Item 4 Public Comment — Palo Alto City Council, December 8, 2025

From: Taly Katz
To: Council, City
Subject: Please Vote YES Tonight — We Need Action on Trailers & Vanlords Date: Monday, December 8, 2025 11:23:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Subject: Please Vote YES Tonight — We Need Action on Trailers & Vanlords Council Members,
I’m writing to urge a strong YES vote on the trailer and vanlord ordinances tonight. What’s happening on our streets has simply gone too far. I truly feel for the people living in these vehicles, but compassion cannot mean letting our public streets turn into unmanaged, unsafe encampments.

What began as a temporary situation has grown into something completely out of control.

With no enforcement, these areas have effectively become low-cost housing zones by default, bringing serious sanitation, safety, and parking problems into our neighborhoods. Residents and businesses have been living with the consequences for years, and it’s not fair to ask the community to keep tolerating conditions that clearly aren’t working and break the law! Supporting these ordinances is not about being heartless — it’s about finally taking the first real step to restore order, address the impacts we’re all feeling, and push for solutions that belong in appropriate, regulated spaces, not on public streets.

Please vote YES tonight. Palo Alto desperately needs this change.

Thank you for listening and for taking this issue seriously.

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

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: herb
To: Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject: Fw: December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #4: Unattached Trailer Parking and Vanlording Date: Sunday, December 7, 2025 5:48:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

CORRECTION TO LETTER ON AGENDA ITEM #4
Paragraph #3 regarding San Francisco and San Jose should have used the connective "or" instead of "and" as shown below in bold, italic, underscored
type in that paragraph.

From: herb <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2025 1:37 AM
To: City Council Council <[email protected]>; Clerk, City <[email protected]> Subject: December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #4: Unattached Trailer Parking and Vanlording

DECEMBER 8, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #4: UNATTACHED TRAILER PARKING AND VANLORDING I urge you to amend the proposed ordinances to include an amendment to the definition of "Residential zone" in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 10.44.015(a)(4) that is needed whether or not you adopt the rest of the proposed ordinances, because "residential zone" also includes Planned Community Zone (PC) Districts, including those PC Districts that are also Planned Home Zone (PHZ) Districts, because they are primarily residential, including Greenhouses I and II on San Antonio Road, Bridge Housing on Fabian Way, and Stevenson House on Charleston Road, as well as other housing developments
elsewhere in the city, including Lytton Gardens, Webster Woods, and Channing House, plus the new housing planned for the San Antonio Road corridor.

PAMC Section 10.44.015(a)(4) should read: "Residential Zone" means all lands located within the following zoning districts:

RE, R1, R2, RMD, RM-20, RM-30, and RM-40, and those PC zoning districts where a majority of the Gross Floor Area is
residential, including but not limited to PC zoning districts that are PHZ Zoning Districts; where one side of a street is located within one of these districts, then the portion of the opposite side of the street directly across from the
residential district shall also be included in the definition of a residential zone;
San Francisco and San Jose have required those housed in vehicles on the street to either move into housing provided, or go to jail, or
move out of those cities. Many of those
individuals move to Palo Alto.

So do vehicle dwellers from our neighboring cities of Menlo Park and Mountain View.

Simply checking the address history of drivers licenses and vehicle registrations would allow you to set a priority when there is limited space available in Palo Alto for people living in vehicles.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Herr Borock

From: herb
To: Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject: December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #4: Unattached Trailer Parking and Vanlording Date: Sunday, December 7, 2025 5:37:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

PAMC Section 10.44.015(a)(4) should read: "Residential Zone" means all lands located within the following zoning districts:

RE, R1, R2, RMD, RM-20, RM-30, and RM-40, and those PC zoning districts where a majority of the Gross Floor Area is
residential, including but not limited to PC zoning districts that are PHZ Zoning Districts; where one side of a street is located within one of these districts, then the portion of the opposite side of the street directly across from the
residential district shall also be included in the definition of a residential zone;
San Francisco and San Jose have required those housed in vehicles on the street to either move into housing provided, or go to jail, and move out of those cities. Many of those individuals move to Palo Alto.

So do vehicle dwellers from our neighboring cities of Menlo Park and Mountain View.

Simply checking the address history of drivers licenses and vehicle registrations would allow you to set a priority when there is limited space available in Palo Alto for people living in vehicles.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Herr Borock

From: Robert Marinaro
To: Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Palo Alto RV Count Update (as of 12/3/25)
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2025 12:40:21 PM
Attachments: RV Inventory_03Dec25.xlsx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council,
In advance of tomorrow’s (12/8) Council Meeting I thought I would provide you with my latest (Bob’s PTT) count of the RVs on Plao Alto streets. I wanted to take this snapshot before the street sweeping commenced in the E. Embarcadero corridor. I’m sure we all will be interested in the outcome of the street sweeping to see if it has any long rage impacts or it is just another inconvenience like the 72 hour regulation.

It is unfortunate to note that number of streets that RVs (OSVs) reside on has increased from 21 to 23 (see yellow cells). Hopefully, current street sweeping actions will not just move the RVs to additional Palo Alto streets and closer to residents. I have already cautioned the manager of an apartment complex that borders the north edge of Greer Park (Amarillo Ave.) about the RV that has begun parking there.

Here are a few photos from yesterday (except photo #1)… East Embarcadero before street sweeping
East Embarcadero after street sweeping
E. Embarcadero after street sweeping - - Imaging riding your bike down this street unimpeded E. Embarcadero

Faber Place - - Earning for the Street Sweeper
Faber Place - - Just one small example

Palo Alto On Street RV Count
Street Segment RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs
10/21/25 & 11/2 & 11/10 & 11/19 & 12/3
10/22/2025 11/3 11/11 11/20
1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd. 9 8 7 8 8 3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr. 52 52 52 56 53
4 East Meadow At Intersection with Fabian Way 0 0 0 0 1 5 Industrial Ave. Between E. Charleston & Transport St. 1 2 1 1 1 6 Transport St. Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave. 12 12 12 11 11 7 San Antonio Rd. Between E. Charleston & Transport St. 13 12 13 13 15 8 Commercial St. Between E. Charleston & Transport St. 12 14 14 15 15 9 Elwell Ct. Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd. 15 10 10 10 10 10 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd. 12 12 12 12 13 11 Colorado Ave. Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd. 5 5 5 6 6 12 Amarillo Ave. Bordering North Edge of Greer Park 0 0 0 0 1 13 E. Embarcadero Rd. East of 101 13 13 12 15 8
14 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd. 14 13 10 10 11 15 Faber Pl. Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd. 25 23 23 23 25 200 193 188 197 195
16 Park Blvd. South of Page Mill 6 3 3 3 4
17 Lambert Ave. Between El Camino & Park Blvd. 1 1 1 1 2 18 Ash St. Between Oregon Expressway & Olive Ave. 1 1 2 0 0 19 Poratge Ave. Between El Camino & Park Blvd. 4 4 4 6 4 20 Olive Ave. Between El Camino & Park Blvd. 1 2 2 2 2
21 Sheridan Ave. Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 6 22 Orinda St. Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave. 1 1 1 1 1 23 Matadero Ave. Between El Camino & Park Blvd. 0 1 1 1 20 18 19 19 19
Total: 220 211 207 216 214
San Antonio Rd. East of 101 (PA/MV Border) 7
Yellow RVs on New Street
Ventura Area
C:\Users\stavera\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\05N9IUBJ\RV Inventory_03Dec25 12/8/2025 12:43 PM From: Dave Wills
To: Clerk, City
Cc: Kratt, Ken; Council, City
Subject: OSVs
Date: Saturday, December 6, 2025 9:29:45 AM
Dear City Council,
I wrote to you last August (copied below) regarding OSVs. My personal safety concern is on Embarcadero East. Since that time and since the police have started to enforce the 72 hour limit there, things have improved. There are fewer OSVs parked. Most (but not all) of the curbs on either side of driveways have been painted red. This was a complaint I, and probably others, made because the OSVs blocked the view of the sidewalk and bike lane from drivers' view. Also, it appears all of the vehicles for sale and with expired plates have been removed.

My thanks to the police department for making Embarcadero safer. But there is more to do.

There are still RVs with expandable sides which extend into the bike lane.

Since I sent my previous email I learned of Cupertino's latest law on OSVs. You probably already know, but here are some links:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/09/17/cupertino-rv-parking-ban-homelessness/amp/ https://share.google/spAeB3DYBbMbAlmuH
Just one quote from Cupertino councilmember Ray Wang: ?If you?re the last city with (a ban), you?re the one left holding the bag.? Please don't let Palo Alto become the dumping ground for OSVs
I've also learned that Sunnyvale is preparing to implement similar bans.

You'll see in the email below that I suggested a permit solution. The city already issues permits for residential parking so adding OSV parking permits should not be difficult. And, it gives the city a way to move out abusers (OSV users who dump trash and waste, or create threatening environments) while allowing acceptable neighbors. A permit system may incentivize RV residents to keep their own neighborhoods clean and safe. Should you create a permit process for OSVs, please also consider ways to deny permits to those who abuse it.

Thanks for reading my email.

Regards,
Dave Wills
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:25:22 -0700
To: [email protected]
From: Dave Wills
Subject: Policy and Services Committee Meeting - OSV
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Policy and Services Committee,
At the meeting Monday you indicated you wanted to hear potential solutions.

Here are my proposed near-term solutions:

1. ENFORCE THE LAWS AS THEY STAND NOW.

I think it's great that the PAPD shows compassion for both residents and visitors.

They must always act as humans, not as storm troopers. On the other hand, showing compassion for transient residents in illegally parked vehicles because they live in the vehicles means they are not showing compassion for the residents and businesses who are highly impacted by the illegally parked vehicles.

In my opinion, it is not the PAPD's job to decide which group, residents, temporary residents or transients, should have priority when it comes to law enforcement.

2. Consider implementing code as currently used by Menlo Park and Mountain View. This includes a ban of on-street parking of OSVs as well as height limitations. I understand from Ms. Veenker's statement that Palo Alto might be afraid of law suits. Being afraid of law suits is not a valid reason for doing what's right for the residents.

3. Consider banning overnight parking or putting parking time limits in problem areas.

4. Consider implementing parking permits as used in some neighborhoods. The location, number of vehicles, size of vehicles, length of permit, or even other conditions such as how closely OSVs are permitted to park near driveways and streets could be restricted by the permit.

I believe City staff and your committee have considered some of these already.

Regardless of what near-term solutions you choose and the Council implements, those will be useless unless the PAPD enforces the laws. (See Item 1. above.) The problems have gotten significantly worse in the past 2 years, in my opinion largely because the PAPD does not enforce the laws.

In conclusion, I will re-state something I said in a previous email to your committee.

Never sacrifice pubic safety for OSV parking. As I have said and others iterated on Monday, this is certainly happening now.

Thanks for reading my email.

Dave Wills
From: Chris Schremp
To: Council, City
Cc: Christine Schremp
Subject: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS Date: Saturday, December 6, 2025 7:48:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Palo Alto City Council Members:

We are writing to express our profound dissatisfaction with the escalating crisis of illegally parked recreational vehicles (RVs), oversized vehicles, and trailers currently plaguing our city streets. This situation is unacceptable and demands immediate, decisive intervention.

These illegal encampments are concentrated on, but not limited to, streets such as East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, E. Embarcadero Rd, Commercial St, Portage Ave, and Sheridan Ave.

Failure to Enforce Existing Law
We formally demand the immediate and rigorous enforcement of all current municipal codes, specifically:

1. Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020: This code explicitly prohibits standing or parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. within any residential or public facility zone. The current lack of enforcement is an abject failure of municipal responsibility, effectively permitting this illegal activity to flourish.

2. All other applicable ordinances governing vehicle size, duration of parking, and use of public rights-of-way as residences.

The Current Crisis: Public Health and Safety Risk
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
The City Council must recognize this as a severe public health and safety threat, not a mere parking issue. With well over 200 vehicles now documented, the impacts on tax- paying residents and families are critical:

Public Health Hazard: Illegal dumping of sewage and trash directly onto public streets and storm drains poses an undeniable environmental and biological risk.

Safety and Egress: Vehicles are frequently parked in a manner that obstructs clear lines of sight, impedes traffic flow, and blocks ingress/egress for both residents' driveways and emergency vehicles.

Strain on City Services: These non-resident, non-taxpaying dwellers are illegally utilizing Palo Alto’s public services while the City exhibits a damaging pattern of relaxed enforcement and regulatory inaction.

Demand for Immediate Legislative and Enforcement Action The time for deliberation is over. We require two simultaneous actions:

1. Immediate, Zero-Tolerance Enforcement: Activate the Palo Alto Police Department to begin issuing citations and initiating towing procedures for all vehicles in violation of PAMC 10.44.020, effective immediately.

2. Rapid Enactment of New Legislation: Should the existing codes prove insufficient, we demand that the City Council immediately prioritize and enact stringent new ordinances that explicitly and definitively prevent the use of city streets for residency and prohibit the long-term parking of oversized and recreational vehicles.

WE WILL NOT TOLERATE the continued erosion of our neighborhood safety, health, and quality of life due to the City's unwillingness to act.

We demand a public, concrete plan of action—complete with timelines for enforcement and new legislation—within seven (7) days of the submission of this letter.

TAKE ACTION NOW.

Sincerely,
Christopher & Christine Schremp
3721 Ortega Ct
617-840-7622 (cell)
From: JEANETTE BALDWIN
To: Council, City
Cc: John Schafer; Loren Brown
Subject: STOP OSVs from parking in Palo Alto Business Parks Date: Friday, December 5, 2025 5:16:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Council People.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email. I'll try to keep it brief. I have addressed the council before, and I cannot stress enough how dangerous it is for oversized vehicles to be on the street.

My business is located at the intersection of Embarcadero Rd and Faber, where Faber is already a narrow street. These large vehicles, along with their subsequent trash, parking cones, pop-outs, and general filth, prevent people from using the sidewalks to access the baylands. As a result, pedestrians are forced to walk/bike in the middle of the road, creating a significant risk for serious accidents. The city is aware of the danger and has blocked off their area adjacent to Embarcadero Way to ensure their drivers have the visibility they need. In addition to the health and safety risks, these vehicles also hinder delivery trucks from entering or exiting our lot. We are experiencing delays with tow trucks, parts orders, and oil deliveries, which are negatively impacting our business and creating additional liabilities as we try to manage our daily operations.

This is not the time to go into the ridiculous amount of money the council is willing to devote to this problem, but it should be seriously reconsidered. Simply enforcing the already existing laws would alleviate all the angst and fix the problems. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.

Best regards,
--
Jeanette Baldwin
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Joe Montelongo
To: Council, City
Subject: Faber Place RV encampment
Date: Friday, December 5, 2025 1:44:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To whom it may concern,

We are writing in regard to the RV’s that have overtaken our street. This has been an ongoing issue for years that has impacted our business and the well being of our employees, customers, and any civilian who comes down the street. The RVs block driveways, dispose of waste in the bushes, attempt to steal water from local business, empty pet waste on properties, intimidate us, and most importantly, stick out way to far.

There have been many instances where people pulling in/out of driveways or civilians on bikes were involved in near accidents because there is no view to see oncoming foot traffic or vehicles. We are worried that someone could be seriously injured or worse.

Something has to be done to restore our street, PLEASE DO SOMETHING.

On behalf of Mathews Carlsen,

Joe Montelongo
[email protected]
Mathews-Carlsen Body Works
2480 Faber Place
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-856-6200
fax 650-352-9011

This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Peter Giles
To: Council, City
Subject: Growing concern
Date: Friday, December 5, 2025 7:44:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Honorable Mayor Lauing and members of council,
Please add my name to constituents expressing concern over growing numbers of non-residents dwelling on our quiet, clean streets in aging recreational vehicles. This situation cries out for a solution.

Thank you for serving our city and carrying both visions and burdens. Please move this burden up in your priorities.

Peter Giles
786 east Meadow Drive
Palo Alto since 1978
From: Gary Holl
To: Dave Stellman
Cc: Council, City; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; [email protected]; [email protected]; Steve Wong; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Moffatt, Pete; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Loren Brown Subject: Re: STOP Recreational Vehicles (OSVs) From Parking in Palo Alto Business Parks Date: Friday, December 5, 2025 7:34:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please remove me from this e-mail distribution list!!!!!!!!!!!!! Regards,
Gary H.

On Dec 4, 2025, at 4:24 PM, Dave Stellman <[email protected]> wrote:

Agenda Item 4 – Full Agreement with Lauren Brown’s Email Regarding Oversized Vehicles in Business Districts
To: City Council Palo Alto
Date: December 4, 2025
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to fully agree with the email sent by Lauren Brown on December 1, 2025, regarding Oversized Vehicle (OSV)
parking in Palo Alto’s business districts, and to express my This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
strong support for the concerns and positions outlined in his correspondence.

As a property owner/former business operator in Palo Alto, I have personally witnessed the same long-term problems
described in his letter: constant OSV, trailer and
abandoned/stored vehicle parking, lack of actual enforcement OF EXISTING LAWS, and the negative impact this has on our
property conditions and business operations.

While I appreciate that the City Council voted on October 20, 2025, to adopt certain OSV restrictions, the measures proposed in Agenda Item 4 for the December 8, 2025 Council meeting are not enough to address the ongoing and severe impacts OSVs
continue to have on our business districts. Allowing OSVs to remain parked for up to 72 hours (in practice always much longer) will not meaningfully improve the situation. It will simply perpetuate the cycle of musical chairs and make real enforcement impossible.

I strongly support the positions advocated in Lauren Brown’s email, including:

1. A complete ban on OSV parking in Palo Alto business
districts. Surrounding cities have done it, why can’t we?

1. Recognition that OSV parking is incompatible with
commercial zoning and business operations.

2. Ensuring that business districts are not the new city- preferred location for OSV parking within Palo Alto.

3. Relocating any City-sanctioned OSV parking to areas not adjacent to residential or commercial developments.

4. A reassessment of the fairness of collecting business taxes from districts adversely affected by OSV encampments.

How is this fair and what exactly are we paying these fees for??

5. Protection of the rights and investments of property owners and business operators who can’t simply move their
locations. They can be moved, we can’t.

6. I respectfully urge the Council to go beyond the minimal measures currently proposed in Agenda Item 4 and take real action to resolve this long-standing issue. Palo Alto’s business districts cannot survive unless OSV parking is fully prohibited and enforcement is strong.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for taking seriously the concerns of those who work, invest, and employ people in Palo Alto. Please add this letter to the public record for the December 8, 2025 City Council meeting under Consent Calendar – Agenda Item 4.

Sincerely,
Dave Stellman - and many others
Transport Street
On Dec 1, 2025, at 5:53 PM, Loren Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
12-01-2025
Dear Palo Alto Business District Property Owner or Business, I am writing you because you have recently corresponded with the City of Palo Alto in opposition to Oversized Vehicles (OSVs) parking on the public streets in front of or adjacent to your properties or place of business. If you do not want to receive further correspondence from me, please send a reply email stating, “UNSUBSCRIBE” (or equal message), and I will remove you from my email distribution list.

I represent the property owners of two commercial properties located on Park Blvd. For the past seven years, our properties have suffered as a result of continuously-parked OSVs in front of or adjacent to our properties, as well as a lack of OSV parking enforcement by the City of Palo Alto. It is difficult for us to keep our tenants happy and we have experienced difficulty in the leasing of our buildings. I am enlisting your help to create a larger and stronger voice that can be used to lobby City Staff and City Council to better serve our collective business interests.

As you may know, the Palo Alto City Council voted to implement certain restrictions on OSV parking at their October 20, 2025 meeting. Measures adopted included:

1. Prohibit unattached trailer parking.

2. Prohibit the practice of OSV "vanlording".

3. Add financial penalties for the above items.

4. Install signage on streets to reflect the above items.

5. Implement enforcement of unattached trailer parking and vanlording by the police department.

6. Increase enforcement of the existing 72-hour OSV parking restriction and the 2-6 AM OSV parking restriction in residential areas.

On December 8, 2025, the City Council will vote to approve additions/modifications to the City’s Municipal Code, which reflect the above. You may access the City Council packet on the City’s website or by clicking here:
paloalto.gov

See Agenda Item 4 (pages 8-39).

This item is on the Consent Calendar. As such, there will be no discussion of this item during the City Council meeting. If you wish to speak to this item at the City Council Meeting, you must do so in the Public Comment Opportunity at the very beginning of the meeting - Refer to Consent Calendar Item 4.

As of November 22, 2025, there were approximately 186 OSVs (or other types of mobile residences) parked primarily in five Palo Alto Business Districts. These five business districts are:

1. Embarcadero Road/Faber Place/Embarcadero Way:

On or about
November 22, 2025, there were 48 OSVs parked on these three streets.

2. Elwell Court and Corporation Way: On or about November 22, 2025, there were 24 OSVs parked on these two streets.

3. Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue/Olive Avenue /Sheridan
Avenue/Portage: On or about November 22, 2025, there were 18 OSVs parking on these five streets.

4. Fabian Way/East Meadow Circle: On or about November 22, 2025, there were 43 OSVs parked on these two streets.

5. San Antonio Road/Transport Street, Commercial Street, and Industrial Avenue: On or about June 13, 2025, there were 43 OSVs parked on these four streets.

The above numbers total 176 OSVs. There are a couple of other streets where some additional OSVs park (i.e., Colorado Avenue).

I have driven down the streets in all of the above-listed 5 business districts and observed virtually NO signage restricting OSV parking.

Park Blvd. does have signage that theoretically prohibits OSV parking between 2-6 AM, however, the enforcement of this restriction by the police department has been abysmal over the past seven years. The City’s enforcement of its 72-hour OSV parking restriction has likewise been abysmal - judging by how many OSVs are still parked in the five business districts.

It is my opinion that the actions being considered by the City Council are not strong enough. These actions will ultimately prove to be largely ineffective in eliminating OSV parking in these five business districts. OSV parking in these five business districts must be ELIMINATED (not just reduced) because parked OSVs are not compatible with business district interests. Parked OSVs in Palo Alto business districts have decimated these business districts by lowering property values, creating an inhospitable commercial business environment, destroying the ability to lease properties, increasing safety hazards to building occupants and visiting clientele, etc. Our business districts instead have the appearance of a dilapidated RV park.

The actions taken by the City Council will still allow OSVs to park up to 72 hours in our respective business districts. If some time for the police department to come out and cite violators is considered, plus the time it will take to tow a vehicle will likely mean that OSVs can still park up to a week in any one location. When the OSVs do decide to move, all they have to do is simply relocate to another street in these five business districts (i.e., a musical chairs situation). In effect, the new measures taken by the City will result in no tangible improvement to our business districts.

I advocate for our group to adopt certain positions with respect to the City of Palo Alto:

1. No OSV parking in these five Palo Alto business districts (impose new restrictions and enforce the restrictions).

2. OSV parking in these five Palo Alto business parks is incompatible with business district interests.

3. Our five Palo Alto business districts should not be the sole parking location of OSVs (i.e., if the City is going to allow OSVs to park in Palo Alto at all, also allow OSVs to park everywhere else (i.e., in old Palo Alto residential neighborhoods, in front of City Hall, on University Avenue, etc.).

4. If the City wants to allow OSV parking on public streets, relocate OSV parking where there are no adjacent residential or business developed properties.

5. No collection of business tax on properties located in these five business districts by the City of Palo Alto until OSV parking in these five business districts is eliminated.

6. Business District zoning ordinances never intended to allow a residential presence to inundate adjacent streets.

7. The rights of Property Owners and Businesses (who have fixed locations and cannot easily move) should have greater protections than transient OSVs that can be located elsewhere.

HERE IS HOW YOU CAN HELP:

1. Write an email or letter to the City Council in advance of the December 8, 2025 City Council meeting. At a minimum,

ADVOCATE THAT OSV PARKING NEEDS TO BE BANNED
ENTIRELY FROM PALO ALTO BUSINESS DISTRICTS. Include
other arguments that you may have. Reference December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 4 on all correspondence.

Ways To Send a Public Letter:

For strong public engagement, we encourage public
participation through Council correspondence. To submit a public letter to the City Council, we recommend sending by email for prompt and direct communication. If you wish to correspond through mail, please send it to the City Clerk's Office.

Send email to [email protected]
Send mail with the following address:

Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301

2. Come to the December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting (in person or by ZOOM) and speak to Consent Calendar Agenda Item 4.

Meeting starts at 7:20 PM. Public Comments are scheduled to start at 7:20 PM.

3. Forward this email to your adjacent property owners and businesses. Ask them if they will join in our cause and either correspond with City Council or speak at City Council. Please have them contact me and I will add them to the email distribution list.

We may not be able to change the current trajectory of the City for their Phase I implementation of OSV parking measures, but we can send the City a strong message that they will ultimately need to take action that entirely bans OSV parking in our business districts.

Thank you,
Loren Brown
From: Christian Bailey
To: Council, City
Subject: Palo Alto Must Act Now on RV Street Encampments Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 7:24:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Council Members,
Our city is being overwhelmed by more than 200 RVs that now line East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, E.

Embarcadero, Commercial St, Portage Ave, Sheridan Ave, and many others. The situation has deteriorated for years, and Palo Alto is now seen as the most accommodating option for non-resident, non-taxpaying RV dwellers.

The result is predictable: numbers have doubled, and with them the growing problems—trash and sewage dumping, blocked driveways, loss of parking for residents and businesses, and a visible decline in the integrity of our streets.

We already have laws on the books that prohibit oversized vehicles, trailers, and similar equipment from parking between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. in residential and public-facility zones (PAMC 10.44.020). These can be enforced today.

Inaction where authority already exists is unacceptable.

Additional legislation for commercial zones is urgent. I cycle with our four children to the Bay Trail and now have to pass many trailers sometimes receiving strange looks. The children feel that our neighborhood is not at all like the Palo Alto that we moved to years ago.

The ordinance before you on Monday, December 8 (Agenda Item 4) addressing vanlording and detached trailers is a step, but it is not enough without consistent enforcement. Residents are watching closely. I intend to organize actively around this issue, because the current trajectory is untenable for those of us who actually live and pay taxes here.

Palo Alto cannot afford further delay. Enforce existing law. Pass stronger measures where needed. Restore the safety, cleanliness, and usability of our streets.

Regards,
Christian Bailey
3722 Grove Ave, Palo Alto
From: Dave Stellman
To: Council, City
Cc: Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Steve Wong; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Moffatt, Pete; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Loren Brown Subject: Re: STOP Recreational Vehicles (OSVs) From Parking in Palo Alto Business Parks Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 4:24:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Agenda Item 4 – Full Agreement with Lauren Brown’s Email Regarding Oversized Vehicles in Business Districts
To: City Council Palo Alto
Date: December 4, 2025
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to fully agree with the email sent by Lauren Brown on December 1, 2025, regarding Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking in Palo Alto’s business districts, and to express my strong support for the concerns and positions outlined in his correspondence.

As a property owner/former business operator in Palo Alto, I have personally witnessed the same long-term problems described in his letter:
constant OSV, trailer and abandoned/stored vehicle parking, lack of actual enforcement OF EXISTING LAWS, and the negative impact this has on This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
our property conditions and business operations.

While I appreciate that the City Council voted on October 20, 2025, to adopt certain OSV restrictions, the measures proposed in Agenda Item 4 for the December 8, 2025 Council meeting are not enough to address the ongoing and severe impacts OSVs continue to have on our business districts. Allowing OSVs to remain parked for up to 72 hours (in practice always much longer) will not meaningfully improve the situation. It will simply perpetuate the cycle of musical chairs and make real enforcement impossible.

I strongly support the positions advocated in Lauren Brown’s email, including:

1. A complete ban on OSV parking in Palo Alto business districts.

Surrounding cities have done it, why can’t we?

1. Recognition that OSV parking is incompatible with commercial zoning and business operations.

2. Ensuring that business districts are not the new city-preferred location for OSV parking within Palo Alto.

3. Relocating any City-sanctioned OSV parking to areas not adjacent to residential or commercial developments.

4. A reassessment of the fairness of collecting business taxes from districts adversely affected by OSV encampments. How is this fair and what exactly are we paying these fees for??

5. Protection of the rights and investments of property owners and business operators who can’t simply move their locations. They can be moved, we can’t.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for taking seriously the concerns of those who work, invest, and employ people in Palo Alto.

Please add this letter to the public record for the December 8, 2025 City Council meeting under Consent Calendar – Agenda Item 4.

As you may know, the Palo Alto City Council voted to implement certain restrictions on OSV parking at their October 20, 2025 meeting. Measures adopted included:

1. Prohibit unattached trailer parking.

2. Prohibit the practice of OSV "vanlording".

3. Add financial penalties for the above items.

4. Install signage on streets to reflect the above items.

5. Implement enforcement of unattached trailer parking and vanlording by the police department.

6. Increase enforcement of the existing 72-hour OSV parking restriction and the 2-6 AM OSV parking restriction in residential areas.

On December 8, 2025, the City Council will vote to approve additions/modifications to the City’s Municipal Code, which reflect the above.

You may access the City Council packet on the City’s website or by clicking here:
paloalto.gov

See Agenda Item 4 (pages 8-39).

As of November 22, 2025, there were approximately 186 OSVs (or other types of mobile residences) parked primarily in five Palo Alto Business Districts. These five business districts are:

1. Embarcadero Road/Faber Place/Embarcadero Way:

On or about November
22, 2025, there were 48 OSVs parked on these three streets.

2. Elwell Court and Corporation Way: On or about November 22, 2025, there were 24 OSVs parked on these two streets.

3. Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue/Olive Avenue /Sheridan Avenue/Portage:

On or
about November 22, 2025, there were 18 OSVs parking on these five streets.

4. Fabian Way/East Meadow Circle:

On or about November 22, 2025, there
were 43 OSVs parked on these two streets.

5. San Antonio Road/Transport Street, Commercial Street, and Industrial Avenue: On or about June 13, 2025, there were 43 OSVs parked on these four streets.

The above numbers total 176 OSVs. There are a couple of other streets where some additional OSVs park (i.e., Colorado Avenue).

I have driven down the streets in all of the above-listed 5 business districts and observed virtually NO signage restricting OSV parking. Park Blvd. does have signage that theoretically prohibits OSV parking between 2-6 AM, however, the enforcement of this restriction by the police department has been abysmal over the past seven years. The City’s enforcement of its 72-hour OSV parking restriction has likewise been abysmal - judging by how many OSVs are still parked in the five business districts.

When the OSVs do decide to move, all they have to do is simply relocate to another street in these five business districts (i.e., a musical chairs situation). In effect, the new measures taken by the City will result in no tangible improvement to our business districts.

I advocate for our group to adopt certain positions with respect to the City of Palo Alto:

1. No OSV parking in these five Palo Alto business districts (impose new restrictions and enforce the restrictions).

2. OSV parking in these five Palo Alto business parks is incompatible with business district interests.

4. If the City wants to allow OSV parking on public streets, relocate OSV parking where there are no adjacent residential or business developed properties.

5. No collection of business tax on properties located in these five business districts by the City of Palo Alto until OSV parking in these five business districts is eliminated.

6. Business District zoning ordinances never intended to allow a residential presence to inundate adjacent streets.

7. The rights of Property Owners and Businesses (who have fixed locations and cannot easily move) should have greater protections than transient OSVs that can be located elsewhere.

HERE IS HOW YOU CAN HELP:

1. Write an email or letter to the City Council in advance of the December 8, 2025 City Council meeting. At a minimum, ADVOCATE THAT OSV

PARKING NEEDS TO BE BANNED ENTIRELY FROM PALO ALTO
BUSINESS DISTRICTS. Include other arguments that you may have. Reference December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 4 on all correspondence.

Ways To Send a Public Letter:

For strong public engagement, we encourage public participation through Council correspondence. To submit a public letter to the City Council, we recommend sending by email for prompt and direct communication. If you wish to correspond through mail, please send it to the City Clerk's Office.

Send email to [email protected]
Send mail with the following address:

Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301

2. Come to the December 8, 2025 City Council Meeting (in person or by ZOOM) and speak to Consent Calendar Agenda Item 4. Meeting starts at 7:20 PM. Public Comments are scheduled to start at 7:20 PM.

Thank you,
Loren Brown
From: Mike Leaffer
To: Council, City
Subject: PROLIFERATION of RVs on PALO ALTO STREETS
Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 2:05:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Having been a lifetime resident of Palo Alto, the decline in safety and quality of life in recent years has been disturbing in Palo Alto. Some of this can be directly attributed to the 200+ RVs that are destroying our Palo Alto neighborhoods.

Besides the visual blight and degradation of our neighborhoods and property values, these RVs are a safety hazard for bicyclists and pedestrians and other cars as they cause visual blind spots and leave little to no room to pass. There are no proper sewage hookups available, leading to continual illegal waste dumping into city sewers and streets making areas unsafe and unhealthy for children and pedestrians. In addition, the RV dwellers are illegally dumping their garbage at nearby apartments, condos and small businesses.

These RVs are taking up needed parking from residents and businesses. In fact, I can no longer even shop at some nearby businesses and restaurants because it has become near impossible to find convenient parking.

There needs to be enforcement of the current laws. All RVs need to be outlawed, not just those that are unattached and being rented by van lords as the RV dwellers are non-residents, non-taxpaying dwellers who are creating problems that have been quickly escalating.

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

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Lynda Lumish
To: Council, City
Subject: RV parking
Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 10:32:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

To the City Council-
I understand you will be discussing the parked RVs in Palo Alto. I hope you will be able to do something to remove them. When I go for a walk, I avoid the blocks with the RVs, and that is getting harder to do. I don’t feel safe walking next to the line up of them. The trash starts to pile up and blocks the sidewalk. When I meet friends to walk at Shore line, I have a hard time parking because the area is filled with parked RVs. Walking around Palo Alto used to be a beautiful thing to do, now I don’t notice the trees and homes- just the RVs. I hope you will be able to clear our streets.

Thank you,
Lynda Lumish
From: Jeanie T Stephens
To: Council, City
Subject: RV parking in south PA
Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 9:27:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Council,
I understand that RVs can create a problem for local residents. I also understand that we need the RV owners to work at our businesses and provide services. I think we must provide some accommodation to both.

I like the solution of providing space with facilities for RV owners to park that is not on local streets, or on limited streets. Like small KOA campgrounds. I believe this has been tried with mixed results. Maybe a mixed solution of some approved street locations and some larger areas.

We are building empty, expensive apartments all over the area! With a shrinking number of professional and administrative jobs available! Can’t space be allocated somewhere to help house people that support our services.

I realize this requires oversight and that means financing. But we should assess the value of having a stable workforce in an area that is too expensive for workers to live.

Jeanie Stephens
3860 Corina Way
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
From: Thomas Nguyen
To: Council, City
Cc: Arthur Keller; [email protected]
Subject: Subject: Request for Review of Inconsistent Enforcement of 72-Hour Parking Ordinance Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 7:55:37 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to bring to your attention a concern regarding inconsistent enforcement of the 72-hour parking ordinance in my neighborhood.

My vehicle—legally parked directly in front of my property—was recently tagged solely because a neighbor reported it. At the same time, multiple RVs remain parked in the area of Adobe Meadows/Fabian way for extended periods far beyond the 72-hour limit without comparable enforcement. This disparity suggests selective enforcement triggered by individual complaints rather than uniform application of municipal code.

I respectfully request that the Council review:

1. How complaint-driven enforcement differs from routine enforcement of the 72-hour rule,

2. Why long-term RV encampments appear to be exempt from comparable action, and

3. What policies or priorities currently govern enforcement of RV parking in residential zones.

I fully support reasonable enforcement, but I ask that it be applied consistently and equitably to all vehicles. Clarification or guidance from the Council would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Thomas Nguyen
3726 Grove Ave
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Cynthia Louie
To: Council, City
Cc: Francis Meynard
Subject: STOP Recreational Vehicles (OSVs) From Parking in Palo Alto Business Parks Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 1:56:05 PM
Attachments: image001.png
25 10 28 PAG Letter to City Council and Mayor of Palo Alto-SIGNED.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Good Afternoon,

The enclosed letter expressing concern about the RV and trailer parking violations on Fabian Way in Palo Alto that is being sent on behalf of Francis Meynard, the President of Pacific American Group.

Thank you,

CYNTHIA LOUIE
Executive Assistant
104 Caledonia St, Ste. 101
Sausalito, CA 94965
415.331.3838 office

From: Theron Bullman
To: Council, City
Subject: STOP Recreational Vehicles (OSVs) From Parking in Palo Alto Business Parks Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 1:52:23 PM
Attachments: 25 10 28 ECI Letter to City Council and Mayor City of Palo Alto-SIGNED.PDF Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please see the attached letter outlining our complaints and frustration with illegal RV parking that is affecting our business.

HERON BULLMAN
Vice President of Operations
East Charleston Inc.
104 Caledonia St, Ste. 101
Sausalito, CA 94965
415.331.3838 office
415.419.4240 mobile

This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast

From: Jeff Truskey
To: Council, City
Subject: RVs
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:50:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
City Council: As several have commented, all City Council needs to do regarding RVs is enforce the existing Palo Alto Municipal Code. When laws are not enforced, chaos ensues.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Jeff Truskey
Palo Alto resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: [email protected]
To: Council, City; Council, City
Subject: Regarding Oversized Vehicle parking - upcoming December 8, 2025 City Council meeting Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:48:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
City Council, December 2, 2025
I am writing as a resident of Palo Alto to urge the City Council to take decisive action on the increasing problem of long-term RV and oversized-vehicle parking in our community.

I understand the City Council will vote on December 8 on proposed additions or modifications to the Municipal Code regarding Oversized Vehicles (including RVs). As you consider these changes, I strongly urge you to enact a full ban on RV and oversized-vehicle parking throughout the City. The rights of property owners and businesses deserve stronger protection than those of transient oversized vehicles.

Pursuing a multi-step, multi-year approach will only waste taxpayer dollars and delay meaningful results. Homeowners and businesses expect policies that preserve the cleanliness, safety, and character of our neighborhoods. A comprehensive ban is both reasonable and necessary.

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

This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: John Mori
To: Council, City
Subject: Regarding Vanlording, item 4, December 8
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:50:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
Please move forward immediately to prohibit living in any motor vehicle or trailer parked on the public street or parking lots.

Allowing people to live on the streets in RVs:

Is unsanitary - black water is hazardous waste. It must be assumed, RV units being used as a residence will also employ the use of toilet facilities. In no instance should even a temporary residence be allowed within the city that is not connected properly to sewage and other utility hookups. Black water collection in RV tanks is a HAZMAT condition that no neighborhood, residential or commercial, should be subjected to.

Will result in garbage on the street - again, grossly an unsanitary practice not to mention the affect it has in the feeling of these neighborhoods or the appeal that commercial properties have to business.in
Threatens the safety of the city's residences by such as fire from propane appliances used in these units but also increased crime and drug use that often accompanies this type of housing.

Brings higher incidents of mental health and untreated medical conditions into our neighborhoods.

Has an ongoing cost to manage by Palo Alto Police and social services.

Normalizes slumlord behavior and threatens to turn vibrant communities into slums.

The entire concept of addressing assumed low-income housing through illegal, unmanageable trailers and other types of RVs is ludicrous and even lazy. Any use of city parking for living units of any kind must be prohibited. And, any living unit (trailer or motor home) on private property being used as a residence should be strictly regulated (proper hookups, neighborhood approval, zoning review, etc.).

And, on a final note, I understand that it has been proposed that $4M be allocated for the posting of signs throughout the city as part of this emergency measure - can’t this be done This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
more economically?
Best Regards,
John Mori
Tel/Txt: 650.888.3178
712 Garland Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-3601
From: Loren Brown
To: Council, City
Cc: Loren Brown; Sandy Freschi
Subject: 12-08-2025 Council Mtg Agenda Item 4 - STOP Recreational Vehicles (OSVs) From Parking in Palo Alto Business Parks
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 12:04:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
12-01-2025
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I represent the property owners of two commercial properties located on Park Blvd. (3101 and 3197 Park Blvd.). For the past seven years, our properties have suffered as a result of continuously-parked OSVs in front of or adjacent to our properties, as well as a lack of OSV parking enforcement by the City of Palo Alto. It is challenging for us to keep our tenants satisfied, and we have faced difficulties in leasing our buildings.

The measures proposed in Agenda Item 4 are insufficient to make a meaningful
difference in the number of OSVs currently parking in five Palo Alto Business Districts (identified below).

1. There are no provisions included in the measures to inventory the number of OSVs parked in these five business districts on a monthly basis. How will the City know that its policy and enforcement efforts are working (and, if so, to what extent)?

2. The measures proposed do not eliminate or ban the parking of OSVs in these five business districts. As of November 22, there are approximately 176 OSVs (or other types of vehicles where people are residing) parked in these five business districts (giving our business districts the appearance of a dilapidated RV park). The proposed measures (at best) will only cause these vehicles to change their parking locations more frequently within these five business districts.

As of November 22, 2025, there were approximately 176 OSVs (or other types of mobile residences) parked primarily in five Palo Alto Business Districts. These five business districts are:

1. Embarcadero Road/Faber Place/Embarcadero Way:

On or about November 22, 2025, there
were 48 OSVs parked on these three streets.

2. Elwell Court and Corporation Way: On or about November 22, 2025, there were 24 OSVs parked on these two streets.

3. Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue/Olive Avenue /Sheridan Avenue/Portage:

On or about
November 22, 2025, there were 18 OSVs parking on these five streets.

4. Fabian Way/East Meadow Circle: On or about November 22, 2025, there were 43 OSVs parked on these two streets.

5. San Antonio Road/Transport Street, Commercial Street, and Industrial Avenue: On or about November 22, 2025, there were 43 OSVs parked on these four streets.

The above numbers total 176 OSVs. There are a couple of other streets where some additional OSVs park (i.e., Colorado Avenue).

In Palo Alto, the OSV parking issue is a two-prong issue; it is a housing-affordability issue and it is a business park deterioration issue. The housing-affordability issue is related to a greater long-term, national/regional housing crisis that may never be solved. The business park deterioration problem can be solved immediately by simply implementing measures that relocate the parked OSVs to less problematic areas in the City where there is no existing residential or business development. Parked OSVs are not compatible in either residential neighborhoods or business neighborhoods.

The City needs to immediately decrease the negative impacts resulting from OSVs parking on City streets by banning all OSVs from parking in any Palo Alto business district. Parked OSVs in Palo Alto business districts have decimated these business districts by lowering property values, creating an inhospitable commercial business environment, destroying the ability to lease properties, increasing safety hazards to building occupants and visiting clientele, etc.

Thank you,
Loren Brown
From: s Pea
To: Council, City
Subject: Re: Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 2:56:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I lived in the Bay Area in 1995. I moved to Seattle 1996-2008. I returned to Monterey in 2008.

Moved to Mountain View in 2009, then to San Francisco, Palo Alto, Cupertino, then back to Mountain View in 2013.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:50 PM s Pea <[email protected] > wrote:

Dear City Council,
Additional information is provided below on my experience with Life Moves:

Life Moves is an organization who runs a "Temporary Homeless Program" named “Move Mountain View,” a parking program for Homeless people who live or work in Mountain View, who became homeless and now live in a vehicle. When I resided in Mountain View beginning in 2009 and in my vehicle from autumn/winter 2022 – 12/2023, I made six separate applications to Move Mountain View through four different homeless service agencies/case managers during that time. Each of my Case Managers followed up several times on the application on my behalf. Case Managers came and went and I also diligently followed up routinely on each of my applications to the Move Mountain View parking program by Life Moves.

There was zero accountability on behalf of Life Moves. After a bunch of turn over of staff at Life Moves, issues with their phone system, people not checking the main lines voice mail for weeks, not returning messages.

Finally around Thanksgiving 2023, I finally was put in touch with the Manager “Crystal,” she agreed to look into the situation and took down the dates I had made (or case workers) submitted my application(s) to access a parking space in the program. “Crystal” did follow up, but she had a very different attitude than before now that the incompetence or weaponized incompetence was revealed. Crystal was extremely defensive and her response was alleging that it was my own fault and I never followed up. This is inaccurate. I said to Crystal, “I am following up right now." She did not respond. So I requested a status on my most recent application [submitted two weeks earlier] might be granted a spot in the program?”
Crystal responded saying, “it could be months.” And Crystal hung up on me. I phoned back and went straight to voicemail. I left a message stating "We spoke and our call was disconnected, how I should work with her to stay current and be considered for the program?" Crystal did not return my call. Which was consistent with the previous 12 months of calls, phone messages and even twice visiting in person at their offices next to Google.

I know several people who live on the lot in the parking program and new people arrived daily during that time.

Most of these families were new migrants from South America who had arrived in the United States days before and already had been given a free RV and a spot in the homeless parking program.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
someone who lived and worked in Mountain View for many years (since 2013) and worked at Google Cloud.

MVPD CSO McPherson said she could get me into the temporary warming shelter but “she had no pull to get me into the Move Mountain View Program and to just keep calling them.” Which I did.

In hindsight, I should have gone to Mountain View City Counsel and demanded answers why a program designed for people with my exact background and who qualify for the program are being turned away while dozens of families from foreign countries were moving to the lot within a week of arriving in the United States and often getting a free RV, and many gifts and free voucher, hot meals, showers and laundry in conjunction with living in on the lot.

I have great respect for people of other countries and cultures, however this program was specifically designed and paid for by Mountain View City Council touted as a solution for Mountain View residents who become homeless, or who work or worked in Mountain View, prior to becoming homeless. It wasn’t intended for Mountain View Residence tax dollars to be used as a migrant pipeline for those from other countries to live free of charge while the existing Mountain View community members were living homeless.

I would prefer to live in a designated Homeless Parking Program for those reduced to living in their vehicles, unfortunately the vendor Life Moves discriminated against long-time Mountain View resident(s) and coordinated with the MVPD Homeless Police -- Community Service Officers to move me homeless to Palo Alto and then disabled my vehicle to prevent my return to Mountain View.

In my experience, Life Moves should not be considered by the City of Palo Alto to manage a parking lot for Homeless. The idea of a designated parking area is monitored and with some stability and resources (such as at a hosting Church parking lot) but to be successful the program needs to be implemented by the community who care about the populations they are claiming (and funded) to support.

As a person with limited means, struggling and in good faith to the Mountain View Police I was compliant with Officer McPherson’s request to move to Palo Alto-- where I have also previously lived in rental housing and have previously worked in businesses located in downtown Palo Alto.

I moved on a Sunday afternoon, and parked in the location I am currently at. Intentionally not parking near residential neighbors as McPherson indicated. I left my vehicle for one hour to run an errand, when I returned someone had entered my vehicle (evidence of torn the window casing) and ripped out my engine cables and tampered parts so I could not restart the vehicle. McPherson had just gotten me into the MV Winter Warming Shelter, so I went there. Then, I got Covid at the shelter. After recovering from Covid in quarantine, I got assistance to fix my vehicle to move it. I paid from my menial job earnings, the vehicle wasn’t running great, but it was drivable. Literally in the time it took to walk to a nearby gas station and get gas, someone returned and damaged my vehicle again to make it undrivable that evening. Someone likely from Palo Alto Police pressured the business owner and got me dismissed without cause from my Palo Alto employer.

I know several people who are unfortunately still living on the street as well as in the parking lot program, some seniors, years later.

This is the fallacy of the parking program for the homeless.

I am employable and volunteer regularly in the community as I have for decades, however for whatever reason the Palo Alto Police Officer was told to coerce aka dump me in Mountain View.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: s Pea <[email protected]
>
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:18 PM
Subject: Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective To: <[email protected]
>
Dear City of Palo Alto,

I am very grateful to the City of Palo Alto and the City Counsel who has humanely has NOT impounded my vehicle, as a homeless person with no other means. I agree, it is not an ideal situation. I am open to options. Retaining one’s vehicle “only home” is stabilizing and cheaper than “building housing for the homeless” to be eventually mismanaged by those looking to exploit big budget projects.

The exact reason I am homeless in Palo Alto is because the Life Moves “Move Mountain View” Parking Program is not only used for existing long-time Mountain View Residents “who live/work in Mountain View prior to experiencing homelessness.” These were the explicit terms for funding by the Mountain View City Council.

The "Move Mountain View" homeless parking program was funded by Mountain View tax paid dollars to support and alleviate community members suffering due to homelessness and appears to have been exploited. I have compelling evidence the program was reappropriated as free housing and relocation assistance for people and families who arrive in the United States for the first time from foreign nations.

As a peninsula resident who leased property, lived and worked in both Mountain View and Palo Alto for several decades since 2009 as a Technology Contractor, I would prefer to live in a designated Homeless Parking Program for those reduced to living in their vehicles. This low-cost option could be used in conjunction with longer-term housing, such as for seniors and partnering with other organizations which specialize in job retraining.

In my direct experience, I am homeless in Palo Alto because of a failure of the vendor Life Moves to deliver on their chartered contract and funding agreement. As a long-time Mountain View resident, it was semi-coordinated with the MVPD Community Service Officers to pressure me to move to Palo Alto at which point my vehicle was quickly disabled -- to prevent my return to Mountain View.

MVPD Officer McPherson and I spoke daily in November and early December in 2023. I had been a victim of several violent crimes that made me homeless and exacerbated my disadvantaged situation. Officer McPherson started pressuring me to move my vehicle to Palo Alto. At this time, I remained fully compliant in Mountain View, moving my vehicle on the designated streets, every 2-3 days as Mountain View compliant with the 72-hour rule.

Officer McPherson claimed she had "NO PULL" to get me into the Parking Program but she could walk me into the Temporary Winter Warming Shelter, she referred me by phone and I was able to show up and obtain shelter there.

In one hour after I moved my vehicle from Mountain View to Palo Alto, in response and to be compliant with Officer McPherson's request, someone had broke into my vehicle, badly damaging the window casing and ripped out the firing cables to prevent my moving the vehicle.

This was after six applications were made (every 2-4 months) to the program between Winter 2022 and Winter 2023, by four different case workers, with diligent follow up both by each case worker and by myself.

This practice of dumping the homeless from our community is sickening, pushing them out. "The Homeless" are often dear community members who volunteer, live and work in the area for decades who are then affected due to a personal or situational tragedy, someone who was not able to buy after growing up or working here for years, or a senior or veteran, who loses their home due to fixed income paired with increasingly higher property taxes.

I propose that police are able to refer local homeless people to any temporary parking program or shelters (with availability), if this is not already the case.

The Parking Program is a wonderful temporary idea for those homeless living in vehicles due to experiencing homelessness. It is relatively low-cost, and can provide a safe monitored and service-friendly area. I propose the parking program be run or housed by a Church or Community Services Organization that would receive funding allocated for homelessness as well as be audited periodically by the Elected Palo Alto City Counsel to insure the funding is being allocated appropriately. While the program type is ideal, let us learn from the incompetence and misuse of any housing or parking program as it failed to serve those in Mountain View.

Kind regards,
Sarah Prostak

1 of 626
Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective

s
Pea <[email protected]>

2:18 PM (9 minutes ago)

to city.council

Dear City of Palo Alto,

I propose that police are able to refer local homeless people to any temporary parking program or shelters (with availability), if this is not already the case.

Kind regards,
Sarah Prostak

From: s Pea
To: Council, City
Subject: Fwd: Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 2:51:55 PM
Attachments: 2025 Dec 1 Letter sent to PA City Counsel on Homeless in Vehicle.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
Additional information is provided below on my experience with Life Moves:

When I resided in Mountain View beginning in 2009 and in my vehicle from autumn/winter 2022 – 12/2023, I made six separate applications to Move Mountain View through four different homeless service agencies/case managers during that time. Each of my Case Managers followed up several times on the application on my behalf. Case Managers came and went and I also diligently followed up routinely on each of my applications to the Move Mountain View parking program by Life Moves.

I know several people who live on the lot in the parking program and new people arrived daily during that time.

Most of these families were new migrants from South America who had arrived in the United States days before and already had been given a free RV and a spot in the homeless parking program.

I spoke via phone or text daily with MV Community Service Officer McPherson in Mountain View and asked for her assistance in getting me a place in the Move Mountain View homeless parking program as I qualify as someone who lived and worked in Mountain View for many years (since 2013) and worked at Google Cloud. MVPD CSO McPherson said she could get me into the temporary warming shelter but “she had no pull to get me into the Move Mountain View Program and to just keep calling them.” Which I did.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
In hindsight, I should have gone to Mountain View City Counsel and demanded answers why a program designed for people with my exact background and who qualify for the program are being turned away while dozens of families from foreign countries were moving to the lot within a week of arriving in the United States and often getting a free RV, and many gifts and free voucher, hot meals, showers and laundry in conjunction with living in on the lot.

Literally in the time it took to walk to a nearby gas station and get gas, someone returned and damaged my vehicle again to make it undrivable that evening. Someone likely from Palo Alto Police pressured the business owner and got me dismissed without cause from my Palo Alto employer.

I know several people who are unfortunately still living on the street as well as in the parking lot program, some seniors, years later.

This is the fallacy of the parking program for the homeless.

I propose that police are able to refer local homeless people to any temporary parking program or shelters (with availability), if this is not already the case.

Kind regards,
Sarah Prostak
From: s Pea
To: Council, City
Subject: Homeless in a Vehicle in Palo Alto Perspective Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 2:19:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City of Palo Alto,

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
and by myself.

I propose that police are able to refer local homeless people to any temporary parking program or shelters (with availability), if this is not already the case.

Kind regards,
Sarah Prostak

Palo Alto City CouncilDecember 8, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
December 8, 2025