Palo Alto are much higher. I would be happy to update more complete health and economic impact estimates with council members & neighbors, and appropriate solutions.

Sincerely,
Colin Swindells
3769 Klamath Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Health Risks
Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of potential health risks, categorized for clarity.

Summary Challenges: This is a complex public health issue with significant impacts on both the unhoused individuals living in the RVs and the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. The health risks are not inherent to the people, but rather stem from the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure, and basic services that come with living in non- designated areas.

1. Environmental Health and Sanitation Risks
This is often the most immediate and visible category of health risks. A high concentration of RVs without access to proper utilities creates a significant bio-load on the immediate environment.

Improper Disposal of Human Waste (Black Water): RVs have toilets and black water holding tanks that need to be emptied regularly. Without legal and accessible dump stations, occupants may be forced to dump raw sewage into storm drains, gutters, or onto the ground.

Health Risks: This introduces dangerous pathogens into the environment.

Bacteria: E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, which can cause severe gastrointestinal illness.

Viruses: Norovirus and Hepatitis A, which are highly contagious and can be spread through contaminated surfaces or water.

Parasites: Giardia and Cryptosporidium, leading to diarrheal diseases.

Impact: These pathogens can contaminate public sidewalks, wash into local waterways (creeks, bays), and potentially seep into the soil in parks or green spaces where children and pets play.

Improper Disposal of Gray Water: This is wastewater from sinks and showers.

While less hazardous than black water, it contains soaps, food particles, and bacteria that can create foul odors, attract pests, and pollute storm drains.

Accumulation of Solid Waste (Trash): Without regular municipal trash collection, garbage can pile up in and around the RVs.

Health Risks:

Pest Infestations: Accumulating trash is a breeding ground for rodents (rats, mice) and insects (flies, cockroaches).

Vector-Borne Diseases: Rodents can carry diseases like Hantavirus (from droppings), Leptospirosis, and Salmonellosis. Flies can transfer bacteria from waste to food surfaces.

Hazardous Material Spills: RVs use and store hazardous materials.

Health Risks: Leaks or spills of gasoline, diesel, propane, motor oil, and battery acid can contaminate the soil and groundwater. Propane tanks pose a significant fire and explosion risk, especially if they are old, damaged, or improperly stored.

2. Public Health and Communicable Disease Risks
The dense, close-quarters living conditions, combined with a lack of sanitation, can create an environment where diseases can spread easily, affecting both the RV occupants and, potentially, the wider community.

Increased Risk of Outbreaks: The unsanitary conditions described above (especially human waste) create a perfect environment for outbreaks of diseases like Hepatitis A or Shigellosis, which have been documented in similar encampment situations in other cities.

Respiratory Illnesses: The constant running of generators for power produces carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5).

Health Risks: Poor air quality can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory conditions for nearby residents. For RV occupants, there is a severe risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, which can be fatal, especially in poorly ventilated vehicles.

Spread of Other Diseases: Lack of access to running water for handwashing and hygiene facilitates the spread of viruses like influenza and COVID-19, as well as skin conditions like scabies and lice among the encampment population.

3. Physical Safety and Hazard Risks
The physical presence of a large number of vehicles not designed for permanent street parking creates numerous safety hazards.

Fire Hazards: This is one of the most significant risks.

Causes: Fires can be started by faulty internal wiring in older RVs, unsafe heating methods (propane heaters, stoves), cooking accidents, or generator malfunctions.

Magnified Risk: In a dense cluster of 50 RVs, a fire in one vehicle can quickly spread to adjacent RVs and potentially to nearby homes, trees, or parked cars. The presence of propane tanks can lead to explosions, accelerating the fire's spread and endangering firefighters.

Access Issues: The RVs may block streets or fire hydrants, impeding emergency vehicle access.

Traffic and Pedestrian Safety:

Blocked Sightlines: RVs parked at intersections can block visibility for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, increasing the risk of accidents.

Obstruction of Public Ways: Vehicles parked on sidewalks or in bike lanes force pedestrians and cyclists into the street, into the path of traffic.

4. Mental and Social Health Impacts
These risks affect both the housed residents and the unhoused occupants.

For Neighborhood Residents:

Stress and Anxiety: Constant noise from generators, fear of crime, concern over sanitation, and feelings of a loss of neighborhood safety can lead to chronic stress and anxiety.

Loss of Public Space: Residents may feel unable to use public parks, sidewalks, or other common areas due to perceived or real safety and sanitation concerns.

For RV Occupants:

Extreme Stress and Trauma: It's crucial to acknowledge the immense health risks faced by the unhoused individuals themselves. They live in a state of constant vulnerability, facing the threat of displacement, harassment, violence, and theft.

Exacerbation of Health Conditions: Lack of stability, nutrition, and access to healthcare worsens pre-existing conditions, including physical illnesses, mental health disorders, and substance use disorders.

Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario:

With a density of 50 RVs in such a small area, all the risks mentioned above would be significantly magnified.

Environmental Load: The daily output of human waste, gray water, and trash from 50+ people would quickly overwhelm the local environment, creating tangible biohazard zones.

Air and Noise Pollution: The cumulative noise and fumes from dozens of generators running simultaneously would create a constant, unhealthy environment for everyone within that 1000-foot radius and beyond.

Cascading Fire Risk: A fire would be a catastrophic event with a high probability of spreading to multiple vehicles and structures.

Public Health Emergency Potential: An outbreak of a communicable disease like Hepatitis A would have a high potential for rapid spread within the encampment and would require a major intervention from public health departments.

In conclusion, a high concentration of RVs in a residential neighborhood without proper infrastructure poses serious, multifaceted health risks related to environmental contamination, communicable disease, fire safety, and public safety. Addressing this issue effectively requires a public health-led approach that provides safe, sanctioned locations with sanitation services, coupled with robust outreach to connect the unhoused occupants with healthcare, housing, and other support services.

Economic Risks
Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of potential economic risks, categorized for clarity.

Summary Challenges: Building on the public health risks, the economic risks associated with a high concentration of illegally parked RVs are significant and can affect homeowners, local businesses, and the municipal government. These risks are not caused by the unhoused individuals themselves, but by the circumstances of living in unmanaged, unsanctioned encampments that lack infrastructure and services.

Example Economic Use Case A: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Echelon…
Total Units in Echelon: 75
Conjecture A: $1.75 M average current value (Q4 2025)
Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation Estimate A: $2.3 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.75 M / (1 - 25%)]
Estimate B: $43.8 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.75 M) * 75 units]
Estimate C: $438 k total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value]
Example Economic Use Case B: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Altaire, Echelon, and Vantage…
Total Units: 254
Conjecture A: $1.7 M - $2.1 average current value per unit (Q4 2025) Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation Estimate A: $2.3 M - $2.8 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.7 M / (1 - 25%); $2.1 M / (1 - 25%)]
Estimate B: $152 M - $178 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.7 M) * 254 units; ($2.8 M - $2.1 M) * 254 units] Estimate C: $1.5 M - $1.8 M total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value]

1. Impact on Real Estate and Property Values
This is often the most direct and significant economic impact for neighborhood residents.

Decreased Property Values: The presence of a large, unsanctioned encampment can lead to a measurable decline in property values. Factors contributing to this include:

Perceived Decline in Safety and Quality of Life: Potential buyers are often deterred by visible signs of disorder, sanitation issues, and perceived crime.

Visual Blight: The physical appearance of a large number of dilapidated or poorly maintained vehicles, along with associated debris, can negatively impact the aesthetic appeal of a neighborhood.

Noise and Air Pollution: Constant generator noise and exhaust fumes make the neighborhood less desirable.

Difficulty Selling or Renting Properties:

Longer Market Time: Homes and apartments within the affected area may take significantly longer to sell or rent.

Reduced Sale Prices and Rental Income: To attract buyers or tenants, property owners may be forced to lower their asking prices or rent, leading to a direct financial loss. Landlords may experience higher vacancy rates.

Stifled Home Improvement Investment: Homeowners may become hesitant to invest in renovations or upgrades, fearing they will not see a return on their investment due to the declining desirability of the neighborhood.

2. Increased Costs for Municipal and Public Services
The burden on public services translates directly to increased costs for the city, which are ultimately borne by taxpayers.

Increased Emergency Service Costs: A high-density encampment places a disproportionate demand on emergency services.

Fire Department: High frequency of calls for fires (vehicle, trash, tent), medical emergencies, and responses to propane leaks or generator malfunctions. These calls are resource-intensive.

Police Department: Increased calls for service related to disputes, wellness checks, theft, and other crime, requiring significant officer time.

Paramedics/EMT: Frequent medical calls for both encampment occupants and potential issues in the surrounding neighborhood.

Significant Sanitation and Cleanup Costs:

Biohazard Removal: Cleaning up human waste, used needles, and other biohazardous materials requires specialized crews and equipment, which is far more expensive than standard trash collection.

Large-Scale Debris Removal: The city often bears the cost of clearing out abandoned vehicles, accumulated trash, and personal property after an encampment is cleared. These operations can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per event.

Public Health Response Costs: As mentioned in the health risks, an outbreak of a communicable disease like Hepatitis A would necessitate a costly public health campaign for containment, testing, and vaccination.

3. Negative Impact on Local Businesses
Small, local businesses are particularly vulnerable to the economic fallout.

Reduced Revenue:

Loss of Foot Traffic: Customers may avoid shopping in areas they perceive as unsafe or unpleasant. Difficulty finding parking and navigating blocked sidewalks can further deter patrons.

Negative Reputation: A business located in or near a large encampment can suffer from a damaged reputation, driving away both regular and potential new customers.

Increased Operational Costs:

Security: Businesses may need to hire private security guards or install expensive surveillance systems.

Cleaning and Repairs: Daily costs for cleaning up litter, human waste, and graffiti from their storefronts. Costs to repair vandalism or break-ins.

Higher Insurance Premiums: Commercial insurance rates may increase if the area is deemed higher risk.

Employee-Related Issues: Businesses may struggle to attract and retain employees who feel unsafe commuting to or working in the area, especially during early morning or late-night shifts.

4. Direct Financial Costs to Residents
Beyond the impact on property values, residents may face direct, out-of-pocket expenses.

Installation of Security Measures: Many residents will feel compelled to spend money on security cameras, enhanced lighting, alarms, and stronger fences.

Property Damage: Costs to repair damaged fences, remove graffiti, and replace stolen items (e.g., packages, items from yards or cars).

Increased Insurance Rates: If the neighborhood experiences a documented increase in crime or fire incidents, homeowners' insurance premiums could rise for everyone in the zip code.

5. Broader Economic Stagnation and Disinvestment
If the situation persists, it can lead to long-term economic damage to the neighborhood.

Deterred Investment: Private developers and businesses will be reluctant to invest in a neighborhood with such visible and unresolved social and sanitation issues. This can halt new construction, prevent new businesses from opening, and lead to a downward economic spiral.

Erosion of the Tax Base: A combination of declining property values and businesses closing or relocating can lead to a reduction in the city's property and sales tax revenue from that area. This, in turn, can mean less funding for public services, creating a vicious cycle.

Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario:

In a dense scenario like this, the economic risks are not just potential; they become a sustained reality.

Market Chill: The local real estate market would likely freeze or see a sharp, localized crash. It would be difficult to sell a home at a fair market price within that radius.

Budgetary Strain: The cost to the city for services would become a significant, recurring line item in the municipal budget, potentially diverting funds from other neighborhood services like park maintenance or library hours.
"Red Zone" for Business: The immediate area would likely become a "no-go" zone for new business investment, and existing small businesses would be under severe financial pressure, with a high risk of failure.

In essence, a high concentration of RVs creates a localized economic crisis driven by the failure to provide basic sanitation, safety, and housing infrastructure. The economic costs demonstrate the financial consequence of not addressing the root causes of homelessness and the need for managed, resourced solutions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Echelon Palo Alto" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]
.

To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/echelonpa/CAOcXV2HfbUCW7GW%3DQ0- rD9a%3D3rdXb%3DLhC4ydnXqfJk2LG8ks3A%40mail.gmail.com.

From: Rebecca Sanders
To: Council, City
Subject: Tonight"s discussion of the RV situation
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 10:19:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Lauing and Honorable Councilmembers:

The staff report is quite nebulous concerning the locations of certain areas where RVs will be able to congregate and receive services. I suspect Park Boulevard and surrounding streets in Ventura will be one of the specially designated spots since our neighborhood has been a de facto "permitted" area for years.

You KNOW how I feel. I want all neighborhoods to share equally in housing our RV dwellers. I propose a rotation system should be designed whereby RVs are relocated month to month across the city so that all residents may be equally impacted and equally helpful.

Please don't consign one or two neighborhoods to do the work for the whole city of taking care of our RV and vehicle dwellers.

Special thanks to Vice Mayor Veenker for calling this out at the Policy and Services Meeting.

Thank you and kind regards,
Becky Sanders
From: June Chang
To: Council, City
Subject: RV vanlording on E Meadow Circle
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 10:11:28 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable city council members,
The RVs occupying E Meadow Cir. causes health concerns and issues, increases traffic and noises at the cross street of E Meadow Drive and Fabian Way. Every RV comes with a car and/or a motorcycle, impacting Echelon, Vantage, and Altaire community.

E Meadow Circle and Fabian way never has street cleaning because of vanlording, not only it looks trashy but also raises health concerns.

Where are the rights of law abiding residents who moved into this neighborhood, paying taxes, hoping to build a clean and safe environment for their families? this is undoubtedly a decrease of the quality of life and the property value of honest Palo Alto residents, we seek to preserve.

Please approve:
- ban vanlording
- ⁠redistribution of RVs to other parts and/or RV parks; - ⁠and updated street signage for cleaning.

Much appreciated council member's consideration.
- Jung Chang
from Echelon Community.

This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Min Zhong
To: Council, City
Cc: Kratt, Ken
Subject: Serious illegal RV parking issue in Palo Alto
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:56:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
I am an owner of the Echelon community in the East Meadow and East Meadow Circle area. The illegal RV parking situation on public streets around my neighborhood and beyond in Palo Alto has become a serious public safety, health, environment, and economy issue. This situation has been seriously affecting the living quality of Palo Alto residents who are paying property tax, rentals, and utilities to keep Palo Alto a great place to live, while significantly draining the city budget to maintain those affected areas caused by those illegal RV campers.

Sincerely,
Min Zhong
3704 Feather Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Yingxi Liu
To: Council, City; Kratt, Ken
Subject: Please restrict oversized/RV parking on E Meadow Cir (Agenda Item #16, Oct 20) Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:51:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
Adopt Item #16 and immediately prohibit oversized/RV parking on E Meadow Circle and nearby residential streets. Our block is not equipped for long-term vehicle habitation. The current concentration has produced ongoing health, fire, and traffic hazards—sewage and trash, generator fumes and noise, blocked sightlines, and impeded emergency access. Public safety is non-negotiable.

Act now: post “No Oversized Vehicle Parking” signs, set tow-away hours, enforce consistently, and publish a 30-day implementation schedule. Pair this with sanctioned, serviced safe-parking in appropriate zones—compassion requires order.

I acknowledge and support my neighbor Colin Swindells for his detailed analysis; I align with his findings and request.

No more delays—restore basic standards on E Meadow Circle.

Sincerely,
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Marguerite Poyatos
To: Manu Kumar; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Steve Wong; Transportation; RevColl; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo R; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Maor Greenberg; Dave Stellman; Gaines, Chantal; Cathi Lerch; Dave Stellman; City Mgr; Moffatt, Pete; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan McKinley; McDonough, Melissa; Reifschneider, James; John Lerch; Binder, Andrew; City Attorney; Lauing, Ed; Lydia Kou; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; [email protected]; Becchetti, Benjamin; Cally Mei
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 8:42:29 AM
Attachments: Outlook-THE
image015.png
image018.png
Outlook-3lhybjrb
Outlook-logo 2 PNG.png
image011.png
Outlook-Green Hear
image020.png
image017.png
image021.png
image016.png
image019.png
Attachment A - Neighboring Cities’ OSV Parking Approaches.pdf Item 16 Staff Report (2).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Thank you, Manu!
I am following up to include Roger & Peter in this email chain. They also are interested in rectifying this RV/parking situation.

Attached is some information they had provided to us regarding a City Council meeting, which is scheduled for tonight, as well as parking regulations for neighboring cities.

On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 9:24 AM Manu Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:

Steve and fellow neighbors:

I posted some videos from my drive home yesterday on X for everyone to see what Palo Alto really looks like.
https://x.com/manukumar/status/1979554824749465636
It is abundantly clear that the City leadership is allowing the City to turn into trash/blight.

The parking regulations have glaring loopholes — just drive around the block and park in a different spot… maybe we can call it Musical RVs.

The laws/regulations need to be changed to ensure that such abuse of public property is not allowed altogether.

Regards,
-Manu
Click the card above, or scan the QR code with the camera on your phone. On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 8:39 AM Steve Wong <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to express concern about the growing number of RVs and motorhomes parked along the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000 block of Transport Street, and 800-900 block of Commercial Street in Palo Alto. The situation has gotten completely out of hand and is creating serious safety, accessibility, and parking issues for the businesses and employees who work in this area every day.

Many of these large vehicles have been parked for months at a time without moving, in clear violation of the City’s own parking rule stating that “Any vehicle parked on a public street must be moved every 72 hours.” It appears this rule is not being enforced, and the problem continues to worsen week after week.

There are also major safety concerns. Many of these RVs have propane tanks and running generators outside, which pose fire and explosion risks. They block visibility for drivers and pedestrians, and the growing number of them has turned these streets into unsafe and overcrowded areas.

This issue has now reached a point where it’s directly impacting local workers and businesses.

Parking has become extremely limited because RVs and motorhomes occupy most of the available spaces. In just the past week, we’ve seen even more of them arrive, taking over additional spots and making the situation worse.

We are asking the City of Palo Alto to take immediate action to enforce existing parking laws and address this problem before it escalates further. The current situation is unsafe, unfair, and unsustainable for those who work and operate businesses in this area.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We hope the city will take swift and visible steps to resolve it.

Sincerely,
Steven L. Wong - President
Phone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.0160
4067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council

From: Patrick Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <[email protected]>
Cc: Osbaldo R <[email protected]>; Xenia Czisch <[email protected]>; Bill McLane <[email protected]>; Ramon Moreno <[email protected]>; Lester Wong <[email protected]>; Maor Greenberg <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Manu Kumar <[email protected]>; Benjamin Becchetti <[email protected]>; Cathi Lerch <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; Pete Moffatt <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Steve Wong <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <[email protected]>; James Reifschneider <[email protected]>; Transportation <[email protected]>; John Lerch <[email protected]>; Andrew Binder <[email protected]>; Jade Jin <[email protected]>; City Attorney <[email protected]>; Ed Lauing <[email protected]>; Lydia Kou <[email protected]>; Vicki Veenker <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Patrick Burt <[email protected]>; Greer Stone <[email protected]>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety

Please. Every one of these pictures is a Safety violation where’s Waldo Patrick Kelly
From: Patrick Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:22:26 AM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <[email protected]>
Cc: Osbaldo R <[email protected]>; Xenia Czisch <[email protected]>; Bill McLane <[email protected]>; Ramon Moreno <[email protected]>; Lester Wong <[email protected]>; Maor Greenberg <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Manu Kumar <[email protected]>; Benjamin Becchetti <[email protected]>; Cathi Lerch <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; Pete Moffatt <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Steve Wong <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <[email protected]>; James Reifschneider <[email protected]>; Transportation <[email protected]>; John Lerch <[email protected]>; Andrew Binder <[email protected]>; Jade Jin <[email protected]>; City Attorney <[email protected]>; Ed Lauing <[email protected]>; Lydia Kou <[email protected]>; Vicki Veenker <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Patrick Burt <[email protected]>; Greer Stone <[email protected]>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety

Patrick Kelly
From: Patrick Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 6:37:09 AM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <[email protected]>
Cc: Osbaldo R <[email protected]>; Xenia Czisch <[email protected]>; Bill McLane <[email protected]>; Ramon Moreno <[email protected]>; Lester Wong <[email protected]>; Maor Greenberg <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Manu Kumar <[email protected]>; Benjamin Becchetti <[email protected]>; Cathi Lerch <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; Pete Moffatt <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Steve Wong <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <[email protected]>; James Reifschneider <[email protected]>; Transportation <[email protected]>; John Lerch <[email protected]>; Andrew Binder <[email protected]>; Jade Jin <[email protected]>; City Attorney <[email protected]>; Ed Lauing <[email protected]>; Lydia Kou <[email protected]>; Vicki Veenker <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Patrick Burt <[email protected]>; Greer Stone <[email protected]>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety

Hasn’t moved in a month. Visibility non existent for pedestrians. Safety issues are on your shoulders when something happens.

Patrick Kelly
From: Marguerite Poyatos <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 8:39:37 AM
To: Patrick Kelly <[email protected]>
Cc: Osbaldo R <[email protected]>; Xenia Czisch <[email protected]>; Bill McLane <[email protected]>; Ramon Moreno <[email protected]>; Lester Wong <[email protected]>; Maor Greenberg <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Manu Kumar <[email protected]>; Benjamin Becchetti <[email protected]>; Cathi Lerch <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; Pete Moffatt <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Steve Wong <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <[email protected]>; James Reifschneider <[email protected]>; Transportation <[email protected]>; John Lerch <[email protected]>; Andrew Binder <[email protected]>; Jade Jin <[email protected]>; City Attorney <[email protected]>; Ed Lauing <[email protected]>; Lydia Kou <[email protected]>; Vicki Veenker <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Patrick Burt <[email protected]>; Greer Stone <[email protected]>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety

CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not trust.

I would also like to note that the propane tank I mentioned a couple weeks ago is still sitting in the street. Is this not a safety hazard? From what I have read, they shouldn't be allowed to be kept in the street for multiple reasons.

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 8:34 AM Patrick Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:

The safety on this street keeps getting worse. No visibility, no concern for environmental issues. Please help.

Patrick Kelly
From: Osbaldo R <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:57:53 PM
To: Xenia Czisch <[email protected]>; Bill McLane <[email protected]> Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <[email protected]>; Ramon Moreno <[email protected]>; Lester Wong <[email protected]>; Maor Greenberg <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; Patrick Kelly <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Manu Kumar <[email protected]>; Benjamin Becchetti <[email protected]>; Cathi Lerch <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; Pete Moffatt <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Steve Wong <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <[email protected]>; James Reifschneider <[email protected]>; Transportation <[email protected]>; John Lerch <[email protected]>; Andrew Binder <[email protected]>; Jade Jin <[email protected]>; City Attorney <[email protected]>; Ed Lauing <[email protected]>; Lydia Kou <[email protected]>; Vicki Veenker <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Patrick Burt <[email protected]>; Greer Stone <[email protected]>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety

CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not trust.

O.R. Builders Inc.

Xenia Czisch
Osbaldo Romero
President
939 Industrial Ave
Palo Alto, Ca. 94303
Phone: 650.938.2222
Fax: 650.938.2224
Cell: 415.215.6788

From: Xenia Czisch <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:53 PM
To: 'Bill McLane' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Marguerite Poyatos' <[email protected]>; 'Ramon Moreno' <[email protected]>; 'Lester Wong' <[email protected]>; 'Maor Greenberg' <[email protected]>; 'Dave Stellman' <[email protected]>; 'Patrick Kelly' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Manu Kumar' <[email protected]>; 'Benjamin Becchetti' <[email protected]>; 'Cathi Lerch' <[email protected]>; 'Dave Stellman' <[email protected]>; 'City Mgr' <[email protected]>; 'Pete Moffatt' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Steve Wong' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Dan McKinley' <[email protected]>; 'Melissa McDonough' <[email protected]>; 'James Reifschneider' <[email protected]>; 'Transportation' <[email protected]>; 'John Lerch' <[email protected]>; 'Andrew Binder' <[email protected]>; 'Jade Jin' <[email protected]>; 'City Attorney' <[email protected]>; 'Ed Lauing' <[email protected]>; 'Lydia Kou' <[email protected]>; 'Vicki Veenker' <[email protected]>; 'City Council' <[email protected]>; 'Patrick Burt' <[email protected]>; 'Greer Stone' <[email protected]>; 'Julie Lythcott-Haims' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety

+ [email protected]

Vice President of
Operations
phone: (650) 858-2491
mobile: (650) 804-4225
fax: (650) 858-2494
4047 Transport St
Palo Alto, CA 94303
www.qualitymetalspinning.us

From: Bill McLane <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:48 PM
To: Xenia Czisch <[email protected]>
Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <[email protected]>; Ramon Moreno <[email protected]>; Lester Wong <[email protected]>; Maor Greenberg <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; Patrick Kelly <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Manu Kumar <[email protected]>; Benjamin Becchetti <[email protected]>; Cathi Lerch <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; Pete Moffatt <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Steve Wong <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Dan McKinley <[email protected]>; Melissa McDonough
<[email protected]>; James Reifschneider <[email protected]>; Transportation <[email protected]>; John Lerch <[email protected]>; Andrew Binder <[email protected]>; Jade Jin <[email protected]>; City Attorney <[email protected]>; Ed Lauing <[email protected]>; Lydia Kou <[email protected]>; Vicki Veenker <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Patrick Burt <[email protected]>; Greer Stone <[email protected]>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety

I didn’t get my tape measure out, but I’d be willing to bet this is more than 18 inches from the curb. I believe that’s a violation of California parking laws.

Bill McLane
---------------------------------
Palo Alto Glass, Inc.
4085 Transport Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-494-7000 Office
Xenia Czisch
Vice President of
Operations
phone: (650) 858-2491
mobile: (650) 804-4225
fax: (650) 858-2494
4047 Transport St
Palo Alto, CA 94303
www.qualitymetalspinning.us
www.paloaltoglass.com

On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 1:25 PM Xenia Czisch <[email protected] > wrote:
+ [email protected]

From: Marguerite Poyatos <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:13 PM
To: Ramon Moreno <[email protected]>
Cc: Lester Wong <[email protected]>; Maor Greenberg <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; Patrick Kelly <[email protected]>; Bill McLane <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Manu Kumar <[email protected]>; Benjamin Becchetti <[email protected]>; Cathi Lerch <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; Pete Moffatt <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Steve Wong <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <[email protected]>; James Reifschneider <[email protected]>; Transportation <[email protected]>; John Lerch <[email protected]>; Andrew Binder <[email protected]>; Jade Jin <[email protected]>; Xenia Czisch <[email protected]>; City Attorney <[email protected]>; Ed Lauing <[email protected]>; Lydia Kou <[email protected]>; Vicki Veenker <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Patrick Burt <[email protected]>; Greer Stone <[email protected]>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety

Chantal,

Please see the attached images. An enforcement officer went around this morning and gave out the 72 hour tow notices.

I watched the gentleman with the Raiders RV (in attached image) remove all tow notices from his vehicles and will not move them. I will be taking pictures of his vehicles in the next coming days to show that he will be in violation of the notices. Also, he has a propane tank (also in attached image) that has been sitting in the street for a few months now. Can that be addressed?

The other picture shows a tow notice sitting in the gutter, which is where many of these end up. Can there be any enforcement for littering?

As others are stating, I would also hope something can be done for the safety of pedestrians. As I was walking to my car today, I was almost hit by a car because there is no visibility for cars coming down the street or pedestrians.

Thank you.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:12 PM Ramon Moreno
<[email protected]
> wrote:

Dear City of Palo Alto,

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing issues caused by the RV encampments in Palo Alto, which are directly impacting my business and the safety of my students and their families.

As the owner of the Ramon Moreno School of Ballet, I am dedicated to maintaining a safe, clean, and welcoming environment for our students and their families.

However, recent circumstances are making that increasingly difficult.

One of the most pressing issues is illegal dumping. Individuals from the RV encampments have been using my business’s garbage disposal for their personal waste, resulting in contamination. Because of this, the city has refused to collect the trash, and I have now been left to clean and dispose of everything myself—at my own expense. If I don’t, I’ve been informed that I may face additional charges. This is unacceptable and places an unfair financial and operational burden on my business. I understand that I am not alone—many neighboring businesses are facing similar challenges.

Additionally, the presence of these encampments has created ongoing safety concerns. Several families have shared their discomfort and hesitation about bringing their children to class, due to the unpredictable and sometimes unsafe conditions surrounding my studio. This is not just an inconvenience; it poses a direct risk to the well-being of the children, their families, my staff, and the reputation of our school.

I would like to know what specific actions the city is taking to address these challenges. While I understand that this is a complex issue, local businesses should not be expected to shoulder the consequences alone. The safety of our community and the ability for small businesses to operate without disruption should be a priority.

I urge the City of Palo Alto to present a clear and immediate plan of action that includes:

Proper and reliable waste management enforcement
Increased monitoring and enforcement of local ordinances Measures to ensure public safety for local families and business owners

Attached to this email are photos documenting the contamination of my garbage disposal and the resulting conditions. I hope these images convey the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need for intervention.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to seeing meaningful steps taken to support the well-being of our local business community.

Sincerely,
Ramon Moreno
Owner & Director
Ramon Moreno School of Ballet

Please feel free to text or call:
650-304-1909

Thank you,

Ramon Moreno

www.ramonmorenoballet.com
www.facebook.com/pg/RamonMorenoSchool

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:43 PM Lester Wong <[email protected] >
wrote:

Commercial St. was cleared last night. Thank you for your efforts!

The wooden RV seems to be a severe safety issue. A former coworker spoke to the man living in it a couple years ago and was told there is a wood burning oven/stove inside the RV, which he uses. Seems like that could be a severe safety hazard not only for the man residing in it, as well as for the surrounding RV's/vehicles & businesses if it were ever to catch fire.

We have had to face a number of safety hazards on this street. It is unsafe for pedestrians. We have had attempted break ins at night. We have been harassed by people associated with these RV's, as well as loose dogs, just to name a couple issues. Luckily, police officers do respond and try to help but there will be a time when they will be too late to prevent injury.

The community officers coming through and putting notices on vehicles is nowhere near the solution needed for this area. The notices are thrown away and the vehicles rarely move. I believe this email string started in 2023 and we have had minimal progress with the actual issues at hand.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:19 PM Maor Greenberg
<[email protected]
> wrote:

City of palo alto!! please let me know how this is Legal for driving also come and clean the street as it’s not safe see attached

Maor Greenberg
CEO
[email protected] |
650-610-7711
Greenberg.Construction | 650-600-
9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325
908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto
94303

What is it going to take for the city of Palo Alto to catch up to the rest of the country? A lawsuit when someone in our neighborhood is injured because of the unsafe conditions that exist here? This email chain alone would be enough evidence to show the city’s knowledge of the problem and inaction.

With newly enacted laws giving cities the legal right to clean up our public spaces, local cities like Mountain View, Santa Clara and San Jose have already begun the process of relocating and housing these people that need it. Why not Palo Alto? Its not a money issue here, and even if it was, wouldn’t it be less costly to tow some vehicles and help relocate them to a safer area than to pay the cost of litigation?

We are asking the city to stop ignoring this issue before it becomes an even bigger problem.

--
Marguerite Poyatos
Palo Alto Glass, Inc.
4085 Transport Street
Palo Alto CA 94303
(650) 494-7000
(650) 494-7087 (FAX)
Attachment A: Neighboring Cities’ OSV Parking Regulations The following is a non-exhaustive list of the approaches some of our neighbor cities have taken to managing the impacts of inhabited Oversized Vehicles (OSVs).

San Jose
•“Oversized and Lived-In Vehicle Enforcement” (OLIVE) pilot program 1:
oThe program, funded by a $1.5 million budget addendum, is intended to help address the environmental and safety issues caused by oversized vehicles, including lived-in vehicles, parked on city streets. It directs City staff to:
▪Identify areas impacted by the parking of oversized and lived-in vehicles on city streets
▪Establish temporary tow-away zones to allow cleanup of impacted areas and encourage vehicles to relocate
▪Analyze the feasibility of installing permanent parking restrictions at select locations
o30 sites were identified in FY 2025 and up to 50 will be identified in FY 2026 for temporary tow-away parking restrictions (approximately one month in duration) to help facilitate the cleanup and street sweeping of the area and encourage people to move their vehicles out of the restricted zone. Vehicles that are not voluntarily moved from tow away zones will be subject to towing and impound. Based on the success of the temporary restrictions, up to 10 sites will be considered for permanent parking restrictions.
•Designated “no overnight parking” and “no large vehicle parking” zones. Towing authorized for violations.2
•Ban on vanlording and on living in vehicles, which went into effect in July 2025. 3 Services including safe parking, vehicle buy-back program, biowaste removal, and trash pickups for lived-in vehicles.4
San Mateo
•Prohibits parking oversize vehicles and detached trailers on residential streets throughout the city. 5
•Prohibits living in vehicles. 6 The City had not been enforcing this ordinance, which was originally passed in the 1990s, but recently began enforcing it again after a dedicated outreach period.7 Menlo Park
•Effective April 2025, OSVs may not park overnight (2-5 am) on any public street in the city. 8 •The City also recently updated its 72-hour ordinance and adopted ordinance language to implement AB 413 (state law that prohibits parking within defined distance of intersections).9 Fremont
•In late 2024, the Fremont City Council approved municipal code amendments that would:
oProhibit parking an OSV on any public street within 100 feet of a residential property line.10
oAmend the City’s 72-hour ordinance to clarify that “Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in the same location or parking spot for seventy-two (72) consecutive hours must be moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure.”11 oThe associated staff report 12 acknowledged that enforcement would be largely complaint-based. Staff estimated that substantially expanding parking enforcement beyond their current model would require several additional FTEs at a total ongoing expense of about $1.2 million plus additional one-time expenses for equipment and material.

Sunnyvale
•Sunnyvale plans to expand safe parking. At the end of 2024, the Council passed an ordinance 13 that would govern safe parking programs in the city. It also directed staff to pursue implementing a safe parking pilot program on public land and a general fund grant for nonprofit or faith-based organizations to provide safe parking on private land.14 San Francisco
•San Francisco recently imposed a citywide two-hour limit on OSV parking. Vehicles that have applied for and received a “refuge permit” are exempt from enforcement.15 To be eligible for a permit, applicants must:
oHave been living in a large vehicle in SF as of May 2025 (verified by City staff count) oBe actively engaging with City services for the unhoused oAgree to adhere to a “good neighbor policy”
oAllow Public Works to clear debris around the vehicle
oAgree to relinquish the vehicle (via City-run buy-back program or otherwise) and enter permanent housing or non-congregate interim housing if offered. •The City has budgeted $13 million for the program over two years. Enforcement is set to start November 1, 2025.

Cupertino
•City recently passed a first reading 16 of an ordinance that would ban overnight OSV parking throughout the city. Housed city residents would be eligible to apply for up to 20 permits a year that would allow them to park their OSVs on the street for up to 72 hours at a time. •The ordinance also bans renting out a vehicle for living or sleeping quarters in the public right of way.
•At the time this report was written, the ordinance had not yet taken effect. 1 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/parking/vehicle- abatement/oversized-and-lived-in-vehicle-enforcement
2 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:eab8cf93-9cc5-4caf-a89a-0358319167f0 3 https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1363727 4 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/residents/homelessness-hub/homelessness-hub-faqs 5 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2407/Oversized-Vehicle-Parking 6 https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/10.04.140#(a) 7 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:9f595393-eae3-4d52-b18d- 88cb77eef4f0?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
8 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/MenloPark/html/MenloPark11/MenloPark1124.html#11.24.075 9 https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2024- meetings/agendas/20241112/l1-20241112-cc-oversized-vehicle-and-parking-ord.pdf 10 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont10/Fremont1005.html#10.05.555 11 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont10/Fremont1005.html#10.05.550 12 https://fremontcityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1980&MediaPosition=&ID=5 285&CssClass=
13 https://ecode360.com/46385883
14 https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7014182&GUID=1ED10C32-1325-4891-ABED- 959D528361C5&G=FA76FAAA-7A74-41EA-9143-F2DB1947F9A5&Options=&Search=&FullText=1 15 https://www.sf.gov/large-vehicle-refuge-permit-program 16 https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7640446&GUID=AA6B4AEF-0865-48BB-ADEB- 056F131B83A5
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: October 20, 2025
Report #:2509-5183
TITLE
Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts, Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council Approve the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to:

1. Approve the phased approach (described below) to addressing oversized vehicle (including recreational vehicle) impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in vehicles; and

2. Approve amendments to the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Appropriation (requires a 2/3 vote) to resource aspects of the phased approach in the:
a. General Fund by:
i. Increasing the contractual services appropriation for the City Manager’s Office by $157,000 for resources to support program implementation; ii. Decreasing the Reserve: Business Tax Revenue for Housing Affordability by $157,000;
iii. Increasing the contractual services appropriation for the Office of Transportation by $150,000 for engineering services;
iv. Increasing the contractual services appropriation in the Public Works Department by $60,000 for street clean-up services;
v. Increasing the contractual services appropriation in the Police Department by $95,000 for marking and enforcement of vehicles; vi. Decreasing the Budget Stabilization Reserve by $305,000; b. Refuse Fund by:
i. Increasing the contractual services appropriation by $245,000 for new permanent and temporary street cleaning signage; and

ii. Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $245,000.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report updates information presented to the Policy and Services Committee at its August 25, 2025 meeting as well as reflecting the Committee’s recommendation to the full Council.

This recommendation follows the 2025 Council Priority Objective to present options for addressing impacts associated with oversized vehicles (OSVs), particularly individuals living in vehicles. Following the initial report outlining a range of possible strategies, the Policy and Services Committee (the Committee) reviewed the options, amended the staff proposal, and is recommending a phased approach for full Council consideration.

The recommended approach reflects a balanced approach to addressing public health, safety, and neighborhood concerns while also recognizing the complex needs of those living in vehicles. The proposed phasing begins with Phase 1 enacting regulatory measures and enhanced street cleanups and sweeping, including coordination with service providers such as LifeMoves, and appropriating $707,000 in FY 2026 across several funds. This would be followed by Phase 2, a small-scale pilot of enhanced services, such as mobile pump-outs and increased outreach. The approach also sets the stage for expanding safe parking on private and congregation-based lots and, over time, developing a program to limit OSV parking to designated streets. The Committee was split on limiting OSV parking to designated streets. In a 2-1 vote, the Committee recommended that Phase 2 begin exploring limiting OSV parking to certain streets, including direction to evenly distribute OSV permitted parking citywide, tie the OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time (PIT)1 count, explore an OSV permitting program, and clearly mark where OSV parking is permitted. Subsequent phases include approving items developed in earlier phases, implementation, and enforcement. Additional one-time and ongoing resources will be needed in future years to administer all phases of this program and will be brought forward as part of the annual budget process to allocate funding.

BACKGROUND
Homelessness continues to be one of the most complex and pressing societal issues affecting communities across California and the nation. In response, the City of Palo Alto has aligned its local efforts with the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020–2025, which the City formally endorsed in August 2021.2 Since that time, the City has advanced a 1 The PIT Count is a count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness at a specific point in time and occurs every other year in January.
2 Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025:
https://housingtoolkit.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb501/files/CommunityPlan_2020.pdf ; Council Staff Report, April 5, 2021 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendasminutesreports/reports/citymanager- reports-cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12133.pdf ; Council Action Minutes, August 9, 2021 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3354&compileOutputType= 1 range of initiatives to promote housing stability and reduce the impacts of homelessness, including:
•Strengthening renter protections,
•Enabling and supporting safe parking programs,
•Permitting and beginning construction of the Homekey interim shelter, and •Supporting affordable housing developments such as Wilton Court Apartments, 231 Grant Avenue, Mitchell Park Place, and projects on city-owned sites like Lot T downtown and 340 Portage Avenue.

The City also continues to respond to resident and business concerns regarding the visible impacts of homelessness, focusing both on service referrals and enforcement of existing laws.

Recognizing the need for a deeper understanding of local needs and service gaps, the City Council established a 2024 Council Priority Objective to conduct a gap analysis of local housing and homelessness services.3 That analysis was presented as an informational item on December 9, 2024, and discussed at a Council Study Session on February 10, 2025.4 The session also included updates on service coordination and enforcement efforts. As a result of that discussion, Council referred follow-up work to the Policy and Services Committee, and adopted two related 2025 Council Priority Objectives, asking staff to return as soon as feasible to Council to determine further action and to bypass extended stakeholder engagement at that time. The Council Priority Objectives are:5
•Present options to address homelessness impacts, particularly for individuals living in vehicles, to Policy and Services Committee for prioritization. •Organize an initial review of sources and methods to raise funding to support new affordable housing production for future evaluation.

Following the February Study Session, staff shared the gap analysis with the Human Relations Commission (HRC) on June 12, 2025, gathering input on housing and services for the unhoused.6 While no formal action was taken, individual Commissioners supported a wide 3 Council Meeting, December 4, 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-2CuhXvs84 4 Council Staff Report, December 9, 2024
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6549&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=12534; Council Staff Report, February 10, 2025 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6751&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=13091
5This item responds to the first of the two objectives, the second will be referred to Finance Committee, once staff has identified and evaluated sources and methods. Council Staff Report, May 5, 2025, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=7767&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=14271
6 Human Relations Commission Staff Report, June 12, 2025 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=8147&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=14739
range of ideas, including expanded safe parking, particularly for RVs; incentives and streamlined processes for below-market-rate housing, addressing family homelessness (e.g., via hotel vouchers or tiny homes), shelter improvements, continued renter protections, and stronger partnerships with the tech industry to improve communications access (e.g., phones, Wi-Fi).

Most recently, on August 25, 2025, the Policy and Services Committee took up the Council Priority Objective—addressing impacts related to oversized vehicles (OSVs), including recreational vehicles (RVs).7 After discussion, the Committee voted on a split motion to recommend a phased approach. The full Committee agreed on Phases 1, 3 and 4. In a 2-1 vote, with Councilmember Veenker voting no, the Committee recommended to, in Phase 2, begin exploring limiting OSV parking to certain streets, including direction to evenly distribute OSV permitted parking citywide, tie the OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time count, explore an OSV permitting program, and clearly mark where OSV parking is permitted. The full motion text and vote is shown in full on the next page. The full staff report is included as Attachment B. 7 Council Staff Report, August 25, 2025,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=8615&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=15516

1. Discussion and recommendation to Council on prioritization of potential approaches to address oversized vehicle (including recreational vehicle) impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in vehicles

MOTION SPLIT FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING
MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City Council:

Phase 2:

Begin exploration of the “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” approach, including determining a process and criteria for designating streets where OSV parking might be permitted, with appropriate community engagement
oIdentify non-residential and non-residential adjacent streets where OSV parking would be permitted, and to the extent possible, evenly distribute those streets across the city oTie the number of OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time count oExplore the possibility of a permitting program for OSV oEvenly disburse permissible OSV parking spots across the identified streets to avoid overconcentration and clearly mark on those streets where OSV parking is permitted MOTION PASSED: 2-1, Veenker no
MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City Council:

Phase 1: Upon Council approval, staff would:

1. Develop an ordinance to prohibit parking of detached/inoperable vehicles on public streets,

2. Develop an ordinance to prohibit the renting of public parking spaces (“vanlording”),

3. Refine the scope and begin implementation of additional street cleanups and sweeping,

4. Return to Council for approvals of ordinances and contract amendments (e.g., street sweeping) as soon as possible, estimated to require up to four (4) months, and

5. Implementation and enforcement of these actions would follow.

6. Work with LifeMoves to consider options, such as a buyback or parking program, to accept RV residents quickly at the Homekey site or other housing options

7. Return to Council for direction for expanded safe parking on privately-owned and congregation- based parking lots, excepting any safe parking site that requires undedicating parkland Phase 2: Concurrent of Phase 1 implementation, staff would initiate work on:

1. Design a small-scale enhanced services pilot (e.g., mobile pump outs, additional outreach workers/hours, garbage pickup, etc.),
Phase 3: Following the completion of related components in Phase 2, Council would:

1. Approve pilot and any related contracts and agreements for small-scale enhanced services pilot,

2. Approve a preferred option for expanded safe parking on privately-owned and congregation- based parking lots,

3. Identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed and develop necessary ordinances and program design for “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” approach, and

4. Implementation of these actions would follow.

Phase 4: Following the completion of related components in Phase 3, staff would:

1. Evaluate the enhanced services pilot,

2. Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking, and

3. Obtain related Council approvals for “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” and begin enforcing new approach.

MOTION PASSED: 3-0

ANALYSIS
The recently received 2025 PIT count data shows 418 people experiencing homelessness in Palo Alto, compared to 206 people in 2023. The City continues to have a higher percentage of its unsheltered population living in vehicles compared to the County as a whole. Of those unsheltered in Palo Alto, 73 percent were in vehicles, while 37 percent were in vehicles countywide. There were 168 vehicles (29 cars, 120 RVs, and 19 vans) counted, 35 of which were in safe parking.8
As noted at the August Committee meeting, the growing number of people living in vehicles on public streets poses a health and safety challenge, reducing the on-street parking availability for other uses (e.g., residents, business employees and visitors), and necessitating outreach services, street cleaning, and waste disposal. The City has been receiving increased concerns from residents and the business community about long-term parking of oversized vehicles, debris and personal belongings obstructing streets and sidewalks, and improper disposal of human waste. The City Manager’s Office has seen a notable rise in these complaints beginning in Spring 2025. Other neighboring cities are also seeking a variety of ways to address inhabited OSVs, as summarized in Attachment A.

This report outlines the phased approach recommended by the Committee, beginning with some contextual information on state law. Then more detailed information is provided on the various actions proposed in the phased approach to: (1) reduce the impacts of accommodating OSV parking demand, (2) strengthen regulations in areas where impacts are occurring while preventing the impacts elsewhere, and (3) organize activities into phases that account for implementation timelines and the complexity of the issue.

Please note that one of the Committee actions was to move safe parking expansion from Phase 2 to Phase 1. To reflect the Committee intent of moving safe parking expansion up in the timeline, staff also moved associated safe parking expansion activities from Phases 3 and 49 to Phase 1; associated resource implications are also identified. Additionally, upon review of the motion, staff noted that the amended Phase 2 to “identify non-residential and non-residential adjacent streets where OSV parking would be permitted” is a revision of Phase 3 item 3 "identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed....” Since this was part of the split motion, if the full Council chooses to adopt the proposed amended language in Phase 2, staff would interpret the Phase 3 item 3 language as being the continuation and finalization of the work begun in Phase 2.

The many items in Phase 1 will trigger the immediate need for staff resources to handle coordination, administration, and implementation. Procurement, contracting, and/or 8 The County used a new survey methodology in 2025, so comparing to prior years is fundamentally not the same.

The full 2025 PIT Count report is available here: https://osh.santaclaracounty.gov/data-and-reports/point-time- count.
9 In the Policy and Services Motion this is Phase 3, item 2, but is now considered incorporated under/as part of Phase 1.
recruitment and hiring for this will likely take several months and may impact the rollout time for Phase 1.

State Law and Local Parking Regulations Relating to Oversized Vehicles In California, the state legislature holds preemptive authority over vehicle movement and parking regulations. Cities—including charter cities—may adopt local parking laws only as permitted by state law, and such laws must also comply with the U.S. Constitution.

In general, parking is allowed in the public right-of-way when: (a) it is not explicitly prohibited, and (b) the vehicle does not block an active lane of traffic, fire hydrants, driveways, or other areas restricted by state law. These rules apply equally to oversized vehicles (OSVs), unless a local jurisdiction adopts specific restrictions for OSVs, which the California Vehicle Code generally allows.

Palo Alto’s Municipal Code includes one provision regulating OSV parking: it prohibits OSVs from parking on the street in residential and public facility zones between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Although the Code states this rule is enforceable regardless of signage, state law prohibits enforcement without proper signage to notify drivers. (Practically speaking, OSVs rarely attempt to park in residential zones.)
State law also authorizes local jurisdictions to regulate parking in specific ways, such as with the “72-hour” rule. This allows cities to adopt ordinances permitting removal of a vehicle parked in the same spot for more than 72 hours. Palo Alto has a 72-hour ordinance, which also, to satisfy federal due process requirements, requires that City staff must post a notice on a vehicle stating it will be towed10 after 72 hours unless the vehicle travels at least five-tenths of a mile.

However, nothing in state or local law prevents a vehicle from moving and re-parking in the same location. Prior to towing a vehicle believed to be used for shelter, Police Department personnel and the City’s homeless outreach team collaboratively engage in outreach efforts to attempt to connect occupants with alternative housing or safe parking options. The Police Department has primarily focused on abandoned and non-operational OSVs. The Police Department has successfully collaborated with the City’s homeless outreach team and has not towed an occupied OSV.

Parking regulations are typically enforced through citations and fines. In certain situations, as defined by state law, vehicles may also be towed. Because towing is a form of property seizure, it triggers Fourth Amendment protections. Courts have ruled that a judicial warrant is generally required to tow a vehicle unless the action falls under the judicially-defined “community caretaking doctrine.” This doctrine authorizes towing vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic or to keep the vehicle from being a target for 10 The City's ability to tow OSVs is constrained by the limited number of tow companies operating the specialized equipment necessary for towing OSVs, and by limited local tow yard capacity to store OSVs. vandalism or theft. In most cases, towing also requires notice and an opportunity to correct the violation.

Signage and Enforcement Considerations
Parking restrictions, including the increased street sweeping parking restrictions and the proposed ordinance banning unattached trailer parking, require installing signage to be enforceable.11 Implementing signage for these items could include use of temporary signs and focused sign installation in areas of high activity.

The cost of signage could be substantial. For comparison, Mountain View spent about $980,00012 in 2020 to implement signage relating to its oversized vehicle parking ordinances. In Palo Alto, estimated costs are $1,900 per block for sign installation by a contractor. As a hypothetical maximum, with approximately 2,200 blocks and two signs per side of the block, this equates to roughly 8,800 signs at an estimated cost of $4.2 million if signs needed to be posted on every block on every street.13 (However, to enforce the recommended ordinance to prohibit unattached trailers, signage would not be required on every block in the City and installation could focus on particular areas. On the other hand, state law requires block-level signage, at minimum, for street sweeping parking restrictions). In addition to costs for installation, engineering is required for sign and pole placement field verification, and work order preparation for new street signs and poles (if needed) in public rights of way. For a Citywide signage program, an additional FTE limited duration equivalent to $244,000-$269,000 per year would be needed. There may also be an impact to the work of existing engineering staff on items such as development-related traffic control plan review, routine sign upgrades, traffic signal adjustments, traffic signal upgrades, traffic calming and traffic control device plan review, and complete streets projects engineering design). For reference, Mountain View’s implementation required over two traffic engineers working full-time for 9 to 12 months.

There would also be added work for Utility Locators to check for conflicts at each site, and ongoing maintenance after installation, likely requiring additional Public Works staffing.

Consistent with current practice,14 staff would also lead with outreach workers ahead of implementing increased street sweeping or any changes to enforcement. Dedicating the 11 In some cases, California cities adopting regulatory actions relating to OSV parking have been sued by advocates for the unhoused, resulting in legal costs.
12 Number not adjusted for inflation nor construction cost increases over time. https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4712008&GUID=B91F5618-049D-44E7-9BA9- 966071A60D1C&Options=&Search=
13 This estimate assumes the cost for one sign to be posted throughout the City - approximately 2,200 blocks in the City and 2 signs per side per block. If signage will be installed throughout the City it would equate to approximately 8,800 signs. Installation of signs and posts by a contractor is estimated at $4.2 million (8,800 x $475). However, not every new parking restriction may require signage to this extent. 14 Currently, Police and Public Works coordinate closely with the outreach team during a weekly huddle and as- needed.
outreach team to this work would likely impact their ability to rotate effectively throughout the city for contact with other unhoused people not living in these areas.

In terms of enforcement, a citywide parking regulation, inclusive of all the options presented in this report, would significantly increase parking enforcement workload, triggering the need for an additional 1 police officer and 1 parking enforcement officer. The approximate additional annual cost for either in-house FTEs or contracted services would be $400,000. The additional towing associated with a new citywide parking regulation could add approximately $40,000 in towing costs annually.15
Phased Approach – Actions to Accommodate Some Demand
Expanding Safe Parking on Privately-Owned and Congregation-Based Lots The City could expand safe parking options by pursuing partnerships with privately-owned commercial properties and building on its existing congregation-based safe parking program.

Allowing safe parking on private commercial property would require amending the zoning code and conducting site-specific environmental reviews under CEQA. Then the City could lease the property from interested owners and develop the site for safe parking use. Developing a zoning code amendment to allow safe parking on privately-owned sites is on the Planning and Development Services Department’s long-term work plan but is currently un-resourced.

Moreover, as currently scoped, this effort does not include identification of interested property owners, potential sites or funding sources. Progress would depend on a property owner coming forward, which has not happened so far. If that occurs, staff would need to adjust priorities to move this forward.16
15 The exact staffing and associated cost would depend on the specific regulation(s) adopted.

16 Additional Information on Resources for Safe Parking: Implementation of an expanded safe parking program on privately-owned lots, including commercial and congregation-based sites, would require substantial staff work.

This includes outreach to congregations, commercial property owners, and surrounding neighborhoods to gauge interest, identify concerns, and assess willingness to participate; evaluation of potential sites for suitability, including space requirements for RVs, circulation, access, lighting, sanitation, and safety standards; coordination with the Human Relations Commission and the Planning and Transportation Commission; and development of policy options for Council consideration; for example, it could be establishing a pilot program with willing partners or preparing a draft ordinance with defined conditions for private sites.

This scope of work is currently un-resourced. If Council directs staff to proceed, resources would need to be shifted from other Council priority projects, which would result in de-prioritizing or delaying work related to several initiatives including: stream corridor, bird-safe glass, wireless, and lighting/dark skies ordinance implementation and limit the number of Council priorities that could be implemented in calendar year 2026 while staff capacity is redirected to this effort.

Prior staff work on this issue in previous years noted several concerns from commercial property owners about participating in a safe parking program. Liability issues and increased insurance premiums were identified as significant barriers. Elected officials, partnered with staff in direct discussions with potential partners may be more One idea proposed at Policy and Services Committee was to consider safe parking or perhaps OSV storage on airport vacant land, including places leased to car dealerships. Residential use, including temporary or short-term occupancy, is prohibited on the airport under Section 2.3.1.2 of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Advisory Circular 150/5190-4B. The two staging areas on airport land total approximately 75,000 square feet over 2 sites and are currently leased for $0.86/square foot, generating roughly $774,000 annually. If used for unoccupied vehicle storage, federal grant assurances require that the Airport Enterprise Fund be compensated at this rate. The Runway Protection Zone overlays one of the sites and both sites are affected by the Runway 31 approach.

For congregation-based lots, existing City law allows up to eight vehicles to park overnight at approved sites.17 Staff could explore expanding this to allow 24-hour parking and possibly accommodate some oversized vehicles (OSVs). While OSVs aren’t currently prohibited, the program operator notes these vehicles are hard to manage with the daily movement required under current hours. Expanding to include OSVs or longer hours would require outreach to congregations to gauge interest and address neighbor concerns.

Resource Impacts
Exploring these expansion options would require staff time and reprioritizing other work. Costs depend on the level of expansion and site conditions, especially existing amenities. Additional funding would be needed for program management and might be needed for leases and infrastructure. For context, a recent safe parking expansion with existing facilities cost about $270,000 annually to accommodate 10 additional RV spaces.

Consider Options for Buyback or Parking Program
As mentioned elsewhere (see “Expanding Safe Parking...” above and “Enhanced Services...” following), both, a buyback program and pursuing storage or temporary parking of OSVs while occupants are participating in an interim shelter (e.g., Homekey) or housing program is a novel approach for the City. A couple of jurisdictions recently pursued buyback and at least one is leveraging a local storage facility to pursue storage. The efficacy, effort required, and costs for this approach are largely unknown at this time. A buyback program in Berkeley disbursed a total of $150,000 for 21 OSVs. The storage cost for OSVs would likely vary significantly based on location, security involved, and insurance costs. There are no existing OSV storage lots in Palo Alto. The nearest that staff is aware of is in the City of San Mateo and, at the time of this report, staff does not have the per vehicle per month rates charged. Staff estimates that exploring this option would take a couple months to research and analyze and that approvals, agreements, and implementation would require several additional months. Without additional staffing in the effective than developing a broad pilot program or ordinance, which tends to be more passive and resource intensive. If a partner is identified the city could negotiate a site-specific regulatory agreement to advance the City’s interests in this topic.
17 Safe parking at churches and other religious institutions is regulated at PAMC section 18.42.160. near term, an ambitious target would be returning to Council with a recommended path forward and funding request for the Fiscal Year 2027 budget.

Increased Cleaning and Street Sweeping on Selected Streets The City could focus increased cleaning and sweeping on streets where clusters of OSVs are parked. Streets impacted by OSVs require more frequent and thorough cleaning and maintenance than other areas to address refuse, biohazards, and debris. The City can use parking restrictions to support thorough street sweeping by prohibiting parking on designated streets during sweeping hours. Staff would propose to sweep each side of the designated streets twice per month on alternating weeks. For instance, one side could be swept the first and third Wednesday, while the other side was swept the second and fourth Wednesday.

Streets currently or recently affected by high concentrations of OSVs include Embarcadero Way, Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101, Faber Place, Elwell Court, Corporation Way, East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, Park Boulevard, Sheridan Avenue, Portage Avenue, Ash Street, Commercial Street, Transport Street, Industrial Avenue, the 1000 block of Colorado, the 900 block of San Antonio, Lambert, and Sheridan (east of Park).18 The street sweeping parking restrictions may encourage OSV owners to relocate, potentially shifting impacts to more sensitive areas like retail or residential neighborhoods.

To reduce storm drain contamination, the City could install filter fabric at storm drain locations to block larger debris, sediment, and soil particles from entering the storm drain system.

Additionally, specialized cleanup crews and equipment are necessary to address any biohazardous debris.

Resource Impacts
Costs for signage, increased street sweeping, and specialized cleanup services would need to be addressed. Installing street sweeping signage on the above-mentioned streets where the highest concentration of OSVs commonly park is estimated at about $100,000 in addition to staff time and deferral of other priorities in order to engineer the installation of the signs.

Posting temporary No Parking signs for the above-mentioned streets to enable expedited street cleaning work, before permanent signs are installed, is estimated at $143,000. Cleanup after OSVs move on—often involving fluid spills, biohazards, and abandoned items—requires dedicated crews working 4 to 8 hours per instance, costing between $2,000-$4,000 plus debris disposal fees. Increasing street sweeping to weekly schedule year-round on these streets would add roughly $12,000 annually. If street sweeping for these abovementioned street segments is changed from the current schedule of weekly sweeping during Leaf Season and bi-weekly 18 This list has been updated and amended since the Policy and Services Committee meeting to add portions of Colorado, San Antonio, Lambert, Olive, and Sheridan. Cost for in-house signage along these streets would be approximately $80,000 and take a minimum of 6 months with in-house staff operating on mandatory overtime.

The cost for the increased frequency of street sweeping would be $12,000 for weekly, year round sweeping of these streets. If the increase were to be one side of the street each week, year round there would be no net increase cost for the sweeping.
sweeping during non-Leaf Season, to sweeping only one side of the street twice per month year-round, alternating sides each week, then staff anticipates there will be no net increase in street sweeping cost.

Enforcement would increase the workload for Police Department parking enforcement staff, as well as increase towing expenses. First-year cost assumes this program would begin with temporary signage. Temporary signage must be maintained and properly noticed to be legally enforceable. At a minimum, staff are required to check temporary signage three days before the scheduled sweeping day when enforcement occurs prior to actual sweeping. If a vehicle is towed, staff time requires the presence of a parking officer and a sworn police officer. At inception, this program will require significant outreach by the police staff and the homeless outreach team. As compliance with the sweeping program increases, enforcement staff time and the number of tows is anticipated to decrease. The FY26 cost of this effort is estimated at $95,000, inclusive of staff time and enforcement towing - depending on vendor capacity to accept these vehicles. Ongoing costs would be a 0.5 FTE at $70,000 - $80,000 annually and some ongoing towing funding is already in the Police Department’s operating budget.

Enhanced Services Relating to Inhabited OSVs
The City could further address the impacts of inhabited OSVs with enhanced services, including outreach to people living in vehicles, mobile sanitation support (e.g., garbage collection, pump- out), and potentially explore new strategies like an OSV “buyback” program. These could complement expanded street sweeping and stormwater protection efforts already under consideration. Outreach is a key first step. People living in vehicles often take longer to engage with service providers and may be hesitant to leave the perceived independence and security of their vehicles for shelter options. The City currently has under contract two outreach workers who have recently updated their schedules so that one primarily operates weekday daytime shifts, while the other worker covers weekends and some evenings. Further expanding evening and weekend coverage could improve engagement and trust-building, as anecdotally, this population tends to be working during daytime and weekend hours.

To encourage voluntary participation in shelter programs, the City could consider piloting a vehicle buyback program, as seen in Berkeley and San Francisco, where modest cash incentives were offered in exchange for relinquishing vehicles and moving into interim housing. While promising, this remains a relatively new and untested strategy.

For sanitation, the City could designate a waste drop-off site for OSV occupants or use existing facilities with capacity for increased disposal. Staff does not recommend installing new public waste bins due to concerns about illegal dumping. However, another option could be to issue RV dwellers their own solid waste containers to be placed out for collection on assigned collection days and serviced by GreenWaste of Palo Alto. Some jurisdictions have piloted pump- out programs for RVs with mixed results. For example, Portland’s program served over 4,000 OSVs in a few years using a combination of scheduled routes and on-demand service, while other cities, like Long Beach, saw limited participation. Staff can further explore during Phase 2 how to help OSV occupants appropriately dispose of both their solid waste and liquid waste.

Resource Impacts
The City currently spends approximately $256,000 annually on its contracted outreach program, which includes two full-time outreach workers and a part-time manager.19 A potential OSV buyback program’s cost would depend on the scale of implementation. For reference, the City of Berkeley allocated $150,000 to a pilot program, which showed early success—20 out of 21 OSV occupants accepted a cash offer in exchange for moving into interim housing and relinquishing their vehicles.

Residential curbside refuse collection services provided by GreenWaste of Palo Alto, the City’s contracted hauler, are $50.07 per month for the standard size 32-gallon size container.

Extrapolating from the estimated number of 133 vehicles,20 the estimated projected additional annual expense for such service is about $80,000. Providing a larger container for each block, such as a two cubic yard bin, is another option but would come at a significantly higher cost.

Mobile pump-out services would require additional research to determine local costs, but available examples provide useful context. Portland spent roughly $805,000 over four years (about $22,000 per month), while Mountain View’s three-month pilot cost was $29,000 (about $7,250 per month), with a per-service cost of $391, not including staff time. These two programs had different service models.

Phased Approach – Actions to Increase Regulation
Prohibit Storage of Detached Trailers/Non-motorized Vehicles on Public Streets A common concern from the community is the presence of detached trailers and other non- motorized vehicles that are clearly not able to move under their own power and taking up public parking spaces. The City could adopt an ordinance banning the parking of non-motorized vehicles, such as camper shells and trailers, on public streets when not attached to a motor vehicle capable of legally moving them. Staff recommend a prohibition that applies throughout the City, at all hours. Alternatively, parking could be limited to a set duration, like 1-2 hours.

This would help free up parking spaces currently being used for storage of stationary vehicles unable to move under their own power to comply with the 72-hour parking limit.21 19 Currently, the program is funded through a combination of State Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) entitlement funds, City General Fund contributions, and financial support from Stanford University. 20 This number considers all vehicles not in safe parking (168 vehicles – 35 in safe parking). The estimate was calculated at 133 vehicles for $50.07/month each, totaling $6,659, or $79,912 annual cost. 21 The zoning code (Title 18) includes a prohibition on storing or parking non-operable conveyances on private property, except where screened from neighbors. This provision is enforced by Code Enforcement through issuance of warnings, administrative citations, and fines. For non-motorized conveyances on public streets, staff recommends adoption of a new ordinance specifically addressing use of public parking spaces, enforceable by the Police Department or Office of Transportation.

The ordinance would apply to all such conveyances, whether inhabited or not. At the Policy and Services Committee meeting, a Councilmember expressed concern for contractor trailers retaining the ability to park in public parking spaces. However, a ban on detached trailers will not impact trailers used by construction crews which already require a City permit for parking.

The prohibition could also include exceptions for loading/unloading and emergency repairs.

Signage would be necessary to enforce this rule, with priorities likely starting in areas most impacted by detached trailers.

The prohibition would be enforceable as a parking citation and by towing.

If directed to return on the Consent calendar with an ordinance as described in this section, staff could bring an ordinance for a first reading as early as December 2025 or January 2026.

Resource Impacts
Sign installation for enforcement would require some costs for the additional signage22 and staff from both the Office of Transportation and Public Works Department, similar to other parking restriction projects.

While enforcement, in the short term, is expected to moderately increase the workload for existing parking enforcement officers and increase towing costs, implementing multiple measures, to include clean sweeping enforcement and this strategy, may require an additional

0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff, at a cost of about $70,000-$80,000 annually. Towing would likely be done using the current operating budget and is dependent on towing company capacity. Enforcement for Detached Trailers/Non-motorized Vehicles and street sweeping would share resources.

Prohibit Renting of Public Parking Spaces (“Vanlording”) Staff identified that some occupied OSVs parked on city streets are being rented out by so- called “vanlords” who profit from leasing public parking spaces for habitation. To address this, the City could adopt an ordinance prohibiting the rental of vehicles for living purposes on public streets or the sale of space in the public right-of-way. The goal would be to prevent private profit-taking from a public resource and protect vulnerable renters who often pay for substandard, unregulated living conditions.

The ordinance would target the vanlord—not the renter—and could include escalating daily fines for violations. Other cities are beginning to take similar action. San José recently passed a vanlord-specific ordinance, and Los Angeles is considering one. While San Francisco doesn’t directly regulate vanlords, it does ban leasing public streets or sidewalks, with fines of up to $300 per violation.23
22 Staff believes that this signage would be less extensive and should cost a lower amount. 23 San Jose’s vanlording ordinance is available here:
https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1363727 Enforcement may be difficult, as identifying vanlords often depends on information from renters, who may be reluctant to cooperate if the practice is banned. As a result, enforcement would rely on staff investigations.

If Council directed staff to return on the Consent calendar with an ordinance prohibiting vanlording as described in this report, staff could bring an ordinance for a first reading as early as December 2025 or January 2026.

Resource Impacts
Implementing a vanlord ban would require staff resources, primarily from the Police Department and City Attorney’s Office. Staff would need to gather evidence—both online and in the field—identify the vanlord, and issue warnings or fines. If a vehicle is occupied, the City would also assess what support services could be offered to the residents. While it is still too early to determine impact to workloads for Police, to be effective with investigating illegal renting, Police staff expect one more police officer would need to be resourced – by either diverting away from other investigations, which is not recommended, or add 1.0 FTE during the FY 27 budget cycle at approximately $280,000 ongoing.

Limit OSV Parking to Certain Streets with Focused Regulations The City could manage OSV parking by designating specific streets for OSV parking and prohibiting it elsewhere. This strategy, similar to Mountain View’s approach under the term of a legal settlement,24 would help mitigate public health, sanitation, and parking impacts while providing clearer guidelines for both enforcement and services. These designated streets would likely be in commercial or industrial areas where residential or school-adjacent impacts are minimized.25 This targeted approach, paired with the above-mentioned increased services— regular street sweeping, trash/waste collection/removal, and safety measures—on streets where OSVs are allowed. Localized parking regulations like red curbs and intersections clearances could also be implemented to maintain safety and access.

Preliminary analysis suggests that street segments where OSVs are currently clustered could accommodate an estimated 200 OSVs,26 though this would reduce the availability for other users and pose ongoing localized challenges arising from habitation on public rights of way not 24 At Policy and Services, a Councilmember asked what the change in number of OSVs was in Mountain View since it began enforcing its oversized vehicle restrictions in October 2022. Mountain View counted 208 vehicles in August 2022 (138 RVs, 35 passenger vehicles, 35 other), 151 vehicles in January 2023 (115 RVs, 21 passenger vehicles, 15 other vehicles), 148 vehicles in August 2023 (99 RVs, 11 passenger vehicles, 38 other), and 223 vehicles in July 2024 (143 RVs, 31 passenger vehicles, 49 other). Mountain View had not published its 2025 vehicle count at the time this report was written.
25 The municipal code already prohibits OSV parking between the hours of 2:00 and 6:00 am on streets located within residential and public facilities zones. However, to enforce the provision, state law requires local jurisdictions to install signs adequately informing parkers of the restriction. Moreover, any attempt to formally designate a subset of non-residential streets on which OSVs may park (i.e., prohibiting OSV parking on all other streets) would require amending the municipal code.
26 Per the 2025 PIT Count, there were 170 vehicles counted: 29 cars, 122 RVs, and 19 vans. designed to support the ongoing activities of living.27 In consideration of these localized challenges, two of three Committee members voted to identify non-residential and “non- residential-adjacent”28 streets where OSV parking would be permitted, with the goal of distributing these locations as evenly as possible through the city to avoid overconcentration.29 The number of OSVs allowed to park could be tied to the City’s Point-in-Time (PIT) count, ensuring that capacity remains responsive to actual need. The Committee also raised the possibility of a permitting program to help regulate and monitor OSV parking. In addition, all designated streets could be clearly marked to communicate where OSV parking is allowed, further supporting enforcement and public understanding.

To ensure this is fair and manageable, the City would need a detailed plan identifying where OSVs may or may not park, rather than adopting piecemeal restrictions. Ongoing enforcement of the 72-hour parking rule would continue, and a process would be needed to periodically review and update designated streets.

Resource Impacts
As mentioned in the “Signage and Enforcement Considerations” subsection earlier in this Analysis section, any citywide parking regulation would require significant signage and enforcement-related resources. The resource burden is somewhat ameliorated by the phased nature of the overall recommendation.

Summary of Phased Approach
The table below summarizes the costs referenced about each of the programs.

PHASE ACTION

ESTIMATED

DURATION/

COMPLETION

ESTIMATED COST/

BUDGET TIMING

IMPLICATIONS
All Support program implementation 2 years $314,000 (total over 2 years); some costs can
be prorated
Phase 1

1.1 Develop ordinance to prohibit detached/inoperable
vehicle parking on public streets
3 months –
January 2026
Staff time only
27 Analysis assumptions include OSV length of 30’, 5’ distance between vehicles, driveway clearance of 10’, intersection clearance of 20’, hydrant clearance of 15’ and 300’ hydrant spacing. The estimate analyzed the 14 streets where high concentrations of OSVs are currently clustered, focusing on the segments of those streets where OSVs park. Given those parameters, the combined street length is approximately 12,000 linear feet and assuming one sign per 150 feet and $300/sign.
28 The municipal code restricts overnight parking of OSVs on streets where the property on at least one side carries a residential or public facilities zoning designation, but it does not prohibit OSV parking on “residential-adjacent” streets or include a definition of that term. If Council wants to expand the restriction, it would need to formulate a definition of “residential-adjacent.”
29 The Councilmember voting against the motion that included this idea was advocating to explore all other options before pursuing limiting OSV parking to certain streets.

PHASE ACTION

ESTIMATED

DURATION/

COMPLETION

ESTIMATED COST/

BUDGET TIMING

IMPLICATIONS

1.2 Develop an ordinance to prohibit renting public
parking spaces
3 months –
January 2026
Staff time only

1.3 Refine scope & begin implementation of additional
street cleanups and sweeping
3 months – Jan
2026
$548K for FY26; plus an
additional $269K in FY27
for engineering; some
costs can be prorated[1]

1.4 Begin adoption of ordinance(s) (i.e., vanlord,
inoperable vehicles) and contract(s) approval (i.e.,
for street sweeping) on consent calendar
3 months – Jan
2026
Staff time only

1.5.1 Implement & enforce detached/inoperable vehicles
prohibition
Apr/May 2026 Unknown amount for
signage/FY26
enforcement included in

1.3; FY27 additional
$80K/yr

1.5.2 Implement & enforce vanlord (public parking space rental) prohibition
Apr/May 2026 FY26 enforcement
included in 1.3 and 1.5.2;
FY27 additional $280K/yr
for 1.3 thru 1.5.2; CAO
time dependent on
volume

1.6 Work with LifeMoves [and Santa Clara County] to
consider options (buyback, storage) and to accept
RV residents quickly at Homekey or other housing
6 months –
Apr/May 2026
Unknown - $150,000[2]
for buyback program/
FY27 Budget

1.7 Return to Council for direction on expanding safe
parking on privately-owned and congregational
based lots
If no site
identified, then
9+ months –
August 2026[3]
Staff time only
Phase 2

2.1 Develop small scale enhanced services pilot 5 months - Oct 2026
Staff time only

2.2[4] Begin exploration of limiting OSV parking to certain streets, including process/criteria for designating
streets, with community engagement
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only

2.2.1 Identify non-residential & non-residential adjacent streets
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only

2.2.2 Tie the number of OSV permitted parking to the PIT count
<1 month Staff time only

2.2.3 Explore possibility of OSV permitting program 3+ months – Aug/Sept 2026
Staff time only

2.2.4 Evenly disburse permissible OSV parking across
identified streets to avoid overconcentration and
mark clearly on those streets where permitted
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only
Phase 3

PHASE ACTION

ESTIMATED

DURATION/

COMPLETION

ESTIMATED COST/

BUDGET TIMING

IMPLICATIONS

3.1 Council approval of enhanced services pilot and
related contracts/agreements
Nov/Dec 2026 $400,000+ one-time
FY 2027 Budget

3.2 Council approval of preferred expanded safe
parking option(s)
Aug/Sept 2026 Staff time only

3.3 Council identification of streets where OSV parking permitted & develop ordinances and program
design
6+ months –
Nov/Dec 2026
Staff time only

3.4.1 Implement enhanced services pilot Jan/Feb 2027 Staff time only

3.4.2 Approve preferred option for expanded safe
parking[5]
Late 2026 &
onward
Staff time only
Phase 4

4.1 Evaluate enhanced services pilot Jan/Feb 2028 Staff time only

4.2 Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking.[6] Late 2026 & onward
$270,000+
annually/Midyear 2026-
2027 Budget

4.3 Council approvals relating to limiting OSV parking
to certain streets.

Jan/Feb 2027 $4.2 million one-time for
citywide signage
FY 2027 Budget
$400,000+ annually
thereafter (this includes
$80K for enforcement for

1.3-4.3)

4.3.1 Implement “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” and begin enforcement.
3-6 months -
May/Aug 2027
Staff time only
[1] This amount includes $100,000 for new permanent signage, $143,000 for temporary signage if the City wants to start implementing street cleaning immediately, plus $60,000 for the estimated cost of deep cleaning of the 18 street segments (where OSVs are currently clustered) after the OSVs leave each area for the initial cleaning. Staff anticipates phasing in this work, starting with a few blocks each week over several months. This allows time for workers to install signs along nearly 40,000 linear feet of roadway. The sweeping and cleaning work can follow behind as signs are installed. Additionally, this amount includes $150,000 for engineering analysis, plans, work orders and inspection related to signage, striping and curb paint throughout the City. It also includes $95,000 for enforcement support rolled out as PW works through the progressions. [2] A buyback program in Berkeley applied $150,000 for 21 OSVs. The storage cost for OSVs would likely vary significantly based on location, security involved, and insurance costs. There are no extant OSV storage lots in Palo Alto. The nearest that staff is aware of is in the City of San Mateo and the per month vehicle costs were not available at the time of this report publishing.
[3] Note: this timeframe does not align with the P&S Committee recommendation. The motion called for Safe Parking expansion to be moved to Phase 1; however, with no specific site identified to date, this effort is currently not resourced as noted in footnote 16 earlier in this report. [4] This particular action was part of a split motion that indicated it would be in Phase 2. As parts of this action also appear in the unanimous motion, where those appear, they are also italicized. [5] Since expanded safe parking implementation is also part of Phase 4, staff is considering this the initial implementation steps. Since both proposed expansion options require a willing non-city partner, implementation will begin with outreach and, if successful, result in permitting (e.g., congregation-based) and/or leasing (e.g., privately owned).
[6] See note above.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommended phased approach would require City funding as outlined in the table below and ongoing staff allocation for the foreseeable future. Although funding sources for the majority of this work have not yet been identified, a significant General Fund allocation is likely.

Staff will also research and evaluate other funding sources (e.g., grant funding and/or entitlement opportunities, and Business Tax Revenue for Affordable Housing and Unhoused Services). The budget appropriations reflected in the recommendations on the first page of this report are intended to provide the up-front resources required to move forward on immediate actions, with the expectation that additional appropriations and funding sources will be identified at the mid-year budget report in early 2026.

In the near term, the significant front-loading of items into Phase 1 will require reallocating staff resources, will impact other Council priorities, and will require appropriation of a total of $707,000 in FY 2026: (1) $157,000 to the City Manager’s Office for resources to support program implementation (2) $305,000 to Public Works for additional street cleaning on currently impacted street segments and related signage, (3) $150,000 to the Office of Transportation (pro-rated) for engineering analysis, plans, work orders, and inspections, and (4) $95,000 to the Police Department for enforcement and towing services. These costs will be funded by: (1) $157,000 from the Business Tax Revenue for Housing Affordability, (2) $245,000 from the Refuse Fund, and (3) $305,000 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve.

The ongoing costs for these services would impact the General Fund by approximately $0.7 to $0.8 million ongoing annually. In addition, funding for signage in the Capital Improvement Fund may need additional support from the General Fund depending on resources available in the Infrastructure Reserve for capital improvements.

This report focuses on immediate steps to ameliorate the impacts of vehicle dwelling in Palo Alto. In light of the increasing PIT numbers, however, addressing homelessness in a lasting way will ultimately require additional housing for the people being helped. Although not covered in this report, this longer-term effort is important to keep in mind.

Action Funding
Source FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 &
Ongoing
Street Sweeping Signage Refuse Fund $245,000 $0 $0
Clean-up Services General Fund $60,000 $0 $0
Engineering General Fund $150,000 $269,000* $0
Enforcement/Towing General Fund $95,000 $440,000 $440,000 Expanded Safe Parking General Fund $0 $135,000 $270,000 Signage for Additional Parking
Restrictions
Capital Fund $0 $4,200,000* $0
Administration/Implementation Business Tax $157,000 $157,000 $0 Buyback/Storage Program Business Tax $0 $150,000 $0
Enhanced Services Pilot Business Tax $0 $400,000 $0
Total $707,000 $5,751,000 $710,000
General Fund Impact * $305,000 $844,000 $710,000
Business Tax Revenue Support $157,000 $707,000 $0
*Parking Signage work in the Capital Fund may require additional funds to be transferred from the General Fund depending on resources available in the Infrastructure Reserve. The $4.2 million for signage and $269,000 for engineering is the estimated maximum cost to sign Citywide; see discussion in the Analysis section under the Signage and Enforcement Considerations item of this memo. The cost will ultimately vary depending on such factors as: the number of new parking regulations adopted (and therefore the number of new signs), the geographic scope of a new parking restriction, and the availability of existing poles/infrastructure for new signs.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff has made some preliminary efforts to gather feedback from the community on the Committee’s recommendation. This included seeking input from the “RV Dwellers Group” of service providers, a representative of Stanford University, members of the faith-based community, City staff, a City Councilmember, and a Human Relations Commission member, at its regular meeting in September 2025. Attendees discussed how to address and balance needs and concerns, including:
•Considering extending safe parking near Geng Road site, •Understanding how many people living in vehicles work in Palo Alto, how many are van lifers, and noting that there is distrust and fear in this community, •Concern about people who would not qualify for housing and/or services based on immigration status, and
•Concern about the health and safety of people living in “vanlord” vehicles.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on Phase 1 provisions about enhanced cleaning, street sweeping, parking signs, and parking enforcement are categorically exempt under CEQA regulations 15301 (existing facilities) and 15321 (enforcement actions). Other items in Phase 1 and in later phases require further Council input and/or approval and CEQA will be addressed as those are approved.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Neighboring Cities’ OSV Parking Approaches Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee August 25, 2025 Staff Report APPROVED BY:

Ed Shikada, City Manager
From: Oksana Selavri
To: Council, City; Kratt, Ken
Subject: RV parking situation on East Meadow Circle in Palo Alto Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 1:12:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
We appreciate your efforts in trying to solve the RV parking situation in the city of Palo Alto for long term and short term.

I would like to join my neighbor Colin Swindells in our request to please support the interest and wellbeing of 254 Palo Alto families who are residents in Echelon, Altaire and Vantage communities.

We have been carrying the burden for the whole city of Palo Alto for a few years now living next to an expanding RV trailer park (over 40 vehicles) which has significantly affected our families' quality of life.

We gave our votes for you in hopes of being represented well.

Kindly please ban the RV parking next to our complexes and identify parking lots that are not affecting any residential areas in Palo Alto for RV overnight stay.

Sincerely,
Oksana
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: David Adams
To: Council, City
Subject: RV parking - Agenda Item 16 Monday 10/20
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 7:35:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable members of the council,
In Ventura there is a proliferation of no overnight parking and no oversize vehicle parking signs. The problem is they are ignored and not enforced. Better than spending a million bucks on signs city-wide would be to run a pilot program in Ventura to see if Mr Shikada's proposal of enforcement actually works.

It would be extremely imprudent of the city council not to run a pilot first.

The proposal to limit RV parking to certain streets would be extremely unfair to those having to live or work nearby. This proposal should be made dead on arrival.

The proposal to stop sewage getting into the creeks by covering the drains is half baked. So, the sewage would remain by the curb for up to 2 weeks until it got swept away? Please, we can do better than that.

What is the effect of all this sewage on our creeks? Has anyone tested the water in the creeks and in the bay recently? I think we should be told.

Incidentally, there's already an ordinance prohibiting non-operable conveyances on public streets. It's in section 10.34.020 of the municipal code.

Thank you for your consideration.

David Adams
Ventura
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: stephanie wansek
To: Council, City
Subject: Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 16 – Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 5:51:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers,
I’m writing regarding Agenda Item 16 for the October 20 meeting—the proposed Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (RV) Impacts.

I live adjacent to East Meadow Circle, an area currently affected by long-term RV habitation, and I appreciate the City’s effort to balance enforcement with outreach and service coordination.

My main concern is that, under the proposed phasing, RV habitation could continue on East Meadow Circle for several more years before any restrictions are enacted.

This corridor directly borders residential properties and, in the case of Echelon, even overlaps with the complex—one side fronts directly on East Meadow Circle. These are established, tax-paying residential communities yet this proposed policy framework would disproportionately affect them compared with single-family neighborhoods, which already benefit from overnight parking restrictions. As noted by the City’s own studies, industrial and commercially zoned areas may offer far more appropriate locations for managed RV habitation.

The phased approach also prolongs very real neighborhood impacts. In my own experience, I used to walk my dog along East Meadow Circle every morning when only a few RVs were present and the area felt safe enough. That changed after my dog was attacked by an unleashed pit-bull mix that came out of an RV. When I reacted, understandably shaken, the imposing male owner yelled at me. That was more than five years ago, and I haven’t walked there since. What should be a pleasant, walkable area for nearby residents has become off-limits to many of us because of ongoing safety, noise, and sanitation concerns.

This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Even from across the street, the constant generator noise and exhaust from RVs is hard to ignore. When I walk my dog in the evening on my complex grounds, I can smell the fumes and hear the mechanical hum from multiple units running at once. It’s difficult to reconcile this with living in a neighborhood that contributes property and city taxes to maintain quiet streets and good air quality. The persistent pollution and noise simply feel incompatible with what should be a livable residential environment.

I respectfully ask Council to consider an amendment so that Phase 1 explicitly excludes residential-adjacent streets from permitted RV habitation and instead prioritizes relocation to industrial and commercial areas, for example, Corporation Way, Industrial Avenue, or Transport Street, where management and sanitation can be more effectively coordinated with LifeMoves or similar partners.

This approach would align Palo Alto with regional precedent. Neighboring cities including Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and San Jose have already implemented zone-based restrictions that prohibit RV parking on residential and residential-adjacent streets, directing long-term habitation to industrial or commercial zones with safe-parking programs. Menlo Park and San Francisco have adopted citywide overnight bans within the last year. By comparison, Palo Alto’s phased plan delays full enforcement until at least 2027, which, according to the City’s own regional policy review, creates a “magnet effect” as vehicles relocate to the least-regulated cities.

An amendment to Phase 1 that excludes residential-adjacent streets from permitted RV habitation, could help ensure that all residential areas are treated equitably under the City’s policy framework, while still supporting compassionate, managed alternatives. Thank you for your attention to this important issue and for the thoughtful work that has gone into developing the staff proposal.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Wansek
Vantage Resident
East Meadow Circle Area
From: Martin Cuyegkeng
To: Council, City
Subject: Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on 10/20 Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 5:47:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
Supporting Colin’s explanation regarding the importance of this matter and thanking you for your action.

Regarding the City Staff recommendation summarized as a phased, citywide plan to manage RVs and other oversized vehicles used for habitation on public streets:

Phase 1 (FY 2026 – early implementation)
• Ban detached/inoperable vehicles and “vanlording.”
• Increase sanitation and street cleaning (new signage, enforcement, towing). • Coordinate with LifeMoves and nonprofits for outreach and relocation. • Budget: ≈ $707 K across departments.

Phase 2 (planning and pilot)
• Develop a pilot for mobile sanitation and trash pickup. • Identify which non-residential and “residential-adjacent” streets could allow long-term RV parking.

Phases 3–4 (long-term implementation)
• Approve and expand safe-parking locations.
• Designate streets where RV habitation is permitted and begin formal enforcement.

Phase 1 is scheduled for FY 2026 (mid-2025 to mid-2026). Phases 2–4 have no set dates and are expected to extend into 2027 or later.

Can we move toward implementation that prohibits RV / oversized vehicle parking on all residential and residential-adjacent streets? Instead, direct long-term habitation to industrial or commercial areas with safe-parking programs which the city has &/or is planning more.

This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
This seems to be the most balanced approach of not simply banning the vehicles for them to move to another city, which has arguably been done to us by others such as Menlo Park, while also recognizing the materially negative impact of the proliferation in these areas.

Furthermore, realistically, any residential or residential-adjacent location chosen will result in valid concern / impact on the people in that area so better to aim for consistency across the city. Lastly, this would be similar to the policy that some of our sister cities such as Mountain View and Los Altos have done.

Thank you.

Martin Cuyegkeng
Trinity Ln, Palo Alto, CA 94303
From: Colin Swindells <[email protected]>
Subject: [echelonpa] RV Situation in Palo Alto
Date: October 17, 2025 at 1:33:07 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Dear Council Members and Neighbors,
A summary of health and economic risks related to the current RV situation are described below.

Specifically, health concerns arise from the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure and basic services that come with living in non-designated areas.

Economic concerns include property values, municipal & public services, local businesses, direct neighbor costs and economic stagnation. For example, if only considering property tax revenue losses to the City of Palo Alto due to the particular RV situation neighboring our three complexes (Altaire, Echelon and Vantage), an estimate is $1.5 M - $1.8 M total reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year (see Example Economic Use Case B below). Presumably, overall economic impacts for Palo Alto are much higher. I would be happy to update more complete health and economic impact estimates with council members & neighbors, and appropriate solutions.

Health Risks: This introduces dangerous pathogens into the environment.

Bacteria: E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, which can cause severe gastrointestinal illness.

Viruses: Norovirus and Hepatitis A, which are highly
contagious and can be spread through contaminated
surfaces or water.

Parasites: Giardia and Cryptosporidium, leading to diarrheal diseases.

Impact: These pathogens can contaminate public sidewalks, wash into local waterways (creeks, bays), and potentially seep into the soil in parks or green spaces where children and pets play.

Improper Disposal of Gray Water: This is wastewater from sinks and showers. While less hazardous than black water, it contains soaps, food particles, and bacteria that can create foul odors, attract pests, and pollute storm drains.

Accumulation of Solid Waste (Trash): Without regular municipal trash collection, garbage can pile up in and around the RVs.

Health Risks:

Pest Infestations: Accumulating trash is a breeding ground for rodents (rats, mice) and insects (flies, cockroaches).

Vector-Borne Diseases: Rodents can carry diseases like
Hantavirus (from droppings), Leptospirosis, and
Salmonellosis. Flies can transfer bacteria from waste to food surfaces.

Hazardous Material Spills: RVs use and store hazardous materials.

Health Risks: Leaks or spills of gasoline, diesel, propane, motor oil, and battery acid can contaminate the soil and groundwater.

Propane tanks pose a significant fire and explosion risk, especially if they are old, damaged, or improperly stored.

Respiratory Illnesses: The constant running of generators for power produces carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5).

3. Physical Safety and Hazard Risks
The physical presence of a large number of vehicles not designed for permanent street parking creates numerous safety hazards.

Fire Hazards: This is one of the most significant risks.

Causes: Fires can be started by faulty internal wiring in older RVs, unsafe heating methods (propane heaters, stoves), cooking accidents, or generator malfunctions.

Access Issues: The RVs may block streets or fire hydrants, impeding emergency vehicle access.

Traffic and Pedestrian Safety:

Blocked Sightlines: RVs parked at intersections can block visibility for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, increasing the risk of accidents.

Obstruction of Public Ways: Vehicles parked on sidewalks or in bike lanes force pedestrians and cyclists into the street, into the path of traffic.

4. Mental and Social Health Impacts
These risks affect both the housed residents and the unhoused occupants.

For Neighborhood Residents:

Stress and Anxiety: Constant noise from generators, fear of crime, concern over sanitation, and feelings of a loss of neighborhood safety can lead to chronic stress and anxiety.

Loss of Public Space: Residents may feel unable to use public parks, sidewalks, or other common areas due to perceived or real safety and sanitation concerns.

For RV Occupants:

Extreme Stress and Trauma: It's crucial to acknowledge the immense health risks faced by the unhoused individuals
themselves. They live in a state of constant vulnerability, facing the threat of displacement, harassment, violence, and theft.

Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario:

With a density of 50 RVs in such a small area, all the risks mentioned above would be significantly magnified.

Environmental Load: The daily output of human waste, gray water, and trash from 50+ people would quickly overwhelm the local environment, creating tangible biohazard zones.

Cascading Fire Risk: A fire would be a catastrophic event with a high probability of spreading to multiple vehicles and structures.

These risks are not caused by the unhoused individuals themselves, but by the circumstances of living in unmanaged, unsanctioned encampments that lack infrastructure and services.

Example Economic Use Case A: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Echelon…
Total Units in Echelon: 75
Conjecture A: $1.75 M average current value (Q4 2025)
Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation Estimate A: $2.3 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.75 M / (1 - 25%)]
Estimate B: $43.8 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.75 M) * 75 units]
Estimate C: $438 k total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value]
Example Economic Use Case B: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Altaire, Echelon, and Vantage…
Total Units: 254
Conjecture A: $1.7 M - $2.1 average current value per unit (Q4 2025) Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation Estimate A: $2.3 M - $2.8 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.7 M / (1 - 25%); $2.1 M / (1 - 25%)]
Estimate B: $152 M - $178 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.7 M) * 254 units; ($2.8 M - $2.1 M) * 254 units]
Estimate C: $1.5 M - $1.8 M total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value]