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