Item 10 Public Comment — Palo Alto City Council, August 24, 2026

From: Suneet Dhingra
To: Council, City
Subject: Sign enforcement for oversized vehicles
Date: Monday, August 10, 2026 5:52:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hi,
Thank you for confirming that the 4000 block of Fabian Way east of the bend is eligible for signs allowing enforcement of the overnight oversized vehicle parking restriction under PAMC 10.44.020. This location is near the driveway serving 800 Charleston Village.

Installing these signs will dramatically improve safety and visibility in the area. Could you please share the expected work order and installation dates? Please reference Palo Alto 311 case 18225728.

Thank you!
~Suneet.

From: Henry Childs
To: Council, City
Subject: Upcoming Council Discussion on August 24th Addressing Oversized Vehicle Impacts Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 6:05:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for providing notice of the August 24 discussion regarding oversized vehicles used for habitation. I previously contacted the City regarding the growing number of oversized vehicles parked along East Meadow Drive and near neighborhood parks, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide additional public comment.

I want to be clear about my position. My principal concern is not simply that people are living in vehicles. My concern is that Palo Alto is allowing large vehicles being used as residences to occupy public residential streets for extended periods of time in a manner that creates significant safety, parking, neighborhood, and land-use impacts.

There are three issues that I believe the Council should address directly.

First, this is a public-safety issue. Oversized vehicles routinely park adjacent to neighborhood parks and other areas heavily used by children and families. Large vehicles create substantial visual obstructions for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists and reduce sightlines near areas where children are crossing streets, entering parks, and playing. Whatever policy the City ultimately adopts, overnight or prolonged parking of oversized vehicles near parks and other child-centered public spaces should be prohibited.

Second, this is a neighborhood and property-value issue. Residential streets are shared public assets. Allowing oversized vehicles to function as long-term residences along those streets changes the character and use of the surrounding neighborhood and can create the appearance of blight. Residents should not be expected to absorb the consequences of effectively converting portions of residential streets into informal residential sites without any of the zoning, sanitation, parking, fire-safety, or land-use requirements that would apply to a conventional residential development.

Third, the current time-based parking restrictions are plainly inadequate. The practical problem is that an oversized vehicle can leave a location briefly, park elsewhere, and then return. I have personally observed what appears to be this type of rotation on East Meadow. Moving a vehicle for a short period and then returning it to substantially the same location may satisfy a technical interpretation of a parking restriction, but it defeats the purpose of preventing public streets from becoming long-term residential This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
parking locations.

The Council should therefore consider the functional use of these vehicles, not merely whether they are capable of moving.

In practical terms, an oversized RV that remains within the same neighborhood and is continuously used as a residence has many of the same land-use characteristics as a unit in a trailer or mobile-home park. The fact that it has wheels does not eliminate the neighborhood impacts associated with residential occupancy. The critical distinction is that a lawful mobile-home or RV park operates on property specifically designated for that purpose and is subject to applicable infrastructure, sanitation, safety, density, and land-use requirements. A public residential street is not.

For that reason, I urge the Council to adopt a policy that prevents residential streets from becoming de facto mobile-home parks while simultaneously creating a structured alternative for individuals currently living in oversized vehicles.

At minimum, I encourage the Council to consider:

1. Prohibiting overnight parking of oversized vehicles adjacent to parks, playgrounds, schools, and other areas heavily used by children.

2. Establishing meaningful geographic restrictions on oversized-vehicle parking in residential neighborhoods, rather than relying exclusively on a rule that can be circumvented by briefly moving a vehicle.

3. Creating an enforcement standard that addresses repeated rotation within the same street or neighborhood so that temporary relocation does not indefinitely reset the parking clock.

4. Continuing aggressive enforcement of Palo Alto's vanlording ordinance where individuals or businesses are effectively renting vehicles as unregulated residential units.

5. Providing designated locations, where appropriate, for individuals who legitimately need temporary vehicle habitation, rather than placing the entire burden of that policy on residential neighborhoods and public streets.

A humane policy and a strong neighborhood-protection policy are not mutually exclusive. Palo Alto can provide reasonable alternatives for people living in vehicles without accepting the permanent conversion of residential streets and park frontage into unregulated residential areas.

I encourage the Council to use the August 24 discussion to move beyond a system that merely causes oversized vehicles to rotate from block to block. The objective should be a policy that actually addresses the underlying land-use, public-safety, parking, and neighborhood impacts.

Thank you for considering my comments.

From: Robert Marinaro
To: Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George Cc: Becky Sanders; Bulatao, Eric; Janie Sydow; Alex Smelik; Nancy Ellickson; Roger Smith; McDonough, Melissa; Scott Petersen; Chris Schremp; Apple, Kara; City Mgr; Barry Katz; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Jo Ann Mandinach; Penny Brennan Subject: Oh and About the Lexington OSV on Matadero/Charleston Village Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 2:13:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Palo Alto City Council Members and OSV Ad Hoc Committee, Please read this interaction below between a resident of the Ventura neighborhood and the Palo Alto Police Department. This situation is going on all over South Palo Alto, day after day, and the Police Department can only do so much based on the current regulations. We need concrete more stringent regulations to prevent these situations NOW, not in Q4, 2027, or NEVER. The tax-paying residents of Palo Alto are really, really tired of the minimal efforts the City has taken to remove these OSVs.

I was just notified of a RV that has moved back in from of the Charleston Village Condos on Fabian Way. Two RVs were camped out there for months and somehow they were gone for a month until yesterday. While they were gone the residents would coordinate parking their cars there so the RVs could not move back. Since that is very difficult to coordinate amongst the residents, there was a small opening and the RV moved back. This is absolutely insane and unfortunateI As you can read below the police do not have the tools to take the needed actions to remove these RVs.

We are getting very tired on this and the police on the streets are getting very tired of this! It sounds like we are going to hear about two pilot proposals at the August 24th Council Meeting. Based on the Council’s proclivity to not be punitive and to not make decisions based on the common sense needs of their constituents we sure hope there will be short-term actions to remove these RVs from the streets of South Palo Alto.

Regards,
Bob Marinaro
Matadero Ave.

Fabian Way & East Charleston
From: Rebecca Sanders <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Oh and about the Lexington OSV on Matadero Date: August 11, 2026 at 12:54:42 PM PDT
To: "Bulatao, Eric" <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Marinaro <[email protected]>
Hi Sgt. Eric:

Thank you for responding. Please see my responses in-line.

Thank you.

Becky
On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 5:20 PM Bulatao, Eric <[email protected] > wrote:

Hi Becky,
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. We are familiar with the RV parked along Matadero and understand the many complaints we have received regarding it. We have tagged the vehicle numerous times, and each time we have rechecked it, there has been an indication that it was moved.

Would you define 'indication' in this case? I drive by or walk by the Lexington everyday and it's always on that section. The guy also owns a black SUV that he tools around in and is careful to keep his head down and not make eye contact. The Lexington may have moved 10 feet in either direction, but it is always there. Honest to God.

Under the municipal code, the vehicle is not required to leave the area entirely; it only needs to move at least one-half mile.

I will eat my hat if that OSV has moved 1/2 mile away in the last few months.

As a result, the RV can legally drive around the block and return to the same location.

Regarding the hazard you mentioned, we measured the distance from the front of the RV to the intersection several times. Each measurement showed that the RV was more than 20 feet from the intersection. Since it is parked beyond the required 20-foot distance, it is not in violation of the applicable vehicle code governing parking near intersections. Additionally, because the curb is not marked as a red zone or contains No Parking signs, the vehicle may legally park there.

We will continue to monitor the situation, but I wanted to address the two concerns you raised. If you believe the area should be designated as a No Parking zone due to visibility or the proximity of oncoming traffic, I recommend contacting the Office of Transportation to request that they evaluate the location and determine whether a parking restriction is warranted.

Hey Eric, I just want you all to enforce the laws on the books. I live at xxxxxxx and we just recently were relieved of a dilapidated eyesore that resided on Orinda outside our fence after years, the poor fellows living there left garbage and human waste for us to clean up.

We now have new neighbors in a different OSV. They are outside our fence most days. They do move up to the next block on Orinda regularly and then return. They run their generator quite a bit and exhaust wafts into our windows every day they stay outside my fence. They are not moving 1/2 mile away, by the way.

Also Eric, answer me honestly, if these OSVs were moving in on North Palo Alto where the more tony homes are, wouldn't you all chase them out of there so fast? Honestly. We are very frustrated over here. We are second class neighborhoods down here in South Palo Alto as evidenced by your office's lack of will to enforce the laws on the books.

One more question -- Who is your boss and what do you need to hear from them to get you to act on our behalf.

Thank you.

Becky

Respectfully
Sergeant Eric Bulatao
Palo Alto Police Department
Special Problems Detail
275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Office: (650) 838-2866
From: Rebecca Sanders <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 10:52 AM
To: Bulatao, Eric <[email protected]>
Subject: Oh and about the Lexington OSV on Matadero

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Sgt. Bulatao:

We continue to be amazed at the lack of line of sight caused by the trailer and the safety hazard it creates when drivers in the alley and on Matadero cannot see around its hulk.

Even if you nose your car forward, you might get hit by someone who is driving at speed who doesn't see you.

Why doesn't that OSV on Matadero at El Camino ever have to move? Aren't we supposed to warn and tag them and tow them if they don't move? Is there someone living there that needs to be there for some reason, whose interests outweigh those of the neighbors.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Becky
From: Robert Marinaro
To: Veenker, Vicki
Cc: Council, City; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; [email protected]; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen
Subject: Fabian Way - - Thursday August 13, 2026
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2026 3:27:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Ms. Mayor,
I would like to bring to your attention the worsening OSV situation in South Palo Alto and ask you to address it.

These photos represent the situation today that was brought to my attention by several residents of the Charleston Village Condominiums on the corner of E. Charleston and Fabian Way. This segment of Fabian Way between E. Charleston and San Antonio Rd. is lined with back to back OSVs and the residents and businesses here are fed up and want action from the City. You can clearly see this fifth wheel trailer dangerously jutting out in to bend in the road obstructing the roadway and sightings. I drove down here several times today and it is extremely dangerous. Can the City have this vehicle towed away immediately.

Please be on notice that this situation has been brought to the City’s attention in the event that there is an accident and someone is injured.

We have been dealing with this situation for far too long and we are near the breaking point. A year has gone by and the incremental measures implemented by the City in this past year have only marginally fixed the problem.

This particular section of Fabian Way is a disaster and it is not fair to the residents and businesses here.

We would like for you to tell us how this situation will be fixed in the very near term! As the mayor you are the one who has the power, in addition to your fellow council members, to make the necessary decisions to fix this problem. Let me add, one more time, the City Council works for the Palo Alto Residents! Regards,
Bob Marinaro
Fabian Way between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd. Charleston Village Condominiums in the background Fabian Way between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.

Fabian Way between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.

From: annie griffin
To: Council, City
Subject: Fwd: RV LIFESTYLES
Date: Friday, August 14, 2026 12:25:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear city council members,
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the recent article about Palo Alto resident Bob Mariano spending months documenting RVs parked throughout the city and sharing his findings with city officials. Sounds a bit like the Gestapo to me.

It is not a crime to choose a nomadic lifestyle. Thousands of well-educated, civilized people choose to live this way. In Europe, this lifestyle is not looked down upon; in fact, nobody seems to notice. Yet, in America, there seems to be a widespread pettiness that unless you live in a traditional home, you are a lesser human being. This mentality needs to stop, and framing this man as a hero for monitoring these residents is deeply disheartening.

For many, an RV is a last resort after losing their homes to disasters like fires, or due to insurance delays leading to foreclosure. I wish Mr. Mariano would instead interview these individuals to share their lifestyles and adventures. Furthermore, many adult children are moving back with their parents because the high cost of living has made it nearly impossible to afford a decent apartment on a standard wage. You seem to be bent on making sure everyone lives in a house when not everyone wants to. This policing of Our Lives infringes on our individual freedom of choice. Who knows one day you might want to live in an RV. And by law you won't be able to because there will be nowhere to park. Please rethink what you're doing as though we're happening to you. Living an RV lifestyle can be so much fun good for our health and gets us out of the drudgery of sameness. Thank you for considering my comments sincerely Annie Griffin 831-582-1705
Sincerely,
Annie Griffin
831-582-1705
911 Bryant St.

Palo Alto, CA 94301
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: LAKIBA PITTMAN
To: Council, City
Subject: Public Comment Letter on Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Programs Date: Saturday, August 15, 2026 1:50:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Date: August 15, 2026
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Resident of Olive Avenue, Ventura Neighborhood
Subject: Public Comment on Item 10: Oversized Vehicle (OSV) Impact Pilot Programs (August 24, 2026 Meeting)
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a resident of Olive Avenue in the Ventura neighborhood to share my feedback and serious concerns regarding the proposed Oversized Vehicle (OSV) pilot programs on the agenda for the August 24, 2026 meeting.

Living on Olive Avenue, my neighbors and I witness the daily impacts of vehicle habitation firsthand. While there are existing parking restrictions on our street, consistent enforcement remains a persistent challenge. Currently, oversized vehicles frequently park at the end of Olive Avenue, directly near the intersection with Park Boulevard. This clustering has created significant safety and quality-of-life concerns for our neighborhood.

Specifically, the presence of these long-term campers has resulted in accumulated garbage left out on our public right-of-way. More importantly, it has directly impacted our sense of safety. Ventura is a vibrant neighborhood filled with children playing and residents walking their dogs. However, due to the lack of visibility and the activity concentrated around these vehicles near Park Boulevard, I no longer feel entirely safe walking my dog in that direction during dusk or the early evening hours.

Regarding the proposed pilot programs, I want to emphasize that residential streets like Olive Avenue and Ash Street must be proactively protected. While I understand the "OSV Parking Prohibited Alternating Side Pilot" is intended to restrict long-term encampments by shifting parking availability every six months, I am deeply concerned that it may inadvertently signal that oversized parking is permitted on residential blocks during those intervals if enforcement is not immediate, rigorous, and continuous.Therefore, I urge the Council to prioritize the following actions within any This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
adopted plan:

1. Strict Protection of Residential Zones: Ensure that the OSV Parking Permit Pilot successfully redirects vehicle dwellers to the non-residential areas designated on Coyote Hill Road and Embarcadero Road, completely removing the burden from residential streets in Ventura.

2. Immediate Safety Infrastructure: Accelerate the painting of red tips at driveways and critical intersections, particularly at the corner of Olive Avenue and Park Boulevard, to restore pedestrian visibility and traffic safety.

3. Dedicated Sanitation Monitoring: Provide immediate mitigation for illegal dumping, littering, and public health concerns on our residential blocks while these programs are evaluated.

The Ventura neighborhood has historically taken on a significant share of high-density zoning and urban impacts. We ask the City Council to ensure that this program strictly protects our residential peace, safety, and cleanliness.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community.

Sincerely,
Lakiba Pittman
Olive Avenue Resident
Palo Alto, CA
From: Francesca Rael
To: Lauing, Ed; [email protected]; Stone, Greer; [email protected]; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Subject: OSV Phase II Pilot Program
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2026 2:54:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto resident who lives very close to East Meadow Circle to strongly oppose the proposed OSV Phase II Pilot Program as it applies to East Meadow.

I want to be clear that I am not opposed to people living in oversized vehicles, nor am I opposed to allowing OSV parking on East Meadow. I would support a structured permit program. What I do not support is an approach that fails to meaningfully control who is using these streets for long-term vehicle residency and simply shifts parking from one side of the street to the other.

If East Meadow is going to serve as a location for OSV parking, the City should implement a permit system with clear eligibility requirements and accountability. Permits should prioritize people who are genuinely low-income and have a meaningful connection to Palo Alto, for example, people who work here, have children attending Palo Alto schools, care for an elderly parent or family member here, or have another established community connection.

Participants should also be connected with case management and services aimed at achieving stable housing similar to the participants in the proposed permit program on Embracadero and Coyote Hill.

Residents living near East Meadow should not be expected to accept oversized vehicles without reasonable limits, oversight, sanitation standards, or a clear understanding of who the program is intended to serve. Alternating which side of the street permits parking every six months does not adequately address those concerns.

A structured permit program would be both more compassionate and more responsible. It would allow Palo Alto to provide a safe place for community members experiencing housing instability while establishing clear expectations and protecting the surrounding neighborhood.

In my opinion, a structured permit program should be the only way that OSVs should be allowed on our streets.

I urge the Council not to move forward with the alternating-side pilot on East Meadow in its current form and instead develop a controlled, accountable permit program for this street.

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

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Thank you for taking the concerns of residents seriously.

Best,
Francesca
From: Jenny Lee
To: Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc: Lauing, Ed; [email protected]; Stone, Greer; [email protected]; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick
Subject: OSV Phase II Proposed Plan
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2026 4:30:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and City Manager Shikada, I am writing as a resident of the Echelon community to respectfully share my concerns about the proposed rules for oversized vehicle and RV parking.

While we recognize the complex challenges surrounding housing and vehicle habitation, the growing concentration of RVs along East Meadow Circle is significantly affecting the safety & cleanliness of our neighborhood.

We respectfully ask the Council to prioritize dedicated, non-residential locations with appropriate sanitation and services rather than allowing East Meadow Circle to become a long-term habitation area. A phased approach that delays enforcement would only prolong concerns related to waste management and resident safety.

I hope you will pursue a solution that balances compassion for those in need with the safety & well-being of surrounding residential communities.

Thank you for your time and public service.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: 01 lu
To: Council, City
Cc: Lauing, Ed; [email protected]; Stone, Greer; [email protected]; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Shikada, Ed
Subject: Unfair burden on the Echelon neighborhood - RV Parking Date: Saturday, August 15, 2026 11:41:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
It is fundamentally unjust that the City of Palo Alto has allowed the RV parking issue to be concentrated almost entirely on the borders of a few specific communities, including ours at East Meadow Circle. Because our adjacent street is technically zoned non-residential, it has become the default dumping ground for this city-wide issue.

We expect the council to represent our interests equally. The current proposal, which postpones meaningful enforcement and safe-parking relocation for years, leaves our neighborhood bearing the brunt of the impact. I urge you to adopt policies that immediately post "No Oversized Vehicle Parking" signs on East Meadow Circle and strictly enforce them. We need a definitive timeline for the removal of these vehicles from our borders.

Sincerely,
Lingyi Lu
3724 Feather Ln
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Annette Ross
To: Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Cc: City Mgr; Annette Ross
Subject: OSV Proposal
Date: Sunday, August 16, 2026 11:19:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

I am writing to suggest that the OSV AdHoc Committee scrap the current proposal for dealing with the OSV dilemma, reconvene, and invite Robert Marinaro to the table. If you can figure out who they are, include also Lily and Gary G., who both posted informed comments to Palo Alto Online’s article about your plan.

As a tax-paying resident of Palo Alto, I expected Council to come up with a plan that is responsive to the concerns of residents and businesses. Instead, the proposed plan legitimizes something that should not be happening in the first place. And the proposed fee ($15/month) for a permit to park and live in Palo Alto is likely an invitation to grow the problem. One person commented online that if he pulled his RV out of storage in Monterey (@$60/mo) and relocated it here, he’d save money. Your proposal encourages this.

Related to this (see Lily G’s comments online) I am baffled by this city’s approach to fire safety. Palo Alto is promoting housing density (including sanctioned RV dwelling) which only and inevitably increases demand on health and safety services. Yet there’s no evidence of a planned increase in services. Or even right-sizing the equipment and staffing at Fire Station 4. This is asking for trouble. If you need confirmation of that you need only call LA’s mayor. Or read about the unnecessary complications of the Altadena and Pacific Palisades fires.

You all spent a lot of time and a good amount of money convincing Palo Alto voters that you have the chops to tackle civic issues. This proposal doesn’t come close to proving that. Please, start over. This community deserves better.

From: Shaoping Lu
To: Council, City
Subject: over-sized vehicles parking along Fabian way
Date: Sunday, August 16, 2026 5:57:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To whom may concern:

Thank you for confirming that the 4000 block of Fabian Way east of the bend is eligible for signs allowing enforcement of the oversized vehicle parking restriction under PAMC

10.44.020. This is near the driveway serving 800 Charleston Village. Installing these signs will dramatically improve safety and visibility in the area, especially when we drive a car out of the complex. Could you please share the expected work order and installation dates? PLease reference Palo Alto 311 case 18225728.

Thanks
Shaoping Lu
800 E Charleston Rd #31
Palo Alto 94303
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Robert Marinaro
To: Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr Cc: Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; [email protected]; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams
Subject: A Day in the Life of East Meadow Circle (8/16/26) - - Not So Quiet on the Southern Front! Date: Sunday, August 16, 2026 10:07:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

All,
I walked East Meadow Circle with my wife tonight at 5:00 pm and recorded the following. While others were enjoying events in the park I was doing my due diligence! At any one time there are between 35-45 OSVs on the

0.5 mile segment of road
So as we walked down the middle of the street with my phone in my hand the first guy yells out something, which was inaudible, at us while we were 50 feet past his RV, then the guy who lives in his box truck opened the back door of the truck to see who was coming and actually said Hi when he saw my wife because I was about 20 feet in front of her. I suspect he had a camera rigged to the outside of his truck as many of these RVs do.

Then this guy from one of the RVs followed us for about three blocks until we sat on a bench in Ramos Park. He continued to follow us and sat on a bench right next to us as if he was tying to intimidate us. We sat there for a while and then we saw my neighbor playing on the play structure with his two children so we walked over the the play structure and played with the kids for about ten minutes before this guy finally turned around and walked back to East Meadow Circle. I suspect he want to know where I lived.

Just so you know, this situation is really getting intolerable and just because it is not in your neighborhood doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist! Bob
The Avenue des Champs-Élysées of South Palo Alto
Echelon Condos on East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle - - Is that a boat I see between the vehicles! East Meadow Circle - - Sure, I’ll park anywhere in Palo Alto I please! East Meadow Circle - - The guy who lives in his box truck with two dogs! East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle - - Seeing RV dwellers fixing their motocycles and cars is a common occurrence East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle - - This guy is a fixture here
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle - - Seen better days!

Sofia University - - Several of you are on my distribution list I sure wish you would speak up! East Meadow Circle - - The Intruder is Everpresent
East Meadow Circle - - That tire cover should read “Life is Better on East Meadow Circle!" East Meadow Circle - - The intruder has a nice setup in front of one of the many businesses that reside here East Meadow Circle - - Detached trailer which is illegal under the OSV Phase I Plan so I called it in to the PAPD and got a quick response that it would be investigated Fabian Way - - And one of the unfortunate consequences we see here in South Palo Alto

From: Annette Ross
To: Council, City; City Mgr; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer
Cc: Annette Ross
Subject: OSV
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 6:41:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Below is a picture from Palo Alto Online that is indeed worth a thousand words.

Is this type of parking even legal? Are you ticketing cars that park like this? If not, you should be.

At least 2 of the vehicles exceed the allowable size of the parking space. Also, whoever owns the black truck in this photo cannot possibly get out of that space - and it looks like others are in the same predicament. This issue isn’t going away. Please, put on your thinking caps!

From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Subject: August 24th Council Addressing Oversized Vehicle Impacts Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:08:04 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
All,
I understand that the City Council will meet on August 24 to discuss proposed oversized- vehicle (OSV) pilot programs. As you consider these proposals, I strongly urge the City Council to enact a comprehensive ban on RV and oversized-vehicle parking throughout the City.

The rights and interests of property owners, residents, and local businesses deserve stronger protection than those of transient oversized vehicles. As you are aware, OSVs used for habitation can create significant challenges, including sanitation concerns, obstruction of public spaces, reduced visibility, decreased on-street parking availability, impacts on neighborhoods and businesses, and ongoing demands on City resources and operations.

Rather than spending taxpayer dollars on pilot programs that may only delay meaningful results, the City should focus on enforcing the municipal code already in place. Section 90.09 prohibits individuals from using vehicles for lodging on public streets and property between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Enforcing this existing regulation would provide an immediate and straightforward way to address overnight habitation in vehicles without creating additional programs or expenses.

Residents and business owners expect the City to enforce its existing laws and maintain the cleanliness, safety, accessibility, and character of our neighborhoods. Resources should be directed toward enforcement and solutions that benefit the community as a whole—not toward programs that normalize or expand OSV habitation.

If the City Council nevertheless decides to proceed with an OSV pilot program and allocate taxpayer resources to it, I would suggest an alternative: limit OSV parking exclusively to the city blocks where City Council members and the City Manager reside. If these programs are truly in the best interests of the community, City leadership should be willing to experience This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
their impact firsthand.

A comprehensive ban on RV and oversized-vehicle parking is reasonable, necessary, and preferable to spending additional public resources on pilot programs when existing municipal regulations can and should be enforced.

Best,
GMH
Begin forwarded message:

From: "McDonough, Melissa" <[email protected]> Subject: Staff Report Available for August 24th Addressing Oversized Vehicle Impacts
Date: August 13, 2026 at 6:08:36 PM PDT
As I mentioned earlier this week, Council will be discussing oversized vehicle (OSV) impacts at its August 24
th meeting, tentatively scheduled as Item 10, from 8:40 - 10:40 PM. Ahead of the meeting, if you’re interested, you can read the staff report online, which describes two pilot programs:

1. OSV Parking Permit Pilot. Allowing OSVs to park on two designated street segments (Coyote Hill Road and Embarcadero Road), while actively engaged in pursuing permanent stable housing. This would also include case management services, access to portable toilets, and trash removal.

2. OSV Parking Prohibited Alternating Side Pilot. On impacted streets, prohibiting parking on one-side of each street, on an alternating 6-month basis. This would also include painting red tips at driveways and intersections, and adding signage to allow enforcement of no OSV overnight parking alongside city parks near these streets.

Best regards,

Melissa

Melissa McDonough, MPP
Assistant to the City Manager
pronouns: she/her
650.329.2533 (desk) | 650.586.1557 (mobile)
[email protected]
www.PaloAlto.gov

From: Oksana Selavri
To: Council, City; Lauing, Ed; [email protected]; Stone, Greer; [email protected]; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Shikada, Ed
Subject: strong objection to Phase 2
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:44:03 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good morning Mayor Veenker, Members of the City Council and City Manager, I absolutely agree with Martin and strongly object to the current Phase 2 proposal. I am a resident of Echelon Community and Fabian Way and East Meadow Circle is my immediate neighborhood. We have suffered long enough (for 6 years now) from this problem and are asking for a better solution which involves banning RVs in areas such as ours which are residential and adjacent industrial/commercial areas. These vehicles do not belong on our streets. In fact the currently implemented biweekly street cleaning showed minimal improvement and did not fix the problem at all. We used to have 55 back to back RVs on East Meadow and now have about 35 RVs that continue to stay. And to make the matters worse the street cleaning flushes them out and they now park right in front of our complex and run their motors overnight creating noise and pollution. Please use the current $800K plus budget to either move these people into Motels and truly help them get off the streets or identify a lot for these 130 plus vehicles that are not disturbing tax paying Palo Alto residents. I see it as a waste of money with no result.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Christian A. Hothem
To: Council, City
Subject: RV Parking Near 844 E. Charleston Road – Impact on Local Businesses Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 4:51:31 PM
Attachments: pag-logo-email2_4095fa7b-f6df-42a4-99d6-4052b8405145.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor and Members of the City Council,
My name is Christian Hothem with Pacific American Group. Our family has owned the commercial property at 844 E. Charleston Road since 1994.

I am writing regarding the concentration of RVs currently parked on the street near our property. We have contacted the City and have been told that the vehicles are legally parked.

We recognize that homelessness and vehicle dwelling are difficult issues and that the City has obligations to residents experiencing homelessness. We are not asking the City to simply move people from one neighborhood to another.

However, the current situation is beginning to create a separate problem for the surrounding business community. We recently had a prospective tenant decide not to lease space at 844 E.

Charleston specifically because of concerns about security associated with the RVs and the condition of the surrounding street.

That means the issue is now directly affecting Palo Alto's ability to attract and retain businesses at this location.

We would like to work constructively with the City to find a solution that treats the people living in these vehicles appropriately while also ensuring that commercial streets remain safe, accessible and attractive places for businesses, employees and customers.

We would appreciate the Council's assistance in determining what options are available, whether through parking regulation, enforcement, outreach services, managed parking programs, or another approach the City believes would be effective.

We have been invested in Palo Alto for more than three decades and want to continue being a responsible long-term member of the community. I would be happy to meet with Councilmembers or City staff at 844 E. Charleston to show you the situation firsthand.

Help your local businesses succeed! Please vote NO on Action Item 10 in the august 24 th
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
special city council meeting. Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
Christian Hothem
Pacific American Group

CHRISTIAN HOTHEM
Managing Partner
104 Caledonia St, Ste. 101
Sausalito, CA 94965
415.331.3838 office
From: Penny Brennan
To: Council, City
Subject: Please, Vote NO on Both OSV Pilot Programs!
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 5:47:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Palo Alto City Council:

I urge you to vote NO on both OSV pilot programs recommended to you by the OSV subcommittee and staff.

· As usual, even after community inquiries, the OSV subcommittee and staff have acted with zero input from the Palo Alto residents and businesspeople most directly affected and negatively impacted by presence of OSVs on Palo Alto streets.

· The OSV subcommittee and staff continue to base their OSV policy recommendations on stereotypes and feelings, rather than actual empirical data, regarding the use and need characteristics of individuals who park their OSVs in Palo Alto. For example, there are two OSVs parked in my Ventura neighborhood (Matadero and Orinda Aves) that are routinely left vacant for days and weeks on end, with no sign of overnight use. Seemingly these are not being used as “humanitarian” shelters by their owners but as storage spaces and way stations for cooling and car-charging via gas-powered generators.

The primary need of these users seems to be finding a parking space sufficiently large to accommodate the enormous length and width of their vehicles. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that some OSV users park where they do not out of unemployed or destitute status but out of preference for proximity to their Palo Alto workplaces. The Palo Alto City Council should base its OSV policies on OSV use and need facts rather than stereotypes and “gut feelings” labeled as “humanitarianism” and “moral obligation.”

· Both recommended pilot programs are illogical in their conception. If pilot permitted spaces are filled by new OSV arrivals, this will just add to the more than 130 OSVs that already occupy Palo Alto streets. If the idea is to shift existing OSVs to new pilot program spaces: Isn’t it obvious that the left- behind, empty OSV parking spaces will be immediately backfilled by the arrival of yet more new OSVs?

· Both pilot programs will be utterly unenforceable.

· Attempted implementation of the pilot programs will be costly, using resources that would be much better spent strictly enforcing Palo Alto’s 72- hour parking and public nuisance ordinances. Currently, Palo Alto is not doing so.

· When will Palo Alto City Council focus its humanitarian compassion and resource allotment more on Palo Alto residents and businesspeople, whose safety, security, physical and mental health, livelihoods, and property values are being jeopardized by the OSV users, than on the circumstances and needs of OSV users who have chosen to park their vehicles in our city?

Both recommended OSV pilot programs are built on false premises, ill-conceived, unenforceable, and destined to further harm Palo Alto residents and businesspeople. I urge you to vote “NO” on both of them.

Sincerely,
Penny Brennan, PhD
Ventura Neighborhood
From: Dmitri Samsonov
To: Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject: Oppose Legalization of Long-Term RV Parking in Residential Neighborhoods Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 9:18:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the City's current approach toward RV parking in residential neighborhoods and to any proposal that would legalize or permanently accommodate long- term RV parking in our neighborhood, East Meadow circle.

The City continues to spend public funds on programs addressing RV occupancy, yet residents see little measurable progress. As taxpayers, we deserve transparency, accountability, and results. The current approach appears to lack all three.

One of my primary concerns is the lack of accountability regarding RV owners who are being permitted to live in their vehicles as part of City assistance programs. I understand that people may experience temporary hardships such as job loss, unexpected financial difficulties, or other personal crises, and I support providing short-term assistance during those times. However, such assistance cannot be indefinite.

The City should maintain clear records identifying who is receiving assistance, the reason assistance is being provided, the duration of that assistance, the services being offered, and the expected path toward a more permanent housing solution. Without documented records, timelines, and measurable goals, there is no way to determine whether the program is effective or whether public resources are being used responsibly.

Compassion should not mean allowing unlimited occupation of public streets without oversight or accountability. If the City chooses to permit individuals to remain in RVs due to temporary hardship, there must be clear eligibility requirements, regular reviews of each case, and a defined timeframe for assistance. Residents have a right to know that these programs are being managed responsibly and that temporary assistance is not becoming a permanent arrangement.

There must also be clear expectations and timeframes. Assistance programs should be designed to help individuals regain stability and move toward permanent housing solutions within a reasonable period.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Public support should not become an indefinite arrangement with no measurable goals, no review process, and no accountability. Compassion is important, but compassion without accountability is not a sustainable public policy.

I am particularly concerned by discussions that could result in the legalization of long-term RV parking in residential neighborhoods. Such a policy would be a serious mistake and a failure to protect the interests of Palo Alto residents. Residential streets were never intended to function as permanent RV living locations, and the City should not redefine them as such.

When our condominium complex was approved and built, the City authorized it as a residential community. Residents purchased homes with the expectation that surrounding streets would remain residential in character. We should not be expected to live with conditions resembling vehicle storage areas or encampments. The City has a responsibility to preserve the character, safety, and quality of life of established residential neighborhoods.

If certain individuals require long-term support due to age, disability, or other circumstances, the City should work with appropriate social service agencies, housing organizations, senior support programs, and county resources to identify better solutions. Residential streets should not become permanent housing alternatives.

The City has a duty to ensure accountability, enforce its own laws, and protect the rights of Palo Alto residents. The current approach fails to meet these fundamental responsibilities. Existing regulations should be enforced consistently and fairly. No individual or group should be exempt from reasonable standards that apply to everyone else.

I would also like to remind the City Council that its members were elected to represent the residents of Palo Alto. Your first responsibility is to the people who live in these neighborhoods, pay taxes, and rely on the City to protect the character and livability of their community.

Therefore, I respectfully but firmly demand that the City:

Reject any proposal that would legalize permanent or indefinite RV parking in residential neighborhoods.

Establish clear records and reporting regarding individuals receiving assistance and the outcomes achieved.

Implement defined timelines, goals, and accountability measures for assistance programs.

Enforce existing parking and neighborhood regulations consistently.

Develop long-term housing solutions that do not place the burden on residential neighborhoods.

Residents deserve safe, clean, and properly regulated neighborhoods. The City must balance compassion for those in need with accountability, effective use of public funds, and respect for the rights of Palo Alto residents.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to meaningful action on this issue.

Sincerely,
Dmitri.

From: Tonu Pale
To: Council, City
Subject: OSV to park on OLIVE ST for 6th month
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 6:29:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
My name is Tonu Pale, I live on 265 olive ave. And I would like the CITY to please explain WHAT are they trying to DO with OSV parking ON our street and WHY. Please FEEL the poor and let ME understand this IDEAS. Please HELP ME i need to communicate with you /City of Palo Alto for Real
Thanks
T pale
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Mike Emrick
To: Council, City
Cc: City Mgr
Subject: Response to Staff Report Regarding RV Parking and Vehicle Dwelling Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 8:02:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed approach to RV parking and vehicle dwelling outlined in the staff report.

While I understand that the City is attempting to address a difficult and complex issue, I do not believe the proposed plan is a meaningful long-term solution. Instead, it risks institutionalizing and concentrating a problem that has already had serious consequences for Palo Alto residents, businesses, and property owners.

For businesses located near the proposed parking areas, this is particularly concerning.

Property owners have invested substantially in Palo Alto based on the expectation that the City will maintain safe, clean, accessible, and economically viable commercial areas. Allowing long-term RV habitation on public streets—even under a permit system —can negatively affect the appearance, accessibility, desirability, and ultimately the value of surrounding commercial properties.

It also creates a serious concern for future leasing. Businesses considering leasing space in an area where long-term RV habitation is permitted may reasonably question whether the location is appropriate for their employees, customers, clients, and operations. A policy intended to manage RVs should not inadvertently make Palo Alto commercial properties less attractive to prospective tenants.

I am also deeply concerned that the proposed program will not actually deter RVs from coming to Palo Alto. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. If Palo Alto becomes known as a city where RV residents can obtain permits and remain in designated locations for extended periods, word will spread that Palo Alto is a place where long- This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
term vehicle habitation is tolerated and accommodated. That creates a very real risk that the City will attract additional RVs rather than reduce their presence.

We have already witnessed situations in which RV owners or “vanlords” have taken advantage of available public parking by operating a long-term rental arrangement from vehicles parked on Palo Alto streets. The City has recognized this problem and has taken steps to prohibit vanlording, but simply designating additional locations for RV parking does not address the broader incentive created when public streets become a dependable place for long-term habitation.

The proposed alternating-side parking approach is also troubling. Moving RVs from one side of a street to the other every six months does not eliminate the impact on surrounding businesses and property owners. It simply moves the problem back and forth. For those of us who live and work in affected areas, this is not a solution—it is a redistribution of the burden.

The City should also carefully consider what message this policy sends to businesses that have complied with Palo Alto's rules, paid taxes, maintained their properties, and invested in the community. Businesses should not be expected to absorb the consequences of a policy that effectively converts public streets adjacent to their properties into long-term RV living areas.

I respectfully ask the City Council to reconsider this approach before moving forward. At a minimum, the City should require clear and measurable evidence that the proposed program will actually reduce the number of RVs on Palo Alto streets rather than simply relocate them. The City should also establish enforceable limits on duration, meaningful consequences for violations, protections for adjacent businesses and property owners, and a clear plan for preventing spillover into surrounding neighborhoods and commercial areas.

Most importantly, Palo Alto should not become known as a destination for long-term RV parking simply because neighboring jurisdictions have adopted more restrictive policies.

We should be pursuing a coordinated regional solution rather than allowing Palo Alto to become the place where the problem is concentrated.

I sincerely hope the City Council will consider the long-term consequences of this proposal—not only for those currently living in RVs, but also for the residents, businesses, employees, customers, and property owners who will be living with the consequences of this policy for years to come.

The community deserves a solution that actually addresses the problem rather than one that merely moves it from one block to another. After the significant concerns that residents and businesses have already raised, I do not believe the current proposal represents meaningful action.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject or substantially revise the proposed plan and pursue a strategy that protects Palo Alto's neighborhoods, commercial properties, businesses, and quality of life while addressing the underlying causes of vehicle habitation through a genuine regional and long-term solution.

Sincerely,
Michael Emrick
Mozart Development
1068 East Meadow Circle
Palo Alto, Ca 94303

From: Steven Hsu
To: Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject: RV Parking Phase2 Issue
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:03:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veekner and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to respectfully object to the current Phase 2 proposal.

As a resident of the Echelon community since 2021, I and my neighbors have endured the impacts of long-term RV parking in this area for five years. We urge the City to pursue a more effective solution, including prohibiting RV parking in residential neighborhoods and adjacent industrial and commercial areas.

The biweekly street-cleaning program has produced minimal improvement and has not resolved the underlying issue. While the number of RVs on East Meadow Circle has decreased from approximately 60 to 35, the cleaning schedule often causes vehicles to relocate temporarily in front of our complex.

This creates overnight engine noise and air pollution,
directly impacting our quality of life and neighborhood security—the very reasons we chose to live in Palo Alto.

Please consider utilizing the proposed budget of over $800,000 to pursue a lasting and humane solution. This could include providing temporary motel accommodations and supportive services, or establishing a designated site for these 130-plus vehicles away from residential neighborhoods.

As currently proposed, Phase 2 is unlikely to address the root of the problem and risks spending substantial public funds without achieving meaningful results.

Respectfully,
Steven Hsu
4088889926
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Forrest Mozart
To: City Mgr; Council, City
Subject: RE: Response to Staff Report Regarding RV Parking and Vehicle Dwelling Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:59:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and City Council,

I would like to piggyback on the below email. This has become a serious problem for business on East Meadow Circle. The other day I saw a man showering outside his mobile home. I saw a person trying to rip a branch off a street tree so he could have better access to his mobile home. People place their trash outside. This has become a complete joke and honestly there is no one to blame but our elected officials.

We have great sympathy for this situation but as our elected officials you all need to come up with a better solution. Maybe get Stanford University involved? They have plenty of land that could be converted to help this situation. Stanford claims to be a philanthropic institution – let’s see.

Forrest Mozart
California Communities
Mozart Development
650-380-5399

From: Mike Emrick
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 8:02 AM
To: '[email protected]
' <[email protected]>
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: Response to Staff Report Regarding RV Parking and Vehicle Dwelling

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed approach to RV parking and vehicle dwelling outlined in the staff report.

For businesses located near the proposed parking areas, this is particularly concerning.

I am also deeply concerned that the proposed program will not actually deter RVs from coming to Palo Alto. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. If Palo Alto becomes known as a city where RV residents can obtain permits and remain in designated locations for extended periods, word will spread that Palo Alto is a place where long- term vehicle habitation is tolerated and accommodated. That creates a very real risk that the City will attract additional RVs rather than reduce their presence.

Most importantly, Palo Alto should not become known as a destination for long-term RV parking simply because neighboring jurisdictions have adopted more restrictive policies.

We should be pursuing a coordinated regional solution rather than allowing Palo Alto to become the place where the problem is concentrated.

Sincerely,
Michael Emrick
Mozart Development
1068 East Meadow Circle
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
From: Mike Emrick
To: Council, City
Cc: City Mgr
Subject: Video - Re: August 24, 2026 Staff Report
Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 8:37:57 AM
Attachments: 2a106d9e-750c-4ce2-9a19-7c8d8aabe0f0.mp4
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Attached is a video taken in front of our building. As the video shows, individuals associated with the RVs attempted to remove a branch from a tree located within the City’s easement.

I wish I could say that incidents like this are rare, but unfortunately, they are part of an ongoing pattern of activity. We have witnessed double parking, RV repairs being conducted on the street, dumping of trash, attempts to take water from our irrigation system, and employees of the RV owners moving multiple RVs from one side of the street to the other shortly before street sweeping.

Despite these ongoing issues, the “vanlords” continue to use Palo Alto as a location for RV rentals. I question whether City staff have conducted a thorough review of the various online platforms and websites to determine whether RVs located in Palo Alto are being actively rented.

I respectfully ask the City to investigate these activities, including whether the RVs are being rented commercially from locations within Palo Alto, and to take appropriate enforcement action where violations are identified.

The continued use of our streets and public easements for these activities is creating significant problems for our neighborhood and should not be allowed to continue unchecked.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would appreciate a response regarding what steps the City intends to take to address these ongoing issues.

Sincerely,
Michael Emrick
Mozart Development
1068 East Meadow Circle
Palo Alto, Ca 94303

From: Bianca Patel
To: Council, City
Subject: Public Comment: Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Program - August 24 Council Meeting Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 11:03:02 AM
Attachments: The Foster Museum_City Council Letter.pdf
Enclosure_The Foster Museum Vehicle Log 2021-2026.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the City Council,
Attached is a public comment letter and vehicle reporting log from The Foster Museum regarding the Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Program on your August 24 agenda.

Our museum is located at 940 Commercial Street - on the 900 block specifically named in the staff report. We've been documenting oversized vehicle impacts at this location since 2021 and have outlined four specific requests for the Council's consideration.

We welcome the opportunity to speak during public comment at the meeting as well.

Thank you,
Bianca
Bianca Patel
Executive Director
The Foster Museum
940 Commercial Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
www.thefoster.org
| (o) 650-209-7181 (m) 737-352-3833
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
August 18, 2026 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Public Comment — Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Program (August 24, 2026) Dear Members of the City Council, Oversized vehicles have been parked in front of The Foster Museum (a free, public cultural institution at 940 Commercial Street) continuously since 2021. As Executive Director, I am writing because our block is specifically named in the staff report as part of the proposed “alternating sides” parking restriction, and we have serious concerns about the adequacy of this approach for our block. We recognize that the City is navigating a difficult and deeply human challenge, and we do not take lightly the circumstances that lead people to live in vehicles. Our concern is not with the City’s goals, which we share, but with the specific implementation on our block. The Foster Museum was founded by Jane Woodward, a native Palo Altan, lifelong resident, and internationally recognized businesswoman who has invested millions of dollars to create a free, world-class cultural institution that is open to everyone in this community. The museum offers free admission six days a week, hosts over 6,000 guests annually, is ranked #4 among TripAdvisor’s Top Attractions in Palo Alto, and provides free programming for schools, seniors, and community groups. We purchased the building in 2024, permanently committing to this neighborhood. More about the museum can be found at www.thefoster.org. A Documented, Worsening Problem Museum staff have logged oversized vehicle incidents in front of 940 Commercial Street continuously since 2021. A detailed vehicle reporting log is enclosed. The impacts are concrete: • Visibility and access: RVs block our facade and signage, making the museum invisible to first-time visitors and tourists. • Safety: Sightlines from our driveway are blocked; generators, propane tanks, wiring, and debris occupy the public right-of-way. • Accessibility: Children, seniors, and visitors with disabilities are forced to park far from the entrance. • Events and programming: The museum hosts community events, exhibitions, and programming that draw visitors to the building. Oversized vehicles parked directly outside affect the experience for event attendees and reduce available street parking for guests. Our Concerns with the Proposed Plan • The plan treats our block like a residential street. The Foster Museum is a public-facing cultural venue that depends on street visibility and a welcoming exterior. The impact of RVs in front of a museum entrance is qualitatively different from the impact on a residential block. • Displacement is acknowledged but unaddressed. The staff report itself states the program “will likely drive some vehicles to other blocks.” Without stronger protections, Commercial Street could absorb displaced vehicles from other segments. • The City’s own approach could be expanded. The City has already identified low-traffic corridors like Coyote Hill Road and Embarcadero Road as effective permit-zone locations. We encourage the Council to expand this approach to additional similar corridors, such as segments of Fabian Way. These corridors could accommodate more designated parking without impacting cultural institutions, schools, or business frontages. • Six months is too long. For a visitor-facing business, six months of RVs on one side of the street represents an entire exhibition season of impaired access. We are not asking the City to eliminate the oversized vehicle program. We are asking the Council to ensure that its implementation protects Palo Alto’s community assets. Our Specific Requests 1. Establish a no-parking buffer zone directly in front of 940 Commercial Street so the museum’s facade, signage, and driveway sightlines remain clear regardless of the rotation schedule. 2. Shorten the rotation cycle for the 900 block to 90 days instead of six months. 3. Prioritize enforcement and monitoring on this block, tracking whether displaced vehicles concentrate near the museum. 4. Expand designated permit zones to additional low-impact corridors such as Fabian Way. We have documented this problem for over four years, and have worked cooperatively with the Police Department and city staff. We welcome the opportunity to speak during public comment and invite any Council member or staff to visit the museum and see the situation firsthand. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bianca Patel Executive Director, The Foster Museum 940 Commercial Street, Palo Alto (737) 352-3833 Enclosures: • Oversized and Abandoned Vehicle Reporting Log, 2021–Present • Photographs of current conditions (see next page) Photographs: Oversized Vehicles at 940 Commercial Street RVs parked in front of the museum (approaching guest’s view of 940 Commercial St) Museum entrance with adjacent RVs
RVs in front of museum (note propane tanks on the sidewalk)

Oversized and Abandoned Vehicle Reporting Log The Foster Museum, 940 Commercial Street, Palo Alto Documented incidents: 2021 – Present Vehicle Information Vehicle Description Arrived Called/Reported Tagged Moved Itasca by Winnebago, License #2KCA015, in front of 940 Commercial White, blue pinstripes 10/14/21, 10/19/21 10/18/21 10/22/21 5th Wheel Camper Trailer (No Plate) + Van License #10373, in front of 940 Commercial White w/ silver detail, "Wilderness"; White van w/ teddy bear 5/31/22 6/4/22 6/6/22 Jamee Camper, License #8UJM381, in front of 940 Commercial Cream w/ brown, orange, tan detail 7/13/22 7/19/22, 7/22/22 7/25/22 5th Wheel + Van #10373, in front of 940 Commercial White "Wilderness" + van w/ teddy bear 7/14/22 7/14/22 7/20/22 5th Wheel + Van #10373, in front of 940 Commercial White "Wilderness" + van w/ teddy bear 3/22/23 3/28/23 5th Wheel + Van #10373, at 950 Commercial White "Wilderness" + van w/ teddy bear 4/15/23 8/28/23 8/31/23 RV, License #5RGS155, in front of 950 Commercial Grey-Silver, blue/tan trim, Trek Safari 9/13/23 9/15/23 9/16/23 9/18/23 Storage Trailer, License #4SU3290, at 950 Commercial White, Titanium Cargo Trailers LLC 9/20/23 9/29/23, 10/5/23, 10/18/23 10/22/23 Camper Van (no plate), in front of 940 Commercial GMC, pink/blue w/ black painted emblems 9/22/23 9/29/23 Truck w/ custom wooden camper (no plate), in front of 940 Commercial Older Ford, green truck 9/22/23 9/29/23 5th Wheel + Van #10373, at 950 Commercial White "Wilderness" + van w/ teddy bear 10/24/23 11/13/23 (Holly Knapp Board Member, w/ Officer Brill) 11/18/23 Camper Van (no plate), in front of 940 Commercial GMC, pink/blue w/ black emblems 11/17/23 11/24/23 Truck w/ custom wooden camper (no plate), in front of 940 Commercial Older Ford, green truck 11/17/23 11/24/23 Bounder RV, License #3PQD855, in front of 940 Commercial Light tan w/ gray/burgundy stripes 6/15/24 6/19/24 (Holly Knapp w/ Officer Brill) 6/21/24 Camper Trailer, License #RN 4959 Prowler, white w/ yellow trim 9/18/24 9/18/24 9/23/24 Abandoned microwave and generator found in front of building 10/17/24 Camper Trailer, License #4LV4021 Sierra by Cobra, white w/ brown pinstripe 10/22/24 10/25/24 10/27/24 10/31/24 Truck w/ custom wooden camper, License #053 S10 Older Ford, green truck 11/6/24 11/7/24 RV, AZ License #BXE8049 Mallard, white w/ blue trim 11/15/24 11/20/24 11/21/24 11/22/24 5th Wheel Trailer, License #1KY4872 Wanderer Wagon, white w/ blue/grey trim 11/24/24 11/26/24 11/26/24 11/27/25 Vehicle Information Vehicle Description Arrived Called/Reported Tagged Moved Inoperable pickup truck in museum back lot (placed by RV dweller) Gray pickup, broken windshield 12/13/25 12/18/25 12/18/24 Dodge van (no plate), in front of museum White, "Mazzy's Fire Protection Services" 12/29/24 1/3/25, 1/7/25 1/14/25 Ford van, License #8L10716 Blue and light blue Ford van 12/29/24 1/3/25, 1/7/25, 1/14/25 1/20/25 5th Wheel + Van #10373 (no plate) White "Wilderness" + GMC van 3/11/25 3/12/25 (+ Holly Knapp w/ Officer Brill) 3/14/25 RV, AZ License #BXE8049 White w/ dark blue trim 3/11/25 3/12/25 (+ Holly Knapp w/ Officer Brill) 3/14/25 Chevrolet pickup, License #51910W1 Light brown/bronze 5/23/25 5/23/25 (emailed Officer Jun) 5/27/25 3 vehicles in front of museum Big wooden one, blue/pink van, white/yellow one 7/24/25 7/28/25 7/29/25 2 RVs: PaceArrow License #8DMW047 + SeaBreeze License #3EMV964 White RV w/ blue trim; White RV w/ faded blue/purple trim 7/31/25 8/1/25, 8/7/25 Black Van Make: Toyota or Subaru Unable to get the license number Black Van - 4 door The van belonged to the people in the RV reported above 9/9/25 Asked the owners to move out of our designated parking space on 9/9/25 RV CA License #9HJN053 White RV with blue trim and pinstriping 9/17/25 9/19/25 5th Wheel Trailer CA License #1NM6643 White 5th wheel with black/gray trim and pinstriping 9/18/25 9/19/25 RV CA License #2RUL916 White Ford RV with gray/blue/maroon trim 10/7/25 10/10/25 10/12/25 5th Wheel Trailer License: Unknown White 5th Wheel with green trim Model: Layton 10/12/25 10/14/25 RV CA License #9HJN053 White RV with light and dark blue trim 10/29/25 11/3/25 RV CA License #5SSJ533 White RV with tan and black trim 10/30/25 11/4/25 5th Wheel CA License #1LN261 White 5th wheel trailer with tan and brown trim 11/5/25 11/8/25 11/10/25 RV License #K3975 White RV with light blue and dark blue trim 11/13/25 11//17/25, 12/2/25 12/5/25 RV CA License #8MYH017 White RV with light and dark green detailing 11/15/25 11/19/25, 12/2/25, 12/9/25 The RV was tagged on 12/3/25. The tag was removed on 12/4/25. 12/7/25
RV CA License #9MBD743 White RV with gray and green detailing 12/5/25 12/9/25 12/12/25 5th Wheel Trailer License unknown White 5th Wheel with green trim 1/8/26 1/10/26 1/13/26 Vehicle Information Vehicle Description Arrived Called/Reported Tagged Moved RV CA License #3EMV96 White RV with faded blue and purple trim Model: SeaBreeze 2/16/26 2/17/26 2/18/26 RV CA License #9EMD349 White RV with pink and blue trim 3/1/26 3/3/26 RV CA License #4DMV996 White RV with tan and burgundy trim 3/1/26 3/3/26 RV CA License #8BRV295 White RV with teal green and grey detailing 3/4/26 3/6/26 5th Wheel Trailer CA License #1KW2883 White 5th wheel trailer with red and grey pinstriping 3/10/26 3/11/26 3/11/26 5th Wheel Trailer License #: Unknown White and grey 5th wheel trailer 3/10/26 3/11/26 3/12/26 RV CA License #63470B White and blue RV Make/model: Vacationer 5/6/26 5/9/26 5/13/26 RV CA License #63470B4 White and blue RV Make/model: Vacationer 5/16/26 5/20/26 5/21/26 RV CA License #63470B4 White and blue RV Make/model: Vacationer 7/14/26 7/22/26 RV CA License #63470B4 White and blue RV Make/model: Vacationer 7/28/26 7/31/26 8/3/26 RV CA License #5DHD039 White and green/multi-colored details 7/29/26 8/1/26 8/3/26 Note: This log documents more than 50 separate incidents of oversized vehicles parked in front of or adjacent to The Foster Museum at 940 Commercial Street, many involving the same vehicles returning multiple times. Reports were filed with the Palo Alto Police Department Abandoned Auto Hotline and individual officers including Officer Brill and Officer Jun.

From: Giselle Roohparvar
To: Council, City; City Mgr
Subject: Support for Agenda Item #10 OSV Parking Pilots — and Recommendations to Strengthen the Program Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 11:40:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Staff, I am a Palo Alto property owner writing in strong support of the proposed Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking pilots. My property is immediately adjacent to the 1000 block of East Meadow Circle, which is specifically included in the alternating-side pilot, so I have a direct interest in seeing this program succeed.

I appreciate the City's approach of pairing enforceable restrictions with designated parking, services, and accountability for people currently living in vehicles. I urge Council to approve the pilots.

I would, however, encourage Council to treat them as the first step toward a stronger, neighborhood-wide strategy, particularly because I am already seeing evidence of the displacement problem the City is anticipating.

First, please measure success by what happens to the surrounding neighborhood—not simply whether RVs leave the designated streets.

The 1000 block of East Meadow Circle is primarily commercial, but it sits within a residential neighborhood and immediately adjacent to homes and community uses. Since the recent restrictive signage went up, I have personally observed what appears to be spillover into surrounding areas: on two separate occasions I have seen RVs parked in front of Ramos Park, and I have also observed an RV parked directly in front of residential homes on East Meadow.

I recognize these observations are anecdotal, but they are precisely the type of displacement the City should be monitoring. I encourage the City to establish baseline OSV counts before the pilot and then track, by street, OSV counts, duration, complaints, citations, tows and sanitation issues—not just on the pilot streets but throughout the surrounding neighborhood. If the data show that vehicles are simply spilling over from restricted streets onto nearby residential streets, the City should have a clear mechanism for expanding restrictions rather than considering the pilot successful.

Second, East Meadow Circle and other sensitive locations should receive heightened enforcement priority.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
East Meadow Circle is close to schools, parks and heavily used bicycle paths, in addition to being embedded in a residential neighborhood. San José's OLIVE program provides an excellent model: it prioritizes enforcement based on factors including proximity to schools and parks, waterways and storm drains, vehicle concentrations, sanitation issues, and pedestrian and bicycle safety. San José now conducts citywide inventories and establishes up to 50 temporary tow-away sites annually, with a supplemental program for lower-priority locations.

Palo Alto could adopt similar objective criteria, allowing limited enforcement resources to be directed toward the locations where OSVs create the greatest public impact.

Third, make "rotation" meaningful.

A restriction is much less effective if an RV can simply move a short distance across the street and return. Cupertino's ordinance, which took effect in 2025, allows residents limited overnight permits but requires an oversized vehicle to move at least 1,500 feet after a permit expires and prohibits returning within that distance for the following 72 hours.

Palo Alto should consider a similar minimum relocation distance and return period in its longer-term framework so that rotation actually disperses vehicles rather than simply moving them from one block or parking space to another.

Fourth, the City needs to solve the practical towing and storage constraint.

The ability to tow is only useful if the City has sufficient towing and storage capacity. Palo Alto should determine the true all-in cost of towing, storage and disposal and structure its contracts accordingly.

The City should also look beyond Palo Alto for storage capacity. San Francisco provides a particularly useful local example: SFMTA has used a primary storage facility in San Francisco together with a designated long-term storage facility at 2650 Bayshore Boulevard in Daly City. Vehicles requiring longer-term storage can be moved to the Daly City facility, demonstrating that a city does not necessarily need to locate all of its impound capacity within its own boundaries.

Palo Alto could explore a similar arrangement with a neighboring jurisdiction or private industrial/storage operator.

Fifth, I encourage Palo Alto to explore an RV buyback program paired with housing assistance.

This is one of the most promising developments in neighboring cities. Berkeley has tested an RV buyback model paired with shelter and housing services, and Sunnyvale's City Council voted in April 2026 to pursue an RV buyback program alongside interim housing and designated OSV permit parking. Sunnyvale's approach is particularly interesting because it concluded that conventional safe parking was not a viable solution at meaningful scale and instead moved toward a combination of enforcement, permitted parking, housing and vehicle buyback.

This provides something enforcement alone cannot: an exit strategy. For people willing to transition out of vehicle living, a properly structured buyback and housing program could permanently remove vehicles from the public right-of-way rather than repeatedly moving them from one neighborhood to another.

Finally, I encourage Council to use the pilot period to evaluate whether Palo Alto should eventually move beyond a list of individual restricted streets toward a more comprehensive framework based on objective criteria such as street width, pedestrian and bicycle safety, proximity to schools and parks, sight distance, sanitation impacts, and demonstrated neighborhood displacement.

I support the City's efforts to provide meaningful alternatives and services for people currently living in vehicles, but I also believe residential neighborhoods should not be used as de facto long-term RV parking or housing. Residents deserve streets that are safe, sanitary, accessible and appropriate for their intended use.

I urge Council to approve the proposed pilots, but also to build in a clear escalation mechanism: if the pilot merely moves RVs into adjacent residential streets, the City should respond by expanding enforcement rather than considering the pilot successful.

The goal should not simply be to move the problem. It should be to reduce the impact of oversized and lived-in vehicles on Palo Alto neighborhoods while creating realistic pathways out of vehicle living for those who need them.

Thank you for your work on this difficult issue and for taking the concerns of affected neighborhoods seriously.

Respectfully,
Giselle R.

Palo Alto, CA
From: Robert Marinaro
To: Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr
Cc: Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; [email protected]; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Gary Gechlik; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Bulatao, Eric Subject: City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Problem/Solution Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 1:13:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Community,
Here is another alternative proposal/solution for the OSV parking problem that was recently submitted to the City.

Please let your city leaders know how you view this alternative versus the proposal by the City staff and submitted to the City Council for approval.

Best,
Bob Marinaro
Begin forwarded message:

From: Loren Brown <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Problem/Solution Date: August 18, 2026 at 9:02:39 AM PDT
To: "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, Ed Lauing
<[email protected]>, Keith Reckdahl
<[email protected]>, Julie Lythcott-Haims
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "McDonough, Melissa"
<[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Marinaro <[email protected]>, Loren Brown
<[email protected]>
8-18-2026
Palo Alto City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Manager Staff,
I would like to offer a potential solution to the OSV parking problem that the City has been experiencing for years and has yet to solve.

This proposal is not all of my own making; I have also incorporated elements that have been suggested by others.

Loren Brown
OSV PARKING PROBLEM ORIGINS:

First, we need to understand the problem. Associated with the high cost of housing and the deterioration of livable wages in this country, people began living in recreational vehicles or oversized vehicles (OSVs). Between 10 and 15 years ago, OSVs began parking in increasing numbers on City of Palo Alto streets. The number of OSVs in Palo Alto has since grown to between 150 and 250 in 2026 (including OSVs parked in the Life Moves lot on Geng Road) . The problem can be defined as an influx of OSV dwellers deciding that Palo Alto is their home and having few parking alternatives other than parking their OSVs on public streets.

CITY OF PALO ALTO RESPONSE TO OSV PARKING
PROBLEM:

The City of Palo Alto (like many municipalities) likely did not anticipate the large number of OSVs that came to call Palo Alto home. Because the City did not anticipate the large number of OSVs parking on Palo Alto streets, the City did not take action to either limit the total number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto or to prevent the OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business districts and residential neighborhoods.

Parked OSVs are incompatible with business districts and residential neighborhoods, but because the City was not proactive in preventing OSVs from parking on City streets, the OSVs, over time, became “entitled” by City Council, by City Staff, and by City of Palo Alto Code Enforcement. City Council is apparently unwilling to impose a City-wide ban on OSVs parking on Palo Alto streets.

To date, the City of Palo Alto has been unwilling to tackle this issue head-on and find a comprehensive solution. Yes, the City has effected some changes that have slightly reduced the magnitude of the OSV parking problem; however, the OSV parking problem is still large in magnitude. Every attempt by the City to lessen the negative impact of OSVs in business and residential neighborhoods has been ineffective because the City is unwilling to ban OSV parking in Palo Alto, unwilling to cap the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto, and unwilling to find an alternative location for the OSVs to park.

CURRENT STATE OF THE OSV PARKING PROBLEM:

The inability of the City to date to enact an effective and comprehensive solution to the OSV parking problem has resulted in a very large set of unhappy business owners, business tenants, business customers, and Palo Alto residents. OSV residents are not happy with the reception they receive from business owners, business tenants, business customers, and Palo Alto residents. City leaders, City staff, and City code enforcement personnel are not happy with the situation either.

CREATION OF OSV PARKING PROGRAM AND PROGRAM
GOALS:

It is time for City leaders to develop a comprehensive and effective OSV parking program. The OSV parking program needs to
accomplish the following goals:

1. Immediately stop all OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business districts and residential neighborhoods.

2. Prevent additional out-of-town OSVs from migrating to park on Palo Alto streets.

3. Provide designated locations where OSVs that are currently parking in Palo Alto can park.

4. Provide behavioral rules for OSV occupants to adhere to while parked in Palo Alto.

5. Decrease the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto over time.

6. Other?

OSV PARKING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PROGRAM
ELEMENTS:

1. The City of Palo Alto creates off-street OSV parking for approximately 150 OSVs. Total capacity = the current number of OSVs parking on CPA public streets + the number of OSVs parking in the Life Moves lot on Geng Road)

2. The City of Palo Alto caps the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto as of a designated date (these OSVs become pre-existing). After the designated date, no new OSVs (OSVs migrating to Palo Alto from outside Palo Alto) can begin parking in Palo Alto without express approval by the City.

3. The City of Palo Alto creates an OSV registration system and a set of behavioral rules for OSV registrants. The purpose of the registration system is for the City to identify every OSV/OSV occupant that is parking on Palo Alto public property. With an OSV registration system, the City can then detect pre-existing OSVs from new migrating OSVs that arrive in Palo Alto after the designated date and attempt to park their OSVs on public property.

4. The City of Palo Alto requires all pre-existing OSVs to register their OSVs. Any OSVs that are unwilling to register in the City’s OSV parking program must immediately leave Palo Alto.

5. The City of Palo Alto provides all registered OSVs the privilege of parking in one of PA’s designated OSV parking locations if and only if the OSVs commit to complying with City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Program rules. All OSVs then parking on public property in Palo Alto must relocate to City-designated OSV parking locations.

OSVs are banned from parking anywhere else in the City of Palo Alto.

6. The OSV Parking Program rules define where OSVs can park as well as define acceptable living behaviors. The OSV Parking Program rules also require OSV occupants to join a City of Palo Alto wait list for more permanent housing (non-OSV housing).

7. If/when a more permanent housing option becomes available, OSV occupants must either accept the housing assignment and remove their OSV from Palo Alto, or they must relocate their OSV outside of the City of Palo Alto.

8. Over time, the number of OSVs parking on public property will decline for the following reasons:
a). OSVs will accept more permanent housing options.
b). OSVs will decide to vacate Palo Alto.
c). There will be no new out-of-town OSV’s migrating to Palo Alto.

9. Over time (as the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto declines), the City of Palo Alto can shrink or eliminate some/all of its designated OSV parking locations as well as the extent of public services provided to parked OSVs.

OSV PARKING PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

1. The OSV Parking Program eliminates OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business parks and residential neighborhoods (thereby revitalizing those neighborhoods).

2. The OSV Parking Program respects current OSV dwellers and improves their living conditions.

3. The OSV Parking Program reduces/eliminates the current friction between OSV occupants, business owners, business tenants, business customers, and Palo Alto residents.

4. The OSV Parking Program puts an end to out-of-town OSVs migrating to park in Palo Alto. With no influx of OSVs into the City of Palo Alto, the number of OSVs parking on public property will decrease over time (thereby reducing the City of Palo Alto's OSV Parking Program costs).

5. OSVs are concentrated in designated areas, thereby making it easier for the City of Palo Alto to provide services to the OSV community (i.e., sanitation services, Wi-Fi, power, water, etc.)

6. Police Department code enforcement costs associated with responding to OSV parking issues should decrease.

CITY RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR THIS OSV PARKING
PROGRAM:

1. City of Palo Alto Staff time required to formalize and implement the OSV Parking Program.

2. Land in the form of parking spaces for approximately 130 OSVs (150 total required less 20 spaces at Geng Road Life Moves lot = 130 OSV parking spaces). These spaces can be on Coyote Hill Road, Embarcadero Road, the Caltrans lot at Highway 101 and San Antonio Road, on City-owned surplus land located on Geng Road directly across Geng Road from Life Moves or other City-owned land.

Virtually all of this land can be utilized for this purpose with little cost.

3. City of Palo Alto funds to prepare designated land for OSV parking use (gravel surfacing, perimeter fences, portable toilets, power, etc.).

4. City of Palo Alto funds to provide limited services to parked OSVs.

5. City of Palo Alto funds for OSV Parking Program registration system and OSV Parking Program administration.

6. City of Palo Alto funds for street signage?

7. Other?
MISCELLANEOUS:

1. A program element could be included that allows existing City of Palo Alto residents who lose their housing and are forced to live in an OSV to register (after the designated date) their OSV in the OSV Parking Program.

END
Sent from my iPad
From: Scott Van Duyne
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]; Barry Katz; Rebecca Sanders
Subject: Regarding Aug. 24 RV Pilot: Please Consider a Distributed, Citywide Alternative Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 3:40:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am a Palo Alto resident writing about the RV parking pilot scheduled for Council consideration on August 24.

I support the City's effort to create a humane, orderly system for people living in vehicles. But I believe the proposed pilot has a fundamental weakness: it concentrates a citywide responsibility on a very small number of streets.

The proposal would provide 20 permitted spaces on Coyote Hill Road and 17 near the end of Embarcadero Road -- 37 spaces in total -- while the City counted 133 RV dwellers in May. At the same time, parking restrictions would be imposed on 22 commercial and industrial blo
cks, where people spend their working days making a
living. And many of these streets are adjacent to residential neighborhoods.

I would ask Council to consider a different model: distributed permitted parking throughout Palo Alto, with no more than one vehicle-dwelling permit on any eligible block or defined street segment.

City staff could determine eligibility based on street width, fire access, bike lanes, driveways, visibility, parking demand, and other legitimate safety constraints. Not every block would qualify, nor would every qualifying space necessarily be occupied.

This approach has several advantages.

It distributes responsibility fairly rather than concentrating impacts on a few businesses and neighborhoods. It avoids creating large clusters that can produce sanitation, parking and neighborhood problems. And one RV per block would make routine street sweeping and sanitation much easier: permit holders could simply be required to move during scheduled cleaning.

Importantly, this model could retain the constructive parts of the current proposal— insurance, the $15 permit, a good-neighbor agreement, housing-service participation, sanitation requirements and enforcement.

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

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
The City's own analysis reportedly recognizes that a geographically limited pilot may simply cause unpermitted oversized vehicles to move into areas outside the pilot. A distributed system addresses that problem directly: instead of repeatedly moving concentrations from one neighborhood to another, manage the population by dispersing permitted spaces throughout the city.

Before committing to concentrated locations, I respectfully ask Council to direct staff to answer one straightforward question:

How many safe, eligible spaces would Palo Alto have if vehicle-dwelling permits were distributed citywide at a maximum of one per qualifying block or street segment?
If that number is sufficient to accommodate most or all of Palo Alto's vehicle-dwelling population, I believe this alternative deserves serious consideration as a pilot.

If Palo Alto considers providing safe parking a community responsibility, then the fairest policy is for that responsibility to be shared by the whole community, not disproportionately by a handful of streets and neighborhoods.

Thank you for considering this alternative on August 24.

Sincerely,
Scott Van Duyne
Palo Alto Resident
From: Giselle Roohparvar
To: Council, City; City Mgr
Subject: Follow-up - Item 10, Aug. 24 Oversized Vehicle Pilot Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:15:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Staff, I recently wrote in strong support of the proposed Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking pilots, while urging Council to build in a clear escalation mechanism to address displacement into surrounding neighborhoods and community areas.

I am writing ahead of Monday’s vote because I am now seeing exactly the type of displacement I raised as a concern.

Oversized vehicles are now parking in the Mitchell Park lot. I observed two there this morning, and I have seen as many as eight. They park parallel across the stalls rather than within them, meaning each vehicle occupies roughly two parking spaces. (See attached picture.) At eight vehicles, that represents approximately sixteen public parking spaces displaced.

This is significant because Mitchell Park is not simply another parking area. It is one of Palo Alto’s most heavily used community facilities, serving the library, Community Center, fields and playground, pickleball courts, and near-continuous youth programming. It is also adjacent to a school and a heavily used bicycle corridor.

More importantly, this is now the second park where I have observed OSVs after previously reporting RVs at Ramos Park. I have also observed an RV parked directly in front of residential homes on East Meadow.

That makes the issue larger than whether RVs leave the pilot streets.

The pilot should measure success by what happens beyond the pilot streets My concern is that a narrowly defined pilot could produce a misleading result: RVs disappear from the restricted streets, the City records that as success, and the vehicles simply relocate to nearby parks, residential streets, or other public facilities.

That is not a reduction in the problem. It is a relocation of the problem.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
I therefore urge Council to make displacement itself a trigger for escalation, rather than merely something the City monitors.

Specifically, I recommend that the City establish predetermined criteria under which restrictions or enforcement areas expand when OSVs begin concentrating in surrounding sensitive locations.

Those triggers could include:

Sensitive public facilities: OSV concentrations at parks, schools, libraries, community centers, or other heavily used public facilities should trigger additional enforcement or restrictions.

Residential displacement: An increase in OSVs on surrounding residential streets following implementation of the pilot should trigger expansion of the restricted area.

Concentration: Multiple OSVs gathering in a single location should be treated as a concentration problem rather than as a series of individually permissible parking events.

Repeated relocation: Vehicles repeatedly moving among nearby locations should not be considered a successful outcome simply because they have moved off the original restricted street.

This would give the City a predictable, objective framework rather than requiring Council to revisit the issue each time a new neighborhood experiences spillover.

Mitchell Park illustrates why this matters
Mitchell Park is precisely the kind of location that should receive heightened attention under an objective enforcement framework.

In my previous letter, I pointed to San José’s OLIVE program, which considers factors including proximity to schools and parks, pedestrian and bicycle safety, sanitation issues, and vehicle concentrations when prioritizing enforcement.

Mitchell Park scores highly on several of those factors.

The parking capacity issue also has a direct traffic-safety dimension. The lot already serves substantial family and youth activity, and the adjacent school (Fairmeadow Elementary) directs families to use the lot for drop-off and pickup in order to keep queues off East Meadow. When the lot fills, traffic backs up heavily on East Meadow between Middlefield and Waverley, reintroducing congestion onto a street used by young children walking and biking to both Fairmeadow Elementary and JLS next door.

I would therefore ask that the City include Mitchell Park and the surrounding streets in its baseline OSV counts before the pilot begins, and continue tracking them throughout the pilot. The same should be done for other parks and sensitive community facilities surrounding the pilot areas.

Please incorporate the escalation mechanism into Monday's action I support moving forward with the pilots on Monday. The situation has been under discussion for long enough, and I do not want to slow down much-needed action from the City.

But the pilot will be much more effective if the City incorporates the escalation mechanism at the outset, rather than waiting for displacement to become a larger problem and then having to restart the policy discussion.

This does not require a complicated new program. The City can establish baseline counts, identify sensitive locations and surrounding streets, and define objective thresholds that trigger expansion of restrictions or enforcement when displacement occurs.

That would allow Council to approve the pilots Monday (or after a short 30-day turnaround, if time is needed) while also ensuring that the pilots are designed to evolve when the data show they are not achieving their intended purpose.

The goal should be straightforward: reduce the impact of oversized and lived-in vehicles on Palo Alto neighborhoods—not simply move them from one location to another.

I continue to support the City's efforts to pair enforcement with services and realistic alternatives for people living in vehicles. At the same time, residential neighborhoods, parks, school-adjacent areas, and community facilities should not become a rotating network of substitute RV parking locations.

I urge Council to approve the pilots on Monday and incorporate a clear, objective escalation mechanism into their implementation so that demonstrated displacement triggers expansion rather than being counted as a successful outcome.

Thank you for your consideration and for your work on this difficult issue.

Respectfully,
Giselle R.

Palo Alto, CA

From: Greg McShea
To: Council, City; City Mgr
Subject: Regarding the new OSV parking proposal
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 10:08:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
I am a long time (30+ year) Palo Alto resident writing to provide feedback on the city's latest proposal to address OSV (over sized vehicle) parking in the city. The proposal produce by the committee should be considered a non-starter and the committee itself should be disbanded as they clearly are not trying to serve Palo Alto residents, but serving the OSV dweller community instead.

As I read about the latest proposal in the PA Weekly article I could not help but feel very angry at the continued unwillingness or inability for Palo Alto city council to respect residents wishes and either enforce current laws, or pass new ones to address the OSV parking problem that has plagued the city for nearly a decade now.

While responsible city councils in towns like Mountain View and Menlo Park are listening to their constituents and have passed stricter regulations on OSV parking, with the current proposal the Palo Alto city council seems to want make Palo Alto a mecca for even more OSVs.

The duty of city council members is to serve their constituents and PA council members are NOT doing this with the latest proposal. The OSV dwellers have no standing here, they are NOT residents. They do not pay rent or property taxes, and have no legal address to establish residency. They are squatters who have exploited the goodwill of Palo Alto for a very long time. I'm sure there are some true hard cases among the RV dwellers who have nowhere else to go, but suspect there are just as many, if not more, who have chosen this lifestyle to avoid long commutes or live free the financial obligations that come with having a residence. It is beyond me why the city even feels a need to serve the OSV dweller community, and continuously place the needs of this community above the wishes of its own residents.

I often walk/jog around East Meadow Circle and to this day there are still so many OSVs there, nearly 50 from what I can tell. I have observed the following behaviors in this area on a regular basis:

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

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast

1. I see the mess the OSVs leave on the rare occasion that a vehicle moves out, which the city has to clean up at residents' expense.

2. The OSV dwellers extend the bump out section of their RVs in to the street, effectively narrowing the street for traffic.

3. The OSV dwellers mark the area around their vehicle with cones as if they are laying claim to the property as their own.

4. The OSV dwellers store/dump personal items on the city strip/sidewalk.

5. Some of the OSV dwellers turn public spaces around their vehicles in to their own personal workshops.

6. The OSV dwellers park extremely close together making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the street

7. There is often a sewage like smell near some of the vehicles leading me to believe human waste is not being properly disposed of.

8. And, they run their gas generators for hours on end causing pollution from the noise and fumes. Palo Alto passed an anti-idling ordinance to prevent residents from running their cars for too long, but non-resident OSV dwellers are allow to run their generators (which pollute so much more than a modern car) for hours on end. This is a clear example of the City of Palo Alto having a double standard where they are prohibiting residents from engaging in a harmful behavior but turning a blind eye to the non-resident RV dwellers engaging in a significantly more harmful behavior.

Why have these behaviors from the OSV dwellers been tolerated/allowed? Yet with the latest proposal from the committee it seems the city is willing to welcome more our OSVs to our city with little to no regulations to address behaviors like mentioned above. I was astonished to read that not only will the committee proposal fully allow OSV permit parking in 2 locations in the city, it will also allow non-permitted OSV parking on over 2 MILES of city streets.

Regarding the price of the OSV parking permit, the bargain price of $15 a month will just serve to attract more OSVs to our city, is that the city council's goal? While I am not in favor of the permitted parking, if it is to happen the fee should be much, much higher. You charge your own city residents $42 A NIGHT to camp in Foothills park but somehow the non-resident OSV dwellers are given the bargain price of $15 A MONTH for similar accommodations. Another double standard where non residents are being treated much better than actual city residents.

I will close with a short story. About 15 years ago I had an older vehicle of mine that I parked on the street in front of my house. The vehicle was rarely used and would sit on the street for weeks at a time. Eventually I guess a neighbor complained and I received a notice on the car of the 72-hour parking limit (which I was not previously aware of) and potential towing. THAT SAME DAY I tried to move the car but it would not start since the battery had died, so my son and I pushed the car into our driveway to immediately remove it from the street and be in compliance with the law. I did this because I wanted to be a good citizen and I genuinely feared the potential enforcement consequences and my car being towed.

Years later, after seeing how the city has handled the OSV problem I feel like a fool that I acted so quickly to be in compliance with the law with my car since there really doesn't seem to be much enforcement of anything by the City of Palo Alto. Most issues (including OSV parking) that I entered in to the 311 app or city's website form never are addressed and never receive any response.

I urge you to do your duty and respect the wishes of your actual residents instead of non-resident OSV dwellers. Shut down the OSV parking proposal from the committee that will do nothing but encourage more OSV parking in the city, aggressively enforce our existing laws against OSV dwellers (e.g. 72 hour parking limit, illegal dumping) and to pass new laws to further reduce/eliminate OSV parking in the city like our neighboring cities have done.
-Greg McShea
From: Shweta Bhatnagar
To: Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Cc: Nose, Kiely; McDonough, Melissa
Subject: Comments for Item 10 (OSV Pilot) - 8/24 Council Mtg Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 2:39:59 PM
Attachments: image001.png
2026-08-20_Stanford OSV Pilot.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council,

Attached please find a letter from Stanford University regarding the Oversized Vehicle Pilot to be discussed at your upcoming August 24, 2026, City Council meeting. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or need any additional information.

With regards,
Shweta

Shweta Bhatnagar
Senior Director, Government Affairs
Office of Government Affairs
Stanford University
702-290-9217 |[email protected]

Docusign Envelope ID: 133E5D8F-AF5C-8354-8367-0B073864FC10 Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council August 20, 2026 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Comments on proposed Oversized Vehicle street parking pilot program Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 12-month pilot program for Oversized Vehicle (OSV) street parking. We appreciate Staff’s extensive efforts to develop a program that addresses ongoing neighborhood, business, public health and safety impacts associated with OSVs. Stanford has a long history of support for the unhoused in our local region. For example, the Haas Center for Public Service and Stanford Medicine students and clinicians have for many years served with LifeMoves, Peninsula Healthcare Connections and other organizations through clinical placements, internships, courses and student service groups. And though we share the common value for helping the unhoused, Stanford has serious concerns with the Coyote Hill Road OSV parking location as it will significantly increase wildfire threat and could compromise habitat species management and cultural resources. While Stanford also has concerns about the location’s proximity to the Stanford Research Park (SRP) related to attraction and retention of tenants (SRP comprises 18% of Palo Alto’s sales and use tax), we’ve focused our comments on safety and environmental risk. We are concerned about locating the OSV pilot in Palo Alto’s vulnerable Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Around-the-clock human activity in this WUI area is certain to increase wildfire risk with the potential for devastating fire and smoke impacts to the City, its residents and businesses. Fire ignition from OSV parking is not uncommon. BBQ ashes, floating embers, and smoking are all common causes. The proposed parking area is adjacent to open space with natural grass, which in the summer is very dry, presenting a unique wildfire risk to the community in this unmonitored area. There have been two fires in the past year near this location – one next to Deer Creek Road and the other near Coyote Hill Road. These fires were in close proximity to buildings in the Stanford Research Park. The Coyote Hill fire occurred just this past July and was caused by human activity. The Deer Creek fire in 2025 burned a number of acres very quickly before being suppressed by responding Palo Alto firefighters. Stanford's Fire Marshal and retired Palo Alto Fire Captain, Rich Dean, who was on scene during the Deer Creek fire, believes this incident would have developed into a much larger fire had Stanford, only by pure luck and circumstance, not had a mowing contractor working in the same field where and when the fire originated. The mowing contractor was able to control the fire until the Fire Department arrived. The fire was rapidly moving toward an upslope tree line. If it had reached the tree line, the fire would have been significantly more difficult to control and could have potentially reached Stanford Research Park buildings. Increasing wildfire risk in the WUI is inconsistent with our extensive efforts and investments to reduce wildfire risk across all Stanford lands. Stanford Real Estate Academy Hall Stanford Fire Marshal 415 Broadway, 3rd Floor 480 Oak Road Redwood City, CA 94063 Stanford CA 94305-2040 T: 650.723.8902 T: 650.725.2129

Docusign Envelope ID: 133E5D8F-AF5C-8354-8367-0B073864FC10 We are concerned that an OSV pilot program on Coyote Hill Road may negatively impact the environmentally sensitive Deer Creek. Acknowledging the importance and fragility of our local watersheds, Stanford has placed a conservation easement over Deer Creek aimed to protect natural resources, preserve wildlife habitats, and maintain the ecological integrity of this area. As stewards of these conservation lands, we are concerned that domestic animals and OSV dwellers could encroach into the easement and negatively impact flora and fauna. We appreciate the opportunity to share these comments, and we look forward to full and careful consideration of these safety and environmental concerns associated with the proposed 12-month pilot program. We also hope that the City Council will include outreach to affected Stanford Research Park tenants as part of its implementation plans. Sincerely, Robert Reidy Rich Dean V.P. Land, Buildings & Real Estate Fire Marshal Stanford University Stanford University From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Subject: URGENT – RVs Being Used as Homes – Tow Warning Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 3:17:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Mayor and City Council Members,
I am reaching out to ask for your urgent help regarding several people who are currently living in RVs in Palo Alto and have recently received 72-hour tow warnings.

These are not abandoned vehicles. These RVs are our homes. We are living in them because we currently do not have the financial means or another realistic housing option available to us.

There are several of us in the same situation. We are not trying to disregard the City’s parking regulations or create problems for the community. We are simply trying to find a safe and legal way to remain housed while we work through an extremely difficult financial situation.

The possibility of our RVs being towed is extremely serious for us because, if our RVs are removed, we will have nowhere to live and nowhere else to go.

We have already contacted the City’s Transportation Department and the Human Relations Commission, but we have not yet found a realistic solution.

We are asking the Mayor and City Council to please help us connect with the appropriate City officials and find a way to address this situation before our RVs are towed.

We would be very grateful if someone from the City could meet with us in person, hear our situation, and help us identify any possible temporary or long- term solution.

We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for help because these RVs are currently our homes, and we genuinely have nowhere else to go.

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

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Thank you for taking the time to read this and for any assistance you can provide. We sincerely hope the City will work with us to find a humane, safe, and legal solution.

Sincerely,
Luiz Santos
Enviado do meu iPhone
From: Jeff Truskey
To: Council, City
Subject: RV parking and Homelessness
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 7:01:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
As a 20 year resident of Palo Alto, I am writing to oppose the “compromise” on RV parking.

The proper approach is to severely limit parking for RVs as San Francisco does or outright ban overnight RV parking as Cupertino does. Everyone likes to be a “humanitarian” with someone else’s money, but City Council cannot ignore the real life negative impacts of the RV created problems.

On another point, how does the City Manager have the authority to open libraries and other facilities to the homeless? This should be publicly discussed by the City Council with the City Council making such a decision.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Jeff Truskey
Palo Alto, Ca.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: DiHuyen Van Ho
To: Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr
Subject: Action Item 10: OSV pilot feedback
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 8:44:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Palo Alto City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Manager Staff, I am writing to inform you about the tremendous emotional distress that your pilot program of OSVs has caused me. No criteria for selecting the streets included in the pilot were presented. One clear aspect is that the Ventura neighborhood is heavily targeted, especially Olive Avenue.

If you view Bob Marinaro's weekly spreadsheet, you will see that the maximum number of OSVs on Olive has been 3. And yet you are proposing an unlimited number.

This intentional targeting makes me feel like a second-class citizen. Now, the city is further undermining the quality of life and depreciating property values by allowing OSVs to park along the entire length of Olive Avenue. OSV parking comes with an uptick in trash, animal and human waste, unsafe biking, noise and air pollution from generators.

Historically, the Ventura neighborhood has the lowest property values in all of Palo Alto. Furthermore, Olive Avenue was one of the few streets where people of color were allowed to purchase a home. Including Olive Avenue in the pilot program is blatant discrimination against people of color, people of low income, and immigrants.

To answer Ms. Griffin’s comments as printed in the Daily Post article on Wednesday, August 18, “Living an RV lifestyle can be so much fun….” I would say I do respect other people’s choices, provided they are responsible for their own fun and not use This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
taxpayers’ money for their fun.

Please don’t lecture me about “You don’t know what it is like to be poor”. I came to this country in 1980 with two empty hands. I did not even possess the most basic skill of speaking English. That did not prevent me from being a law-abiding citizen or from behaving in a civilized manner. Please don’t tell me that because RV dwellers are poor, they can live on my street rent-free and trash the street in the process.

I would like the city to answer the following questions:

1. Signage has been posted. Signage has been amended. Signage has been completely ignored by OSV dwellers. Why is the city considering spending more money on more signage?

2. Has the ad hoc committee consulted with Menlo Park to see how they were able to ban OSVs without any budget expenditure?

3. What are the criteria for a street or a block to be included in the pilot program?

4. I am directly impacted by the plan. How come I was not notified? (Note recurrent theme: being treated like a second-class citizen -> aggravated emotional distress)
In Summary, drop your plan and go with Loren Brown's plan, or else remove Olive Ave completely from the list.

With respect from a law-abiding citizen,
D.H., homeowner, Olive Avenue
From: Derek Gurney
To: Council, City
Subject: RVs are too big for 2800-3200 Park Blvd, which is on a Safe Route to School Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:24:21 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Council,
I recently learned of the plan to allow long-term RV parking on the 2800-3200 block of Park Blvd.

Allowing RVs to park in this area will require cyclists, including the students who use it as a Safe Route to Gunn High School, to veer into the car lane while riding. Here's a screenshot of a satellite view to demonstrate this.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Notice that the space in the bike lane beside the RVs is much narrower than the area beside the cars, as RVs are 1.5 to 2 feet wider than even the average SUV and about 2 feet wider than the average car.

Below is a photo of a bicycle beside a parked car in the 2800-3200 block of Park Blvd. The photo shows that the bicyle lane is sufficient but not overly generous for passing a parked car.

I wasn't able to take the equivalent photo beside an RV, but I think its fair to assume that ther extra 2 feet of width of an RV over would require a cyclist to leave the bike lane in order to pass the RV. Multiply that by several RVs and the bike lane is no longer effective in providing a Safe Route.

And here's a section of the Gunn Safe Route to School map indicating that 2800-3200 Park Boulevard is part of the Safe Routes network
I hope this information convinces you that the 2800-3200 Block of Park Blvd is an inappropriate place for long-term RV parking. Moreover, I would urge you to direct staff to remove all the blocks where there is a bike lane. Bike lanes and long-term RV parking are not compatible.

Yours truly,
Derek Gurney
From: Ken Joye
To: Council, City
Subject: staff report #2606-6479
Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 8:55:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

In the past, I have spoken in-person before Council about vehicle dwellers, must submit my input in writing regarding agenda item #10 for the 24 August 2026 meeting.

When this topic was before you previously, I stated that I was glad that staff used the term “neighbors” when discussing vehicle dwellers and I urge you to frame your thinking in that manner.

I also urge you to look closely at the wording used in the staff report which describes the second pilot program before you. That pilot is said to “prohibit OVS parking on alternating sides of the street on a series of streets”.

Of course, that pilot could have been said to permit parking on alternating sides of the street.

This leads me to some observations:

It is an inconvenient truth that 85% of the streets identified for the second pilot are south of Oregon Expwy. City Council members bristle whenever residents discuss a perceived north/south divide but you cannot argue that the neighborhood and business impacts of this program are equally distributed across Palo Alto despite Council adopted values emphasizing equity.

Another inconvenient truth is that 30% of the streets are residential and all of those lie within the NVCAP boundaries. I do not recall any part of the NVCAP discussions identifying that area as a place to permit vehicle dwellers.

I would like to propose that you consider two additional spaces for the second pilot program:
(1) 200 Block of Hamilton Ave
(2) the runway of the municipal airport
Each of those is rich in symbolic value. Allowing vehicle dwellers to live on alternating sides of the street in front of City Hall would show that the City Manager and City Council are fully supporting a humane response to the affordability issues in our community. Converting the municipal airport to a place for vehicle dwellers would significantly reduce the GHG emissions from pleasure craft, reduce the spread of lead-filled emissions over East Palo Alto residents and support our S/CAP goals.
(Naturally, if the airport runway were needed for some sort of emergency response, the vehicles parked there could be moved for the duration of the emergency response.) thank you for considering this perspective and for your service to our community, Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood, Palo Alto
15% North, 85% South; 30% residential blocks (all NVCAP) South 4000 Block of Transport Street
South 900 Block of Commercial Street
South 900 Block of Industrial Avenue
South 100 Block of Page Mill Road <Residential>
South 2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard <Residential>
South 200-400 Block of Olive Avenue <Residential>
South 2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street
South 200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue <Residential>
South 1000 Block of Elwell Court
South 1000 Block of Corporation Way
South 1000 Block of East Meadow Circle
North 2400 Block of Embarcadero Way
North 2400 Block of Faber Place
From: Rebecca Sanders
To: Council, City
Cc: Dave Price; Robert Marinaro; Barry M Katz
Subject: NO NO NO - Monday Night August 24 - OSV
Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 10:57:53 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:

Your generosity in offering permanent parking in the disadvantaged neighborhoods while protecting privileged areas is elitist and Nimbyist.

Why not start with parking OSVs all around City Hall and other City owned properties? And for the remainder, let all neighborhoods share equally in solving this problem. If rich people had to deal with this in front of their homes, you bet there'd be some action.

The City's lack of will to enforce existing laws has caused this problem, yet you propose to solve it on the backs of working people in this town.

Where is your moral compass in this? And don't talk to us of compromise. We have borne the brunt of this sad business in South Palo Alto for years. I personally have had regular campers outside my fence non-stop for over 5 years, running their generators, defecating and tossing garbage over the fence into my yard for my grandchildren to discover.

Why are you proposing to weigh down already embattled Ventura with OSVs? Why are you going to permanently persecute the businesses in the commercial zones? What is your motive, to drive us out of town, to drive us out of business? You are not listening to us! What's with tone deaf City Hall?
Seriously.

Sincerely,
Becky Sanders
Disgusted in Ventura
From: Loren Brown
To: Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; McDonough, Melissa; Gaines, Chantal Cc: Loren Brown; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: OSV Program Comments/Suggestions
Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 12:49:53 PM
Attachments: American Legal Publishing.png
Geng Road 10.5 Acre Property.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 8-21-2026
Dear City of Palo Alto Leaders,
The staff-proposed “solution” on Monday’s City Council Agenda FAILS to solve the OSV parking problems in Palo Alto. The City cannot allow OSV’s to continue to park in Palo Alto business districts. Allowing OSVs to park on only one side of a street is a non-solution. Staff has their proposal half correct - the key is finding more alternative land where OSVs can park, even if the land can only be used on a temporary basis. The below email succinctly identifies the OSV parking problem and suggests how/where the City can find alternative locations for OSV parking. City staff needs to revise the proposal sent to City Council for review/approval to move OSV parking from Palo Alto business districts to alternative land designated by the City.

Loren Brown
3-06-2026
Dear City Representatives,
I attended the City Council Study Session OSV parking on Monday, February 23rd, and left very depressed, frustrated, and angry. It is my conclusion that the City of Palo Alto is taking the wrong path forward with respect to OSV parking on the streets of Palo Alto. To date, the City’s plan to deal with the huge problem of OSVs parking on City streets is not comprehensive, has not identified an ultimate solution, and has no timeframe to end the problem. In this email, I am going to frame the OSV parking issue and then offer the City suggestions on how the City can quickly and comprehensively resolve the OSV parking issue in a cost-efficient manner.

Loren Brown
Property Owner/Landlord on Park Blvd.

ORIGINS OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO BUSINESS DISTRICTS:

OSVs began parking in approximately five Palo Alto business districts approximately 8-10 years ago. Parking of these OSVs (in certain cases) was a violation of the City’s existing laws (as codified in the City’s Municipal Code). Despite complaints lodged by property owners and commercial tenants of parked OSVs, which were observed violating the City’s municipal code, enforcement was largely non-existent, weak or ineffective. Lax regulation of parked OSVs in commercial business districts merely led to an increased number of OSVs parked in Palo Alto business districts. In response to the violations that my company reported to the City, the City responded that OSV parking issues were a part of a greater homeless problem, which the City wanted to deal with more comprehensively. And so, the continued lack of police department enforcement, coupled with a City Council philosophy, resulted in even more OSVs parking in the Palo Alto business parks. The Palo Alto Weekly reported on February 23, 2026, that the number of OSVs parking on the streets of Palo Alto had doubled between 2023 and 2025. As of last fall, there were over 200 OSVs parking in six specific areas of Palo Alto (see the list below). The Palo Alto Weekly also reported on February 23, 2026 that neighboring cities to the north and south of Palo Alto have all but banned OSV parking, driving much of the rise in the population of OSVs in Palo Alto. In conclusion, the OSV parking problem in Palo Alto business parks, etc. is a result of the City not enforcing its own regulations, not timely responding to a growing issue before it became a huge problem, allowing incompatible uses immediately adjacent to eachother in Palo Alto neighborhoods, etc., and the City not being willing to do what is required to eliminate the OSV parking problem on public streets. It is not a problem that the Palo Alto property owners, tenants, or residents could/can head off because the OSVs are parking on city streets, where city streets are the exclusive domain of the City of Palo Alto.

LOCATION OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO (Six General Areas):

1. Embarcadero Road/Faber Place/Embarcadero Way.

2. Elwell Court and Corporation Way.

3. Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue/Olive Avenue /Sheridan Avenue/Portage Avenue/Ash Street/Acacia Avenue/Orinda Street.

4. Fabian Way/East Meadow Circle.

5. San Antonio Road/Transport Street, Commercial Street, and Industrial Avenue.

6. Other: Including Mitchell Park, Greer Park, Colorado Avenue, Amarillo Avenue, etc.

Note: The City of Palo Alto effectively forces OSV parking into these six locations through inconsistent enforcement of the City’s Municipal Code by the police department. Enforcement of illegal OSV parking in downtown Palo Alto, California Avenue, Professorville, Crescent Park, Old Palo Alto is purposely high, while enforcement in the above-listed areas is purposely lax.

CURRENT MAGNITUDE OF THE OSV PARKING PROBLEM IN PALO ALTO:

Palo Alto citizen, Robert Marinaro, reported to the City that as of February 13, 2026, there are approximately 180 OSVs parking on the public streets in Palo Alto (excluding OSVs parking at the Life Moves facility on Geng Road). On or about November 19, 2025, the total number of OSVs parked on City streets was approximately 217. As of March 3, 2026, the number of OSVs parking on City streets may be closer to 150 OSV’s (to be confirmed by Bob in his next count).

NATURE OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO:

The OSV parking issue is a two-prong issue; it is a housing-affordability issue, and it is a residential/business neighborhood deterioration issue.

A) Housing Affordability Issue: The housing-affordability issue is related to a greater long-term, national/regional housing crisis that may never be solved in our country, our state, our county, or the City of Palo Alto. The cost housing in a building (house, apartment, etc.) is now unaffordable to a subset of Americans. The high cost of housing relative to income levels has resulted in a large number of people living on the streets or in their vehicles (including OSVs). This email does not address this issue nor try to solve the housing affordability issue related to OSVs in Palo Alto.

B) Residential/Business Neighborhood Deterioration Issue: The residential/business neighborhood deterioration issue within Palo Alto is created by the simple incompatibility of OSVs parking in both residential neighborhoods and business parks (as documented to the City staff innumerable times over years and years). Parking of OSVs in business and residential neighborhoods is a zoning use incompatibility.

Zoning use incompatibility refers to the spatial conflict between different types of land development, such as placing residential areas near high-noise, polluting, or high-traffic industrial zones
. These conflicts often reduce property values, create nuisances, and hinder the community. Parking of OSVs in Palo Alto residential/business neighborhoods results in a variety of objections from the adjacent business and residential properties, which include visual blight of OSV vehicles, blocked sidewalks, littering (trash, human waste, etc.), safety concerns, difficulty leasing property where OSVs park, lost rental income where properties cannot be leased due to OSVs continuously parked in front of properties, negative impacts to businesses operating where OSVs are continuously parked. etc.

Mitigation strategies for zoning use incompatibility include strict zoning separation, buffer zones, or phasing out nonconforming uses to protect the quality of
life. The only effective solution to the OSV parking problem in Palo Alto is to separate OSV parking locations from business and residential neighborhoods.

CITY OF PALO ALTO ACTIONS TAKEN TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS:

A) Municipal Code Chapter 10.47 Large Vehicle Parking.

B) Enforcement of Municipal Code Chapter 10.47 Large Vehicle Parking.

C) Emergency Ordinance amending Municipal Code to prohibit unattached trailer parking - effective December 8, 2025.

D) Emergency Ordinance amending Municipal Code to prohibit vanlording - effective December 8, 2025.

E) Police Department Enforcement of Items D and E.

ARE THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS EFFECTIVE? NO: There are still a huge number (in excess of 150 OSVs) of OSVs parked on City of Palo Alto streets in business and residential neighborhoods.

DEFICIENCIES WITH THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS:

A) The City is not yet fully committed to removing OSVs from parking on City streets. The City Council is not willing to enact an outright ban on OSV parking on City streets. By not banning OSVs outright, the City Council has effectively granted OSVs an entitlement to park on City streets - resulting in hesitation on the part of the City to adopt additional measures required to eliminate OSV parking on City streets.

B) The City has not seriously pursued identifying and procuring off-street land for the purposes of providing safe parking for OSVs.

C) The City has not taken action to relocate OSVs from parking in existing City of Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods.

D) The City has not taken action to prohibit additional OSVs from locating in Palo Alto (Prohibiting additional OSVs from locating in Palo Alto would cap the OSVs' parking in Palo Alto at their present level).

E) Existing City of Palo Alto Police Department policy on towing OSVs in violation of the City’s Municipal Code is capped by towing yard space availability. OSVs then know that enforcement of OSV parking regulations is lax.

F) Existing City ordinances and enforcement do not
serve to decrease the number of OSVs parking on City streets. Instead, existing City ordinances and enforcement allow OSVs to merely relocate their parked location on City streets (similar to a game of musical chairs where no chairs are ever eliminated).

This allows new OSVs to begin parking their OSVs on the streets of Palo Alto.

WHAT THE CITY OF PALO ALTO NEEDS TO DO TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF OSVS PARKING IN PALO ALTO BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS:

A) Enact an OSV Permit Program where all OSVs must be registered in the OSV Permit Program in order to park their OSV in Palo Alto. Enacting this program will serve to cap the number of OSVs at their current level. New OSVs that want to park in Palo Alto must meet Program eligibility criteria (eligibility criteria to be created and determined by the City). If the number of OSVs is not capped, new OSVs will just replace every OSV that leaves Palo Alto or finds alternative housing.

B) Enact a program element designed to find alternative housing for those people currently living in OSVs who have obtained a permit. Once housing is found for the redeints of each OSV, that OSV will no longer be allowed to park on City of Palo Alto streets or in a City of Palo Alto Safe Parking lot.

C) Identify, procure, and zone land that can/will be used for OSV Safe Parking lots. This land should not be located near business or residential
neighborhoods.

D) Relocate OSVs parked on City streets to newly-created Safe Parking locations.

E) Amend the Municipal Code to ban all OSV parking on City of Palo Alto streets.

F) Revise City policies to fully enforce the City’s Municipal Code on OSV parking (including immediate towing of OSVs from City streets).

PROCUREMENT OF LAND IS THE KEY ELEMENT REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS:

Realistically, the OSV parking problem in the six Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods is going to continue to exist until an alternative location is found for the OSVs to park. The City Council is both unwilling to allow OSVs to park in other areas of the City and unwilling to force OSVs out of their existing locations.

WHAT KIND OF LAND IS NECESSARY FOR OSV PARKING?
A) Land that can be procured very soon. The OSV parking problem in business/residential neighborhoods will not be solved until an alternative OSV parking site can be identified, procured, zoned, and set up to house OSVs.

B) Publicly-owned land. It is unrealistic to think that the private sector will contribute/donate land to the City of Palo Alto for OSV parking use. Buying private-sector land will also be very expensive. Land for OSV Safe Parking will likely come from the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara or State of California (i.e. Caltrans).

HOW MUCH LAND IS NEEDED?
Currently, land is needed to park between 150 and 175 OSVs plus any support amenities required for a Safe Parking facility. A parcel of land that could accommodate this number of OSVs would mean that NO OSVs would need to park on City of Palo Alto business district or residential streets. The City of Palo Alto determined in August 2025 that a 13,334 SF parcel at 2000 Geng Road could accommodate 13 parked OSVs. Using this data, approximately 3.5 to 4.2 acres of land would be required to accommodate 150 to 175 parked OSVs.

If the City can cap the number of OSVs permitted to park in Palo Alto and then decrease this number by finding OSV residents alternative housing situations, the amount of land required to park OSVs would decrease over time. If the City can reduce the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto as a result of the new van lording ordinance, the land requirement could also be lessened.

HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME IS THE LAND NEEDED TO HOUSE OSVs? This is up to the City to decide. Does the City plan to have a permanent OSV Safe Parking program (in perpetuity) or does the City plan to entirely phase the OSV Safe Parking program out over a finite time span? Land for parking OSVs is required only for the finite period during which the City operates a Safe Parking program. The amount of land required for the Safe Parking program depends on the size of the Safe Parking program operated by the City.

PUBLIC LAND PROCUREMENT IDEAS:

As the land requirement for OSV parking likely reduces over time (see above discussion), potential sources of land for OSV parking can include a temporary use of land that is not currently used for other purposes, yet may be earmarked/dedicated for another long-term use (i.e. parkland, Caltrans right- of-way, etc.). As the City can find alternative housing for OSV residents, the amount of land required to park remaining OSVs in the City’s Safe Parking program decreases. Land required to park an initial 150 to 175 OSVs can come from some combination of the following potential land sources.

A) Street parking on the City of Palo Alto portion of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road: There is a length of roadway on each of these streets that is undeveloped on each side of the street. There is OSV parking potential of approximately 300 yards on Deer Creek Road and 450 yards on Coyote Hill Road. If all of this roadway length were used for OSV parking on both sides of the roads, approximately 1,500 yards of roadway could accommodate between 100 and 150 OSVs (depending upon the average length of OSV). Both streets are wide enough to accommodate OSV parking on each side of the street. There are some hills on these roads that may be too steep for OSVs to park. There is a VTA busroute on Deer Creek Road. As the City of Palo Alto controls these roadways, this location could be put into service quickly. Concentrating OSVs at this location will be more efficient for the City than the current OSV parking locations. Trash/water/electricity/sanitation/transportation services offered by the City would be more efficient, and police department enforcement costs would be dramatically reduced (because there would be no complaints from businesses/residents). This land option is a very- inexpensive option for the City of Palo Alto and is immediately available (subject to signage and pavement re-striping).

B) Street parking on the County of Santa Clara-controlled portion of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road: There is a length of roadway on each of these streets that is undeveloped on each side of the street. There is a considerable length of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road under County control. If all of this roadway length were used for OSV parking on both sides of the roads, the combined capacity of Palo Alto-controlled streets and County-controlled streets may be sufficient to accommodate the entire contingent of OSVs currently parking in Palo Alto. Both streets are wide enough to accommodate OSV parking on each side of the street. There are some hills on these roads that may be too steep for OSVs to park. There is a VTA busroute on Deer Creek Road. As the County controls this section of roadway, the City would have to negotiate its usage for OSV parking with the County.

Concentrating all OSVs at the Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road locations will be more efficient for the City than the current OSV parking locations.

Trash/water/electricity/sanitation/transportation services offered by the City would be more efficient, and police department enforcement costs would be dramatically reduced (because there would be no complaints from businesses/residents). This land option is a very-inexpensive option for the City of Palo Alto and is available fairly quickly (subject to negotiating a deal with the County, installing signage, and re-striping pavement).

C) 1.81 Acre San Antonio/101 CalTrans Property (currently leased/used by Ciardella’s Garden Supply): This site could potentially accommodate 77 OSVs. The City would need to equip this site similarly to their Geng Road Safe Parking Site. The City would need to negotiate a lease with Caltrans.

Note: State of California laws (i.e., SB211) authorize Caltrans to lease (for a nominal amount), non-surplus property to a local government for shelter (including interim housing). A copy of the lease between Caltrans and Ciardellas was provided to the City Manager’s office last year.

D) Geng Road 10.5 Acres: In 2015, the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course was reconfigured. After the reconfiguration, a 10.5-acre area of land became unused and is currently undeveloped and unused (See attached aerial photos showing this property). While this parcel of land may be part of the original Municipal Golf Course land dedicated as parkland, it is not currently utilized as publicly accessible parkland. This land abuts Geng Road and is adjacent to the OSV Safe Parking facility located on Geng Road that is operated by Move Mountain View. Where a local shelter crisis exists, the State of California Government Code 8698.4 allows cities to temporarily use undeveloped parkland for temporarily housing a Safe Parking facility. This site could be an ideal location for a temporary Safe Parking lot (i.e. immediately available, no land purchase/lease cost to City, immediately adjacent to Move Mountain View Safe parking facility on Geng Road, not adjacent to businesses/residents, can be easily/cheaply transformed to a Safe Parking lot, is of sufficient size to accommodate all 150-175 OSVs, other than a temporary parking surface and perimeter fence, no other improvements to this land need to be made - OSVs that utilize this parking lot can use Safe Parking amenties at 2200 Geng Road, etc. See attached literature supporting this site as a temporary OSV Safe parking lot.

Suggestion: The City should identify a 4-acre section of this land that is most adjacent to 2200 Geng Road and create a Safe Parking lot for OSVs that can use/share any amenities at 2200 Geng Road. Once the OSV parking lot is established, the City should require any/all OSVs that are then parking on Palo Alto streets to instead park at this OSV lot or be banned from parking their OSV in Palo Alto. The City should then work with OSV residents to find them alternative housing. The City would then decrease the size of this temporary OSV parking lot over time to the point where there are no OSVs left at this parking lot, and the land can be restored for parkland use.

E) Stanford Industrial Park (Stanford land GUP): Stanford University owns vacant land adjacent to Coyote Road and Deer Creek Roads that could be utilized as temporary parking for OSVs. The City of Palo Alto would have to negotiate the upcoming County/Stanford GUP to secure land for Palo Alto OSV parking use and the duration of that use.

F) Buena Vista Mobile Home Park: I drove through the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park today. There are approximately 10 unoccupied vehicle spaces at this site that could potentially be used to park OSVs. The City of Palo Alto should work with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority to determine whether there is capacity at this property to house OSVs that currently park on City of Palo Alto streets.

CONCLUSION: The City of Palo Alto needs to take immediate action to define a Safe Parking Program (program duration and size) and then take action to procure the land necessary to operate the Safe Parking program. Once the land has been procured, the City of Palo Alto needs to enact a ban on OSVs parking on City streets.

From: Deborah Trilling
To: Joye, Ken
Cc: Council, City
Subject: Re: staff report #2606-6479
Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 1:14:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Thank you Ken for your thoughtful suggestions. I still do not support any OVS on Park as it is too dangerous for the numerous bikers (many kids and teens) who use the street to grt to school.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 11:54 AM Ken Joye <[email protected] > wrote:

In the past, I have spoken in-person before Council about vehicle dwellers, must submit my input in writing regarding agenda item #10 for the 24 August 2026 meeting.

When this topic was before you previously, I stated that I was glad that staff used the term “neighbors” when discussing vehicle dwellers and I urge you to frame your thinking in that manner.

Of course, that pilot could have been said to permit parking on alternating sides of the street. This leads me to some observations:

I would like to propose that you consider two additional spaces for the second pilot program:
(1) 200 Block of Hamilton Ave
(2) the runway of the municipal airport
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Each of those is rich in symbolic value. Allowing vehicle dwellers to live on alternating sides of the street in front of City Hall would show that the City Manager and City Council are fully supporting a humane response to the affordability issues in our community.

Converting the municipal airport to a place for vehicle dwellers would significantly reduce the GHG emissions from pleasure craft, reduce the spread of lead-filled emissions over East Palo Alto residents and support our S/CAP goals.
(Naturally, if the airport runway were needed for some sort of emergency response, the vehicles parked there could be moved for the duration of the emergency response.) thank you for considering this perspective and for your service to our community, Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood, Palo Alto
15% North, 85% South; 30% residential blocks (all NVCAP) South 4000 Block of Transport Street
South 900 Block of Commercial Street
South 900 Block of Industrial Avenue
South 100 Block of Page Mill Road <Residential>
South 2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard <Residential>
South 200-400 Block of Olive Avenue <Residential>
South 2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street
South 200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue <Residential>
South 1000 Block of Elwell Court
South 1000 Block of Corporation Way
South 1000 Block of East Meadow Circle
North 2400 Block of Embarcadero Way
North 2400 Block of Faber Place
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VNA Civic Engagement" group.

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/VNACivic/F489F274- C2C2-44BA-8CC3-C387CB71BD77%40gmail.com.

From: Eric Nordman
To: Council, City
Subject: RV Parking Plan
Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 1:27:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members:

In general the proposed RV plan seems to be an appropriate solution to a difficult situation.

However, Park Boulevard should be removed from the list as it is a heavily used bike route with significant car traffic and many bicyclists would end up riding in the door zone.

The Daily Post article said that the pilots would cost $823,800, while citywide restrictions would cost $4.5 million to design and install signs and to monitor and enforce restrictions. I don't understand why $4.5 million would be required and hope that a cheaper solution can be found.

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

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Patrick Butler
To: Council, City
Cc: Shikada, Ed; Nose, Kiely
Subject: Regarding: Palo Alto City Council Meeting of August 24, 2026., Agenda Item #10 Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 2:04:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hon. Members of the City Council:

I respectfully urge the members of the City Council to reject the recommendations of the ad hoc committee on the subject of persons living in their vehicles on our streets in current violation of our codes and laws. I appreciate the work of the three ad hoc committee members but the over five million dollars in recommendations would simply continue our city as a magnet for individuals who have been lawfully excluded by our neighbors and want a place to stay without paying for rent, utilities, trash collection or sewage service.

I believe that a survey of the residents and business owners of our city would show an overwhelming opposition to this plan to shove illegal RV and trailer parking into the south of our city.

On August 14, 2026 Palo Alto Online published a very comprehensive report on the recommendations of the ad hoc committee that are before you tonight. The article included maps and lists of addresses of this convoluted plan to move illegally parked vehicles south and a plan to alternate street sides for such parking while collecting a $15. fee. What also needs focus is the statement by our City Manager Ed Shikada that in addition to the $800,000. plus for the program an additional $4,100,000. would be required for signage, enforcement and administration. That is a lot of signs.

If you want to feel the pulse of our city on this subject I suggest that you take a minute to scan the 38 published comments to that August 14 article. All are, the last time I checked, opposed to the plan:
38 Comments From the Palo Alto Online August 14, 2026 Article JS1says:

August 14, 2026 9:14 am at 9:14 am
Staff proposal is mostly a tone-deaf non-solution. The ONLY element of the proposal that has merit is allowing OSVs to park on Coyote Creek Road and Embarcadero Road (where there are no adjacent businesses or This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
residents).

Continuing to allow OSVs to park in Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods is NOT a solution (even if only on one side of the street).

The City needs to find additional parking areas for OSVs that are not in Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods. Deer Creek Road, city-owned land off Geng Road and CalTrans property at 101/San Antonio are all viable locations for OSV parking.

City Council and City Staff: MOVE ALLOWABLE OSV PARKING COMPLETELY OUT OF PALO ALTO BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS NOW. Until you take action to do this, you have not solved the most objectionable part of the OSV parking problem.

Reply
PA Concerned Residentsays:

August 14, 2026 10:13 am at 10:13 am
Part 1 should satisfy Palo Alto’s need to be “accommodating.” Part 2 should be dead on arrival!
Reply
Online Namesays:

August 14, 2026 10:21 am at 10:21 am
What are the plans for enforcement of existing laws and removal of violators?
Reply
Moctodsays:

August 14, 2026 11:02 am at 11:02 am
“The program followed a series of meetings by the council’s recently established Oversized Vehicles Impacts and Services Ad Hoc Committee, which is chaired by Councilmember Ed Lauing and includes council members Julie Lythcott-Haims and Keith Reckdahl.”
Are these the meetings that included those who are living illegally on our streets along with our City staff, but excluded the residents of Palo Alto? This is the sort of solution that I would expect from Julie L-H who did such a terrible job on the Churchill crossing meetings, but I am disappointed that Ed Lauing was involved.

Reply
Anne Houghtelingsays:

August 14, 2026 11:04 am at 11:04 am
I don’t understand: The city would allow RV parking on certain streets (none in northern PA, at first glance) for six months, but then they can stay on the same street for another six months if they move to the other side of the same street? So they have permission to park one year on the listed streets?
Reply
MJHsays:

August 14, 2026 11:24 am at 11:24 am
Prior to approximately 2014 sleeping overnight in a street parked vehicle was (is?) a Palo Alto city municipal code violation which the police enforced. Around that time the Palo Alto Weekly reported the case of a woman who was cited for sleeping in her car parked on the Stanford section of El Camino, but not living in her car. Does anyone know if the ban on overnight sleeping in vehicles parked on city streets is still technically a code violation the city could still enforce?
Reply
Online Namesays:

August 14, 2026 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm
“This is the sort of solution that I would expect from Julie L-H who did such a terrible job on the Churchill crossing meetings, but I am disappointed that Ed Lauing was involved.”
So true. Her outright and repeated lies about the student petition deserved to be called out for what they were. The petition called for the return of human crossing guards which is quite a stretch for her to keep saying the students demanded closing Churchill.

How much money was wasted after staff was instructed to explore closing Churchill — and only Churchill — even though more suicides have occurred in South Palo Alto and most suicides occur among middle aged people, not teens.

Given her biases and disregard for PA residents while pushing her own agendas, a larger question is why she keeps getting appointed to the most visible and important commissions / task forces.

Maybe Mayor Veenker can enlighten us?
Other OSV questions are:

A) why the city thinks spending MILLIONS of dollars on signage is a good use of our money when it pleads poverty and threatens to cut human crossing guards and library hours,
B) who is paying for the OSV utilities: us, the vanlords and/or the OSV dwellers, C) what if anything is being done to determine the employment status of the OSV dwellers and to oust those who are gainfully employed and simply prefer saving money and not paying rent.

Reply
Concerned Residentsays:

August 14, 2026 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm
I’m so incredibly tired of this city council who does nothing to serve the people who actually elected them—an overwhelming majority of whom do not want OSVs in residential or business areas (or in Palo Alto generally).

The city staff are completely incompetent and clearly don’t care about Palo Alto at all. Couldn’t find better pencil pushers. Reduce the staff so we stop funding nonsense people with our tax dollars.

Reply
Charlessays:

August 14, 2026 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm
“I’m so incredibly tired of this city council who does nothing to serve the people who actually elected them—an overwhelming majority of whom do not want OSVs in residential or business areas (or in Palo Alto generally).”
Yes, just say no. And then enforce it.

Reply
connie kettendorfsays:

August 14, 2026 4:55 pm at 4:55 pm
I laughed out loud when I saw that Meadow Circle will be a part of the 6 months parking allowed on one side of the street, then switcheroo! Of course! OSV parking will continue here in south Palo Alto! Of course it will! Did you ever doubt that our end of town would NOT be looked at for remedy!? What about the businesses there on the Circle? Does the Council care little for the employees who must make their way through the vans there, past the vandwellers, employees who must sequester themselves on breaks because it is uncomfortable to stroll the street?
Please, Reader, drive around Meadow Circle and see for yourself. I doubt Julie Lythcott Haimes has done so. Of course, she said in the paper that she would welcome them on her street, so perhaps some of the vans should set up camp in front of her house?
The truly needy should be offered the help described, but only a few of the 40 to 60 vans on Meadow Circle belong to the truly needy. The vast majority of the van dwellers there are employed; some own houses at a distance; some own the boats, motorcycles and beautiful cars parked along the Circle as well as late model vans.

Could those engineers rent an apartment together? Could Stanford allow parking on its vast campus?
Palo Alto is a generous city. We have two food baskets, an Emergency Shelter Program, the Opportunity House , a strong social service division, the housing on San Antonio, services from St. Vincent de Paul and Goodwill, vouchers from the churches, Hotel de Zinc, (may still be operative) overnight parking in the church lots, on and on.

The city council members vying for higher office are terrified of being called heartless so fail to act. It is time to elect officials who act responsibly. When will the wishes of the Palo Alto residents be honored?
We will spend close to a million dollars on signage, etc. for OSV, but the City cries poormouth when it comes to funding basic fire safety. South Palo Alto continues to be vulnerable to fire since Fire Station 4 has inadequate firefighter coverage. With only four brave firefighters, FS4 can launch an ambulance or the engine but not both at the same time. Would the money spent on serving the vans be better spent staffing another firefighter RTC at Fire Station 4? Stanford has SIX firefighters, but south Palo Alto gets the slim pickens…… yet again.

We should pay Bob Marinaro 100K for the work he has done documenting the OSVs. Without his work and advocacy, nothing would have been done. He has continued as a terrier nipping at the heels of city hall; they hoped he would just give up and go away. In fact, our city manager would have hired outside consultants to examine the problem of the OSVs, paid them 300K, and then concluded there was no real issue.

Elect Bob for city council!
Reply
Msays:

August 14, 2026 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm
This just expands where illegal vehicles take over streets and neighborhoods, and now it appears permanently with Council’s blessing. They will be on both sides of the street, and the city will do what they are best at doing — expensive studies with zero concrete actions. Perhaps these council members could offer their driveways and the streets in front of their residences instead.

Reply
connie kettendorfsays:

August 14, 2026 5:18 pm at 5:18 pm
@M: You are correct. Julie Lythcott Haimes has said in the paper she would “welcome them in her neighborhood.” As you say, she should indeed offer her driveway! She just remodeled her upscale property there; a van in front will complete her lovely home.

Reply
connie kettendorfsays:

August 14, 2026 5:22 pm at 5:22 pm
@M: You are correct. Julie Lythcott Haimes has said in the paper she would “welcome them in her neighborhood.” As you say, she should indeed offer her driveway! She just remodeled her upscale property there; a van in front will complete her lovely home.

Reply
Marcsays:

August 14, 2026 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm
I guess it’s time to let the city know how people feel
Proposed Ballot Initiative
The Palo Alto Public Spaces and Municipal Resources Protection Act Section 1. Title
This measure shall be known as the “Palo Alto Public Spaces and Municipal Resources Protection Act.”
Section 2. Findings and Purpose
The People of the City of Palo Alto find and declare:
(a) Vehicles used as long-term or permanent dwellings parked on public streets create impacts on neighborhood safety, sanitation, traffic flow, and residential quality of life.
(b) City resources are limited, and residents have a right to determine how municipal funds are prioritized.
(c) This measure is intended to regulate specific conduct on public property and city expenditures — not to criminalize a person’s housing status.

Section 3. Prohibition on Vehicle Habitation on Public Streets (a) No person shall use any RV, camper, trailer, van, car, or other vehicle parked on a public street, alley, or city-owned lot as a place of residence, overnight sleeping quarters, or long-term dwelling.
(b) The City shall enforce existing and amended vehicle-parking time limits (e.g., 72-hour or shorter posted limits) uniformly on all vehicles regardless of the occupant’s housing status.

Section 4. Prohibition on City-Sanctioned Safe Parking Programs (a) The City of Palo Alto shall not establish, fund, permit, or otherwise authorize any “safe parking” program, off-street vehicle-dwelling lot, or similar site intended to allow overnight habitation in vehicles, whether on public or private property within city limits.
(b) The City shall not enter into contracts, leases, or permits with any third party for the purpose of operating such a site.

Section 5. Prohibition on Direct or Indirect City Support for Homeless Services (a) The City of Palo Alto shall not appropriate, grant, or otherwise direct city funds, staff time, city-owned property, or in-kind resources to any program whose primary purpose is providing shelter, housing assistance, meal service, storage, hygiene services, or case management targeted at unhoused individuals.
(b) This includes indirect support such as subsidized leases of city property, fee waivers, or referral partnerships with outside agencies for such services.

Section 6. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, or clause of this measure is held invalid, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.

Section 7. Effective Date
This measure shall take effect 2 days after certification of the election results, per California Elections Code.

Reply
connie kettendorfsays:

August 14, 2026 10:28 pm at 10:28 pm
Amen.

Reply
Online Namesays:

August 14, 2026 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm
Absolutely, add Julie’s driveway to the list!
Add Mayor Veenker’s driveway, too, since she’s long postponed the OSV community “listening session” now scheduled for the August 24th CC meeting — which is obviously 10 days AFTER this plan was released with no community input.

Evidently listening to us FIRST would be too sensible; instead we’ll again have to fight City Hall to try to eliminate the worst problems. What a frustrating insulting waste of everyone’s time.

The headline of this excellent article reads “Palo Alto looks to limit vehicle dwelling with new permit program” but it’s unclear how PA’s limiting anything, esp since staffers concede this costly pilot program will simply push vehicle dwellers into other PA neighborhoods.

Neighboring communities HAVE limited their vehicle dwellers, effectively pushing them into PA. Maybe they’ve listened to their taxpayers? For example Mountain View businesses have withheld almost $3,000,000 in taxes to protest the harm done to their businesses and the declining property values since who’d want to shop, buy or rent in the middle of an RV haven? Given PA’s poor track record on community outreach, I also wonder if this article is the first PA residents and businesses learned their streets were slated to become OSV havens. Also seeing Transport St on the list reminds me of the poor business owner on Transport who’s repeatedly complained on Bob Marinaro’s email list that reaches 165+ people including the Mayor, the OSV Committee, City Council and city staff that PAPD keeps giving parking tickets to his employees but never to the OSVs blocking access to his business.

Finally it would have been “polite” if any of our “leaders” had thanked Marinaro for his efforts and/or bothered to respond to specific complaints or questions raised on that biweekly email list.

Reply
Annettesays:

August 14, 2026 9:47 pm at 9:47 pm
I sometimes wonder why we need a council. They go in circles. They talk about important issues for years (Exhibit A on that: grade separation). They wordsmith into the wee hours, eventually coming up with something that often creates new problems. And starting at least as far back as Frank Benest, Council has effectively forfeited control of the city to the city manager, a position that is not elected. Maybe we should look at changing the charter and electing a City Manager and Mayor who have to answer to the voters every four years. The status quo is a very costly model that is riddled with shortcomings.

Connie Kettendorf, one of the commenters on this issue, often posts details about city shortcomings that should be addressed. Ditto “Online Name”. The Churchill issue was poorly handled. And not fully staffing and equipping a fire station that serves a growing area of town is just plain stupid. Are we trying to emulate LA’s Mayor Bass here?
Robert Marinaro has saved the city thousands of dollars and oodles of time by compiling critical information about the OSV problem. It’s very clear that a solution is needed NOW. ASAP. Not next March.

Housing is a serious, complicated issue. I certainly don’t have the answers, but I doubt building market rate housing is going to help much. Maybe ask the RV dwellers what they think about that. Affordability is likely the central problem, and that has been true for at least a decade. I don’t think legislation can make any city affordable. It’s time to stop pretending about that.

Reply
Gary G.says:

August 14, 2026 9:58 pm at 9:58 pm
I was asked about the issue. It is RV Squatting. It is counter productive to proper zoning and construction. A city needs to have clear laws and enforce those laws for practical reasons, not the ‘humanitarian’ approach.

These are a small group of transient libertarians affecting the quality of traditional neighborhoods. The Governor and Courts have ruled that done right, and consistently, a municipality does not have to accept RV Squatting.

Basically, we have a choice, supporting RV Squatters or little kids. No mother in her right mind is going to let her little kids go out to play without constant supervision in a town that actively promotes a set of values discordant with raising a young family. So the more we tolerate RV Squatting, the more we send a message that we are not that family oriented as a municipality. Problem is the Pacifica Case, Sean Geary et al, vs. City of Pacifica. Before we make any decision, Palo Alto has to have a clear and consistent policy. You cannot go picking and choosing, and have to document clearly your choices. In 2025, the municipality chose to expand RV Squatting Services, while other townships decided the opposite. This is not about owning an RV. It is about the complicated and very real relationship of purchasing a home or renting an apartment and paying a great deal of money to live in Palo Alto, without receiving any corresponding services for high taxes.

Reply
Online Namesays:

August 14, 2026 10:48 pm at 10:48 pm
“In 2025, the municipality chose to expand RV Squatting Services, while other townships decided the opposite.”
And when PA people complained, we were assured that County meetings would be the panacea. Julie Lythcott-Haims waxed enthusiastic about the wonders of cooperation and the need for more listening sessions.

I remember that and thinking how transparently lame that latest stalling technique was because it was absurd to expect the other communities to jump at the chance to take back the RV dwellers they’d worked so hard to limit.

And sure enough those County-wide meetings were never mentioned again.

Annette brings up excellent points about why we need a council that accomplishes little, provides no obvious oversight of City Manager spending or performance and wastes an inordinate amount of time virtue-signalling while supporting the poor behavior of their like-minded buddies like Peterson even though he was so prone to temper tantrums he called PAPD EIGHT — 8 — times in a single day to demand special treatment and then blamed his ouster on his pro-density stance, not his behavior.

You can’t virtue signal that one away claiming incumbents deserve support (if they agree with you) regardless of their actions.

Yes, the housing issue is complicated but it’s become a team sport / litmus test where objectivity and attention to detail have largely been lost as well as any pretense that the housing push is about affordability and helping to keep the kids and poor Grandma close. Maybe start asking tough questions of the big tech employers and demand they contribute to solving the problems instead of throwing money at the most compliant candidates.

Let’s hope people pay attention during the CC election and demand real substantive answers, not happy talk. Let’s also consider limiting campaign contributions. Do your research on where the money and endorsements comes from.

Reply
Lilysays:

August 14, 2026 10:54 pm at 10:54 pm
The proposed Coyote Hill Road site raises a fire-safety concern that deserves much more attention. The City proposes concentrating up to 20 inhabited oversized vehicles along a road immediately adjacent to dry grassland, and the staff report itself says that landscaping will be needed “to reduce fire risks along Coyote Hill Road.” Many inhabited RVs use generators, propane, and outdoor cooking equipment, all potential ignition sources. Before approving this location, the City should explain what Fire Department review has occurred, what restrictions will apply to generators, fuel, propane, barbecues and other ignition sources, particularly during high-fire-risk conditions, and how those restrictions will be monitored and enforced. Fire- safety rules are only meaningful if there is a realistic plan for ensuring compliance.

Reply
Bystandersays:

August 15, 2026 7:35 am at 7:35 am
Questions, questions? Does this permit then actually allow them to be called Palo Alto residents? Do they get any city services such as trash pick up as a result of these permits? Will road sweeping mean that they have to move at least once a week? Can a permit give them a street address if these are numbered spaces?
Reply
Jsydowsays:

August 15, 2026 8:21 am at 8:21 am
I almost laughed when I read the city council’s proposal. Based on what they have done or rather not done on the push for housing and allowing builders to erect 7 stories bookings in residential areas and concentrated density in south Palo Alto I’m not surprised. They are so out of touch with the tax paying residents that elected them. How about enforcing current laws and codes? Would they even know how many OSV vehicles are parked in Palo Alto if it wasn’t for Bob Marinara? What have they been doing date the past few years on this issue-it isn’t new but residents have put up with the noise pollution and threats for OSV dwellers for several years. Why are they now just waking up with a ridiculous plan? Assume the OSV dwellers will comply with the new plan, what if they don’t? Allow another 3-4 years before they come up with a “solution”? Other cities have come up with reasonable solutions. So much so that the word is out-park your OSV in Palo Alto, they don’t do anything.

Reply
Annettesays:

August 15, 2026 8:57 am at 8:57 am
AMEN to the comments posted by Gary G, and Lily’s observations are highly concerning. The AdHoc committee needs to scrap the proposed plan and start over. I suggest they invite Robert Marinaro, Gary G, Lily, and a fire safety advocate to the table.

Reply
connie kettendorfsays:

August 15, 2026 9:37 am at 9:37 am
Lily is correct. There will be an increased fire danger when the vans take up residence next to the dry grasses.

The fire danger in the hills is colossal! When looking at our fire response a year ago, I was quite dismayed and shocked when I realized the vulnerability of the hills, in the face of a modest fire response capability there. However, I have had to focus on Fire Station 4 in south Palo Alto, ringing the alarm that south Palo Alto has prolonged fire response times because the engines must come from a distance. (Fire Station 4, staffed by only 4 brave firefighters, can launch an ambulance OR a fire engine but not both at the same time. The Philz fire was an 8 minute 20 second response time from several miles away, so we lost that shopping center.)
So… the fire coverage in the hills is also necessarily a prolonged response time.

I urge those who live there to research your safety and organize. Ask for written statistics: apparatus availability, manpower, geographic coverage.

Please know that a RESPONSE time is not a DISPATCH time; don’t be fooled.

As Annette said, it is time to elect our City Manager, rather than appoint him.

He squandered 24 million of our 1.02 billion dollar income on consultants, who produced little. All the while, the PAFD has been underfunded and undermanned since 2011.

Yes! Lily is correct to sound the alarm as to the increased fire danger posed by this lame OSV plan. However, regardless of the OSV plan, the hills are at great risk.

Our fire response would be better served by a fire board which answers directly to Council, such as many a city of our size and wealth has. Instead, we have an at-will fire chief at the mercy of the City Manager. Our wonderful chief cannot ask Council for funding; our city manager has been disinterested in bringing our fire response up to minimal county standards. Look at the LAFCO report, in which Palo Alto was pillaried.

Listen to Lily!
Thank you for your attention to these comments,
Patrick Butler
Palo Alto

From: David Adams
To: Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; City Attorney
Subject: Action Item 10: OSV pilots, 8/24
Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 2:07:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney,
I find it difficult to see anything good about your pilot 2. It may just be the most stupid, ill conceived and ill thought through idea to emanate from City Hall. Additionally, the report is so poorly written I could not discern whether it was AI slop or human written.

You must withdraw this nonsense and instead implement Loren Brown's alternate proposal.

I'll concentrate on just one aspect; allowing OSVs to park the length of Olive Ave. I am a home owner on Olive, lived here for 29 years so I know more about it than any of you. Olive is a residential street with 25 single family homes. You have just blighted 25 homes; no outreach and no notification from the city. I learned about it from reading the local paper. Can you imagine the extreme emotional distress you have caused.

The report does not include the criteria for choosing the streets in pilot 2. What was it? You receive Bob Marinaro's spreadsheet each week which shows the max number of OSVs on Olive historically as 3. Why did you decide to allow an unlimited number on Olive? You take a problem, make it a million times worse then, no doubt, you will say it's solved. And the report says it is designed to 'reduce neighborhood impacts'! You must be thinking of your own neighborhoods because you're certainly not thinking of mine.

How will it operate? Will OSV owners on Transport, Commercial and Industrial parked on the disallowed side be told they will be towed unless they move to Olive? What will be the city's role in herding them to Olive?
I'm not fooled into thinking this will be a pilot. On completion I'm certain you will make it permanent because you favor OSV owners over residents.

Let me tell you some of the impacts we will have:

I will not be able to exit my driveway safely with OSVs parked either side.

Emotional distress from having people living outside my front door for 6 months.

Security and privacy issues.

Trash and other human waste left on the sidewalk and median.

Noise and pollution from mobile generators.

Dog feces left on my property.

Potential for illegal use of utilities
As written, Appendix E Section 2 states that parking on the non-OSV side of the street will be restricted to This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
certain vehicles. These do not include vehicles of residents. Therefore, for 6 months I won't be able to park my car outside my house because it's not permitted. For the other 6 months I won't be able to park my car outside my house because the space will be occupied by OSVs bumper to bumper.

Lastly, I come to the most serious issue and this one makes my blood boil. There are many young families with small kids who play out front. Any Tom, Dick, Harry, pervert, pedophile, or other type of undesirable can roll up, swing their door open and start living right there. Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Lauing, Shikada; what on earth are you thinking? You seem willing to put our most vulnerable citizens at risk but not your own. I would like you to tell me why that is. Just today there is an item in the Police Blotter for an individual 'arrested for brandishing a weapon and resisting police' on E. Meadow Circle.

City Attorney take note; if something bad was to happen it is now public record that you have all been warned.

Also, take note, by allowing OSV parking only on certain streets the City of Palo Alto has effectively diminished the economic value of affected properties, amounting to an inverse condemnation (regulatory taking) and actionable nuisance under California law (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 19).

Also, take note, if you follow through with this I will be applying for a reduction in property tax.

These reasons are why cities ban OSV parking on residential streets. Unbelievably, you want to encourage it.

David Adams
Home Owner, Olive Ave.

From: Erik Jacobsen
To: Council, City
Subject: Proposed OSV Pilot Programs
Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 3:59:13 PM
Attachments: IMG_1724.heic
IMG_1727.heic
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear City Council,
I am a resident of Palo Alto writing with some input on the proposed pilot programs related to the parking of Oversized Vehicles (OSV).

I am supportive of the idea of testing out a permit-based program as suggested in the first pilot program.

I am also generally supportive of the second program prohibiting parking on specific streets for 6 month periods, but there appear to be some inconsistencies in the streets selected for the program.

If the purpose of the programs is "to address ongoing neighborhood, business, public health, and safety impacts associated with OSVs used for habitation while also providing a more structured and humane response for individuals living in those vehicles” as stated, then it seems that the streets chosen for OSV parking should be located away from primarily residential neighborhoods.

Of the 13 streets listed, they are all primarily non-residential streets with the surprising exception of Olive Avenue (at least 23 homes plus several ADUs, by my count). Lambert Avenue also has a section of single family homes (at least five), and East Meadow Circle is adjacent to multi-family housing.

Currently, all overnight parking is prohibited on one side of the 300 block of Olive Street, and overnight OSV parking is prohibited on the other side. Is the intent to remove those existing restrictions and encourage more OSV parking?
As the Executive Director of the California Family Foundation, I am very supportive of helping people in need find viable housing options. We are trying to be part of the solution to that challenge by providing low-income housing for families in the area, including some residences on Olive Avenue. While many of the streets proposed in the pilot seem appropriate for the test outlined by the City, Olive Avenue doesn’t belong on the list. I would also remove the residential portion of Lambert Avenue, and the section of East Meadow Circle adjacent to multi-family housing.

I’ve included some photos of Olive Avenue so you can see some of the residences that OSVs would be camped in front of, if I’m understanding the proposal correctly. It doesn’t seem appropriate and consistent with program goals to encourage OSV parking directly in front of homes where families and children live.

Thank you for your work in trying to address this challenge.

Erik Jacobsen
Executive Director
California Family Foundation

From: Sherry Listgarten
To: Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie
Cc: Council, City
Subject: Lines of RVs on select Palo Alto streets is not the answer to our affordable housing crisis Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 6:34:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear City Council,
I do not think that encouraging RV living on select streets in Palo Alto is an appropriate way to address our affordable housing crisis.

There is no doubt that we have a grave affordable housing crisis. Although Palo Alto has in the past done more to support affordable housing than many other Peninsula cities, the affordable housing we have today is being razed by developers in order to build more lucrative housing and hotels. New state laws are exacerbating the situation.

We are losing the battle.

But your proposal to support and encourage RVs on select streets in the city is in my view going to do more harm than good. Our Mayor preaches unity, but the proposal is inherently divisive, segregating RV dwellers and pitting some parts of Palo Alto against others. RV residents hide in their dark and hot vehicles, afraid to emerge in a hostile environment. And the local residents and business owners are upset to see their streets and sidewalks crowded by permanently parked large vehicles, their air disturbed by the sound and smell of generators, and landscaping sometimes impacted with waste. The neighborhood they have invested in, and only their neighborhood, has become an RV lot.

We have got to find a way to build proper affordable housing, which the state is apparently refusing to help with. (In fact, this whole development/gentrification push is now causing affordability problems even in inland areas.) Maybe we could couple stricter RV enforcement with an affordable housing fee on all residents. I would certainly prefer a tax that would fund affordable housing to one planned for Cubberley. And I live near Cubberley...

Short of proper affordable housing, I would suggest that we distribute RVs equally throughout the city, one on every block or two, exclusively for low-income RV "households". The RV folks can move in front of a new house/building on their block(s) every week or two and get to know more people that way. Many blocks might even rally to support their local RV family. We want these folks to be integrated into our community, not locked away in a dark and hot vehicle, afraid of emerging.

We need to get the socioeconomic profile of Palo Alto back into balance. It was urgent before, and now the state is making it both more difficult and more urgent. But turning select streets into RV lots cannot be the answer. It is divisive, it is unfair, and it doesn't make sense for RV residents or the local residents. We can do better. -- Sherry.

From: Frances Perry
To: Council, City
Subject: Comments on some issues
Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 7:36:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

On RV parking rules:

Rules that apply to all vehicles would seem to be better than rules that apply to RVs only. Some cities alternate parking on street cleaning day to the even/odd numbered sides so that the gutters are really cleaned. We could do that here and vehicles would need to be moved at least once a week. In some of our residential streets parts of the gutters are never cleaned. I guess we would need to have a lot of signs announcing this and be prepared to tow vehicles on the wrong side of the street.

On transitional housing for the homeless:

I was surprised when at the opening of the new transitional housing for the homeless near the end of San Antonio Road, that it was called the first such facility in Palo Alto. The Opportunity Center was the first. It was built to be transitional housing for the homeless and provide services to them. Before it was finished, we looked around and realized that there was no housing to transition to, so it became low income housing with services for the homeless.

Now that it has a water problem. Rather than helping them fix it, I read that the city wants to take money from them via fines. The Opportunity Center is closer to bus lines and train lines than the other place (sorry, I forgot its name).

On RV parking:

We just need to open a big KOA camp. It also makes sense to do the same that the surrounding communities are doing so that we don’t become a magnet because it is more attractive.

Frances H. Perry
Richardson Court
From: Angela Dellaporta
To: Council, City
Subject: OSVs
Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 7:40:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear City Council Members,
Having read many of the letters written to the city council regarding experiences and opinions about OSV policy in Palo Alto, I sympathize with those who are upset about garbage strewn on the sidewalk, unwanted noise, vehicles blocking views of intersections, and unenforced rules. I can also understand those who feel that they or their children are threatened by some behaviors. It may indeed be true that some people are using their OSVs as cooling stations, or as a way to avoid a long commute from a distant community where they can afford to rent a home.

However,
I want to encourage the city council – as well as all of those who are feeling umbrage at the imposition of lost parking spaces, and at the loss of a pretty view outside of their front windows, and at the possibility that a customer may not be able to see their business signs – to consider the plight of those who are having to live in their vehicles. Those impositions are small matters compared to the struggle of having to live in an OSV. I am sure that if the OSV dwellers had the privilege of having a permanent home in which to sleep, to cool off, to bring up their children, or to study, they would certainly make use of that privilege.

I live on one of the residential streets on which several long-term OSVs have been parked. I have occasionally seen some garbage on the sidewalk, but only a little. I have rarely seen or heard from the inhabitants of these vehicles – except for the one time that I saw a child’s small hand in the open window of an OSV parked in the shade. They do need to run their generator sometimes, which can be annoying – but I ask myself what choice they have inside a metal “home” when their child may become dehydrated on a warm summer day? And I ask myself what I would do if I were in their position.

I encourage the city to enforce all existing laws regarding noise or “partying” (that is, noise outside of legal volume and hours restrictions); and laws regarding garbage and littering; and laws regarding parking where sight lines are obstructed, such as the corners of intersections, and business addresses; and laws regarding parking that blocks driveways. I also encourage the city to find ways to accommodate the people who are of necessity resorting to OSVs in our neighborhoods – perhaps through building or finding housing for those who need it; or offering plenty of usable, safe parking spaces for OSVs near public transit lines.

I support the idea of offering a temporary but renewable permit which could allow those who obey ALL garbage and noise laws to stay in the neighborhoods that have become home to them, until they can manage to rent or buy their own homes. (Of course, we must acknowledge that someone who is making minimum wage is unlikely ever to be able to rent or buy their own home in the Bay Area.) Proper screening must of course be done to ensure that anyone who could pose a threat to children -- or to anyone -- is not offered one of these permits. And anyone who broke the permit agreement in any way would have their permit revoked. A permit process would cost the city, of course, but there will be no remedy to this problem without cost. The wealthy residents of Palo Alto can afford to pay.

Those of us who own property in Palo Alto are among the most privileged people in the world. Can we really turn our backs on those who work in our city, but cannot afford to rent in this most expensive of areas? Yes, the OSVs are unsightly, and do not “fit” into upscale Palo Alto neighborhoods.

We may not like to see the evidence that our lifestyle is supported by those who live on minimum wage and who cannot afford to live here. Perhaps it’s a good thing for us to be reminded – by the sight of the objectionable OSVs – of the consequences of the financial policies and wealth inequality in our country.

Angela Dellaporta, Resident of the Ventura Neighborhood From: Dana Dahlstrom
To: Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Robert Marinaro
Cc: Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; [email protected]; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Gary Gechlik; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright
Subject: Re: City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Problem/Solution Date: Saturday, August 22, 2026 9:11:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Loren,
I appreciate your thoughts but have some different views; see my responses below.
> the City is unwilling to ban OSV parking in Palo Alto, > unwilling to cap the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto, and > unwilling to find an alternative location for the OSVs to park.

A ban like Menlo Park's would probably be effective
and relatively efficient to enforce.

Capping OSV numbers by issuing permits would require
significant administrative overhead, and perversely
favor those who squatted first on public streets.

Finding legal places to store large vehicles should be
up to their owners, not the rest of the public.
> 1. Immediately stop all OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business districts and residential neighborhoods. > 2. Prevent additional out-of-town OSVs from migrating to park on Palo Alto streets. > 3. Provide designated locations where OSVs that are currently parking in Palo Alto can park. > 4. Provide behavioral rules for OSV occupants to adhere to while parked in Palo Alto. > 5. Decrease the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto over time.

This strikes me as overcomplicated.

I would make the single goal simply to stop
long-term storage of vehicles on public streets
by enforcing existing codes and statues and,
as needed, enacting new ones applicable to all.

To that end perhaps the city could limit parking
any OSV to, say, a number of days per month
on streets anywhere in the city. This would be
less restrictive than a total overnight ban.

I'm inclined to oppose goals (2) and (3) above.

I would rather out-of-town vehicles pass through
than local ones occupy streets continually; and
I want less, not more, public resources directed
toward long-term storage of private vehicles.

Those resources have many better uses
to benefit the public at large.

Dana
From: Chris Schremp
To: Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Council, City Cc: Loren Brown; Dmitri Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Chris Schremp; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin Swindells; Christine Schremp; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bryna Chang; [email protected]; [email protected]; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen
Subject: Formal Submission for August 24 Action: Strategic Code Execution vs. Citizen Ballot Initiative Date: Saturday, August 22, 2026 12:56:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Mayor Veenker, Mr. Shikada, and Members of the City Council, Ahead of the August 24 meeting regarding Staff Report #2606-6479, our neighborhood coalition, alongside local business and property stakeholders, wants to ensure the Council fully understands the operational, legal, and democratic choices before you.

We are not merely voicing frustration; we are providing formal notice of a clear, unified path forward—and the mechanisms our coalition will consider if the Council chooses not to fulfill their obligation to taxpayers and protect our community.

OUR REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL
One Simple Ask—Amend PAMC § 10.44.020 for Citywide Application Please direct the Council to enact PAMC § 10.44.020 to expand overnight OSV parking restrictions citywide across ALL public streets (residential, commercial, and industrial), modeled on successful measures in Menlo Park and Mountain View.

Border-Signage Execution: Activate this citywide restriction by deploying the California Vehicle Code § 22651(n) border-signage model, placing legislative notice signs at municipal entry points. This enforces overnight OSV restrictions across all streets within 30 to 45 days at a fraction of the cost, fully backed by the City Attorney’s acknowledgment of Grants Pass.

Massive Taxpayer Savings (est. $45,000 Total Cost): Deploying the CVC § 22651(n) border-signage model requires installing approximately 20 to 30 legislative entry signs at Palo Alto’s municipal boundaries, completely bypassing the multi- million-dollar block-by-block signage requirements assumed in staff reports.

This model requires zero roadway restriping, zero red curb painting, and utilizes existing PAPD/Code Enforcement shifts—saving over $775,000 in taxpayer funds compared to staff's proposal.

Off-Street Transitional Alternatives: Decouple street parking code enforcement from long-term housing services. If the City seeks transitional parking options, it should utilize designated off-street surplus land—such as City surplus land on Geng Road or the state-owned Caltrans parcel near Highway 101/San Antonio—rather than using public streets as un-zoned, rent-free lots.

Why We Oppose the Proposed Pilot: Reject "Pilot #2," an $823,800 experiment that does not ban OSVs, but instead institutionalizes a 6-month street shuffle for up to 125 vehicles while staff explicitly admits it will create spillover onto surrounding blocks.

FORMAL NOTICE OF CITIZEN BALLOT INITIATIVE
If the Council declines to enact a permanent, enforceable, citywide OSV parking restriction, our coalition—alongside partner neighborhood and business groups across Palo Alto—is fully prepared to launch a formal Citizen Ballot Initiative Campaign.

Under Article VI of the Palo Alto City Charter, residents hold the constitutional right to propose ordinances directly to the voters:

Achievable Threshold: Enacting a citywide ordinance requires signatures from just 6% of registered voters (~2,630 signatures based on published figures). Given widespread community frustration across residential and commercial districts, our coalition is confident we will meet this threshold swiftly.

Citywide Application: The drafted initiative will establish a single, narrow mandate:
a uniform, citywide prohibition on overnight OSV parking across all public streets (residential, commercial, and industrial).

Under California law, once certified signatures are submitted, the Council will either be forced to adopt the citywide prohibition ordinance as written or place it on the next municipal ballot.

CORE PRINCIPLES FOR THE AUGUST 24 DECISION
To move past administrative gridlock, the City Council must recognize four fundamental realities ahead of Monday’s session:

1. A Primary Duty to Tax-Paying Residents & Businesses: Mayor Veenker and the City Council were elected by—and are funded by—the tax-paying residents and property/business owners of Palo Alto. Your primary municipal duty is to protect public safety, maintain the public right-of-way, and enforce local codes for the citizens and local businesses that support our community.

You have an opportunity to meet tax payer requests for a full City Wide ban AND save tax payers roughly $775,000

2. Vehicle Habitation is Separate from Housing: Menlo Park successfully enacted its citywide OSV parking restrictions (passing 4–1) by treating street parking strictly as a traffic and safety regulation, separate from social services. Conflating municipal parking enforcement with solving regional homelessness creates an impossible bottleneck. When housed teachers, service workers, or city staff are priced out of Palo Alto, they make the difficult choice to commute or relocate to affordable regions; they do not get to convert public thoroughfares and bike lanes into un-zoned residential spaces.

3. Leniency Drives Migration: The reality is that many OSV occupants stay in Palo Alto specifically because our lack of enforcement makes us so accommodating.

Vehicle dwellers are mobile and resourceful—when surrounding cities enforce their laws, vehicles adapt and relocate to legitimate facilities, RV parks, or less restrictive jurisdictions. The City does not need to solve the entire Bay Area housing crisis before it can clear an unshielded gas generator or an OSV blocking a bike lane on East Meadow or Transport Street.

4. Palo Alto Has Proven Its Commitment to Housing: Palo Alto has already demonstrated extraordinary commitment to affordable housing, such as the major municipal partnership to preserve the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Preserving structured, zoned affordable housing is a legitimate city function; allowing unregulated, hazardous street habitation on residential and commercial blocks is not.

CONCLUSION
The City Council does not need to force taxpayers into an unnecessary, expensive ballot battle to achieve basic municipal safety. You already have the legal authority, the municipal code, and a clear, unified proposal sitting on your desks.

We strongly urge the Council to reject open-ended, 12-month "alternating side" pilots on August 24 and instead amend PAMC § 10.44.020 to establish a citywide overnight OSV prohibition across all public streets, executed via the CVC § 22651(n) border-signage model.

Regards,
Chris Schremp
Palo Alto Resident & Stakeholder
From: Gary Gechlik
To: Chris Schremp
Cc: Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Council, City; Loren Brown; Dmitri Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin Swindells; Christine Schremp; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bryna Chang; [email protected]; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen Subject: Re: Formal Submission for August 24 Action: Strategic Code Execution vs. Citizen Ballot Initiative Date: Saturday, August 22, 2026 1:14:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
It is not about right or wrong, it is all about a legal theory of law and economics that was developed on the East Coast that proved to be true, Broken Windows:

Theoretical explanation: The reason the state of the urban environment may affect crime consists of three factors: social norms and conformity; the presence or lack of routine monitoring; and social signaling and signal crime. In an anonymous urban environment, with few or no other people around, social norms and monitoring are not clearly known.

Thus, individuals look for signals within the environment as to the social norms in the setting and the risk of getting caught violating those norms; one of the signals is the area's general appearance.

RV Squatters are not criminals, but the presence of unregulated RV Squatting leads to higher crime. Crime prevention is not cheap. It comes down to closed door negotiation sessions with our Police Union. Why is the budgeting for Police so high in Palo Alto and so low in Saratoga, because of a 'need to be right'.

The more we recognize, there is no universal 'need to be right', or 'get our own way', in running a Municipality, the better our outcome will be and the lower our costs. There is no benefit to badgering the existing council members who have created a policy based on humanitarian principals. The best approach, go out and vote and choose city councilor members that are hard nosed operational boots on the ground soldiers of our City who are simply not international humanitarians and are local Joes.

Do we honestly think that tree branches that abut high powered electrical lines that are three phase simply cut themselves. You should drive up to Skyline and watch the PG&E teams that cut these branches. There is no negotiation with 3 phase power at 12,000 volts to 21,000 volts phase to phase.

It is the same with RV Squatters, what is the point of negotiation and land locked schemes to satisfy a random group of non-tax paying citizens. To satisfy any legal requirements of potential litigation, they can park at the Palo Alto Facilities near the Municipal Service Center where they can be consistently registered and given a time constraint of parking. Our staff is there anyway, and the Police can politely approach the RV Owners and the direct them to Palo Alto Municipal Land where there is camera surveillance.

Gary
DrGary.Vote
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Dave Stellman
To: Chris Schremp
Cc: Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Council, City; Loren Brown; Dmitri Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin Swindells; Christine Schremp; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bryna Chang; [email protected]; [email protected]; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen; Chris Schremp Subject: Re: Formal Submission for August 24 Action: Strategic Code Execution vs. Citizen Ballot Initiative Date: Saturday, August 22, 2026 1:19:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
I agree 100% as a commercial property owner in Palo Alto. If this simple, legal and cost saving proposal is not followed we need to vote to override the city council who is not representing the majority.

On Aug 22, 2026, at 12:56 PM, Chris Schremp <[email protected]> wrote:

Mayor Veenker, Mr. Shikada, and Members of the City Council, Ahead of the August 24 meeting regarding Staff Report #2606-6479, our neighborhood coalition, alongside local business and property stakeholders, wants to ensure the Council fully understands the operational, legal, and democratic choices before you.

OUR REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL
One Simple Ask—Amend PAMC § 10.44.020 for Citywide Application Please direct the Council to enact PAMC § 10.44.020 to expand overnight OSV This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
parking restrictions citywide across ALL public streets (residential, commercial, and industrial), modeled on successful measures in Menlo Park and Mountain View.

Massive Taxpayer Savings (est. $45,000 Total Cost): Deploying the CVC § 22651(n) border-signage model requires installing approximately 20 to 30 legislative entry signs at Palo Alto’s municipal boundaries, completely bypassing the multi-million-dollar block-by-block signage requirements assumed in staff reports.

This model requires zero roadway restriping, zero red curb painting, and utilizes existing PAPD/Code Enforcement shifts —saving over $775,000 in taxpayer funds compared to staff's proposal.

Under Article VI of the Palo Alto City Charter, residents hold the constitutional right to propose ordinances directly to the voters:

Citywide Application: The drafted initiative will establish a single, narrow mandate: a uniform, citywide prohibition on overnight OSV parking across all public streets (residential, commercial, and industrial).

Under California law, once certified signatures are submitted, the Council will either be forced to adopt the citywide prohibition ordinance as written or place it on the next municipal ballot.

CORE PRINCIPLES FOR THE AUGUST 24 DECISION
To move past administrative gridlock, the City Council must recognize four fundamental realities ahead of Monday’s session:

You have an opportunity to meet tax payer requests for a full City Wide ban AND save tax payers roughly $775,000

3. Leniency Drives Migration: The reality is that many OSV occupants stay in Palo Alto specifically because our lack of enforcement makes us so accommodating. Vehicle dwellers are mobile and resourceful—when surrounding cities enforce their laws, vehicles adapt and relocate to legitimate facilities, RV parks, or less restrictive jurisdictions. The City does not need to solve the entire Bay Area housing crisis before it can clear an unshielded gas generator or an OSV blocking a bike lane on East Meadow or Transport Street.

Mobile Home Park. Preserving structured, zoned affordable housing is a legitimate city function; allowing unregulated, hazardous street habitation on residential and commercial blocks is not.

Regards,
Chris Schremp
Palo Alto Resident & Stakeholder
From: Dick Jacobsen
To: Council, City
Subject: Pilot 2 OSV Parking Ordinance
Date: Saturday, August 22, 2026 1:26:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
September 22, 2026
RE: Proposed OSV Pilot Programs
Dear City Council Members,
It was almost 30 years ago that the Olive Avenue owners and tenants began their collaborating work with Hewlett Packard and the City of Palo Alto on the development standards to be applied to HP’s redevelopment of the 9.8-acre 395 Page Mill Road site which was to include a new 225,000 square foot 3- story office building and parking for 850-cars. The outcome of that collaborative effort shielded the Olive Avenue neighborhood from the impacts of the new development and served not only to preserve but also to enhance the character of the Olive Avenue single family residential neighborhood.

No traffic was permitted to enter or exit the newly redeveloped HP site from Olive Avenue. The 3-story office building was to be located on the Page Mill Road frontage of the property. On the Olive Avenue side of the property a landscaped buffer zone would protect and enhance the single-family residential neighborhood.

The Olive Avenue side of the HP property included an approximately 70-foot-wide buffer area made up of a landscaped parking reserve, a flood control bioswale, and a 5-foot-high berm planted with a double row of trees extending along most of the Olive Avenue residential frontage The pine trees, planted so many years ago, now stand almost 70-feet high and the overall feeling of the landscaping is that of a forest which now provides a natural home for rabbits, lizards, squirrels and a variety of other wildlife. We are very grateful for the outcome of that collaborative effort.

For those not familiar with the Olive Avenue residential neighborhood, it, for the most part, consists of small (about 1100 square feet), 2-bedroom-1-bath single story homes all built in the mid-1940’s. The occupants of those houses primarily consist of lower-income families with a wonderful ethnic diversity – Polynesian, Hispanic, African American, Asian, and White. Most of the homes in the 300-400 block have been made available to lower income families at rental rates well below current market value to provide an affordable alternative for housing in Palo Alto for families who otherwise could not afford to live here. Some of the families include small children.

We are grateful for the City’s concern for those who are living in OSV’s. We concur with the City’s suggested OSV Pilot 1 parking ordinance for low-income OSV families which includes registered permits, and a commitment to a “Good Neighbor Policy”. We hope that works out well. Regarding the city’s proposed OSV Pilot 2, however, we have some serious concerns.

The city’s stated goal for both OSV Pilots is to “reduce the impact on business and residential neighborhoods”. We were therefore surprised to find that among the 13 streets included in OSV Pilot 2 there were two single family residential streets included, one of them being our own Olive Avenue. We request that Olive Avenue be removed from OSV Pilot 2 due to the largely very negative impact it would have on our single- family home neighborhood replacing our connection with the protective berm and planted natural forest area This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
with a virtual wall of parked OSV’s.

Thank you for your very careful consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,
Richard M. Jacobsen
Olive Avenue Property Owner
56 Year Resident of Palo Alto
From: Matthew Bryant
To: Council, City
Subject: Regarding staff report #2606-6479 and agenda item #10 on 24Aug26 meeting agenda Date: Saturday, August 22, 2026 11:32:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear distinguished members of Palo Alto City Council and staff, I am writing once again to express my opposition to the staff report and recommendations regarding agenda item #10 during the 24Aug26 meeting. The broader issue is described as permitting over-sized vehicle (OSV) parking on Palo Alto city streets.

My family and I have spoken up during previous meetings to discuss the OSV parking and how they have affected our neighborhood on Pepper/Ash/Olive/Park/El Camino Real streets.

I have stated that we support the rights of everyone to have access to stable, affordable housing resources. UCSF has conducted California unhoused studies which have concluded that stable, affordable housing is the primary or core need for people that are unhoused. Anything less than that will not help the unhoused. Therefore, Palo Alto’s plan to create programs that promote OSV parking on city streets with permits, restricted to certain streets, during specific dates/times of the year, with limited access to basic sanitation and clean water will not work because it is not housing. Permitting OSV parking on our streets will lead to continued unhoused neighbors living in vehicles in poor conditions on our streets at very high risk of public health outbreaks.

I agree with many of the hundreds of Palo Alto neighbors who have spoken up about their concerns regarding permitting OSV parking to continue on our streets. I have highlighted a few below.
- How were the OSV parking dates/times/street locations selected? The majority of the streets selected for OSV parking are in South Palo Alto. This Palo Alto neighborhood continues to be marginalized.
- Since we don’t know how the OSV parking locations were selected in the report, I propose to add the entirety of Palo Alto Avenue parking along San Francisquito creek, the Oregon Avenue feeder road along Oregon Expressway, and work with Caltrans to repaint Oregon Expressway itself to allow street parking, and let’s not forget to add Sand Hill Road, too.

Adding these wide, open, and long stretches of roadway will allow hundreds more OSV parking spaces and showcase to the world that the City of Palo Alto is the most compassionate OSV parking city in the Bay Area.
- Did the City of Palo Alto consider using the many acres of public space and open land for additional OSV parking?
- OSV are heavy vehicles and therefore damage local city streets, in addition to posing a safety risk to drivers by blocking the ability to see traffic/pedestrians/bicyclists due to ‘daylighting' along streets.

Thank you for your public service to Palo Alto. We appreciate you reading our thoughts on these important matters as they directly impact our neighborhood and the image and reputation of Palo Alto.

Best regards,
Dr. Matthew Bryant
471 Pepper Ave, Palo Alto
From: Robert Marinaro
To: Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr Cc: Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; [email protected]; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Kaye Crawford; Jim Crawford; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Jon Hellesoe; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Rosalie Cook; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam Subject: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob"s Pre-Council Meeting Count (8/22/26) Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 12:43:12 AM
Attachments: RV Inventory_22Aug26.xlsx
Impacts to the Community_06Aug26.docx
Screenshot 2026-08-22 at 11.59.26 PM.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Palo Alto City Council, OSV Ad Hoc Committee, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, I thought it might be beneficial to do one more OSV count before the August 24th City Council Meeting where the OSV Phase II Plan will be discussed. I’m sorry to report that our count is holding pretty static at 140-ish. As mentioned earlier we have seen the numbers fall from when I first started counting in October 2025 from 220 to the current number of 140. A reduction of 36%, but 140 OSVs on our streets is still way more than the community would like to see. And way too many if they happen to be parked in front of your residence or business.

Aside from the count the climate on the streets is deteriorating. I’ve seen video of vandals destroying property, stealing electricity, and now using intimidation by those who feel emboldened by their tenure on our streets. This has to stop! As I take my count on the 21 affected streets I have increasingly been yelled at by those who think they have a right to squat on our streets because the City has been reluctant to take a hard stand to protect the hard- working tax-paying residents and businesses that fund the basic operations of this City.

Please see the last image of this message to understand how this situation has devolved into an almost Blackboard Jungle atmosphere. And if you are unfamiliar with the 1955 film Blackboard Jungle - Google it! When I mentioned in one of my earlier e-mails that I was followed for about three blocks after walking East Meadow Circle with my wife a resident of condominiums on East Meadow Circle sent me the following the comment - - "I beg you to please be careful. None of us walk on East Meadow any longer. It is not safe. Please don’t go there especially with your wife.” Is this the Palo Alto that we want? And since we are on the movie theme who can forget the line “ I’m Mad As Hell and I’n Not Going to Take it Anymore,” from the movie “Network” in 1976.

I’m very happy to know that an increasing portion of our community is understanding the consequences of an overly accommodating City government and are focussed on demanding that we do not want OSVs in our residential neighborhoods and business/commercial districts. The current situation is intolerable and we want a sea change for the better. We want to see a City government that prioritizes the needs of the community - that prioritizes the needs of its constituents, the very people that put every council member in their position! The time is Now to make this right. Let’s seize the opportunity! Regards,
Bob Marinaro

E. San Antonio Rd Next to Homekey Transitional Housing Facility (8/21/26). No Parking Zone. I called it in yesterday and it was gone today.

East Meadow Circle in front of Echelon Townhomes
East Meadow Circle in front of Google Buildings
East Meadow Circle - - BMW Motorcycles (Average cost $19,500). This guy in the window was yelling at the top of his lungs as I was riding away. These folks feel so entitled. They have been allowed to stay here unfettered for so long that they feel as though they have a right to be here and I am intruding on their domain! Fabian Way
Transport Street - - One of the ways businesses have to keep the OSVs from taking up their valued parking Elwell Ct.

Faber Places - - 15 OSVs on a short street segment
Embarcadero Way - - 11 OSVs on a short street segment
Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park
Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - The guy in the van has been here forever and the RV is new this weekend I believe Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - Lets get these OSVs out of our parks! Matadero Ave, - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens Orinda St. - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens Ash St - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Portage Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Page Mill - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Sheridan Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Palo Alto Daily Post Police Blotter - - Friday 8/21/26

From: Gerson Bers
To: Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr Cc: Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; [email protected]; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Kaye Crawford; Jim Crawford; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Jon Hellesoe; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Rosalie Cook; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam Subject: RE: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob"s Pre-Council Meeting Count (8/22/26) Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 8:29:45 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i
Robert,

Many thanks for your work on this issue.

The moment CPA took down the “No RV Parking” signs in our neighborhood…the RVs were back in force…and your data demonstrates this.

Over the past week I have met many of our neighbors in the Transit/Commercial/Industrial small business enclave.

To a person, not a one had been contacted by CPA regarding selling our curbs to the RV squatters OR the zoning change from light industrial to high density residential.

Total disrespect to the property and business owners here.

The City Council needs to hear from us in mass.

I urge all our neighbors to attend the council meeting Monday evening.

Gerson Bers
990 Commercial, LLC.

From: Robert Marinaro <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2026 12:24 AM
To: Palo Alto City Council 2026 <[email protected]>; Vicki Veenker <[email protected]>; Greer Stone <[email protected]>; Ed Lauing <[email protected]>; Keith Reckdahl <[email protected]>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <[email protected]>; Patrick Burt <[email protected]>; George Lu <[email protected]>; Ed Shikada <[email protected]> Cc: Josh Becker <[email protected]>; Marc Berman <[email protected]>; Leslie Bulbuk <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Margaret Abe-Koga <[email protected]>; Christopher Jenson <[email protected]>; Eric Bulatao <[email protected]>; Stephen Lindsey <[email protected]>; Nick Marinaro <[email protected]>; Jennifer Kain <[email protected]>; Roger Smith <[email protected]>; Peter Xu <[email protected]>; Loren Brown <[email protected]>; Dana Dahlstrom <[email protected]>; Ceci Kettendorf <[email protected]>; Chris Berg <[email protected]>; Taly Katz <[email protected]>; Barry Katz <[email protected]>; Nancy Ellickson <[email protected]>; John Schafer <[email protected]>; Jeanette Baldwin <[email protected]>; Alina Martinez <[email protected]>; Micah Murphy <[email protected]>; Danielle Dunne <[email protected]>; David Famero <[email protected]>; Carly Lake <[email protected]>; Sandy Freschi <[email protected]>; Theron Bullman <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; Dave Stellman <[email protected]>; Steve Wong <[email protected]>; Marguerite Poyatos <[email protected]>; Manu Kumar <[email protected]>; Lydia Kou <[email protected]>; Patrick Kelly <[email protected]>; Osbaldo Romero <[email protected]>; Bryna Chang <[email protected]>; Xenia Czisch <[email protected]>; Bill McLane <[email protected]>; Ramon Moreno <[email protected]>; Lester Wong <[email protected]>; Cathi Lerch <[email protected]>; Maor Greenberg <[email protected]>; Pete Moffat <[email protected]>; Jacob Hakmo <[email protected]>; David Perez <[email protected]>; Nancy Powers <[email protected]>; Dan McKinley <[email protected]>; John Lerch <[email protected]>; Stacey Tomson <[email protected]>; CMEI Wong <[email protected]>; DMA Wong <[email protected]>; Jin Wong <[email protected]>; Maggie Madlangbayan <[email protected]>; K Norris <[email protected]>; Elidia Tafoya <[email protected]>; Scott Hayes <[email protected]>; Victor Sloan <[email protected]>; John Seltzer <[email protected]>; Kandace Kopensky <[email protected]>; Moiz Sonasath <[email protected]>; Peter Longanecker <[email protected]>; Karsyn Smith Development <[email protected]>; Raphael Zahnd <[email protected]>; Riley Cooke <[email protected]>; Sophie Pigman <[email protected]>; Nathan Baird <[email protected]>; Palo Alto Daily Post <[email protected]>; Gennady Sheyner <[email protected]>; Louis Hsiao <[email protected]>; Jo Ann Mandinach <[email protected]>; Ann Lafargue Balin <[email protected]>; Annette Ross <[email protected]>; Mary Gallagher <[email protected]>; Maury Green <[email protected]>; Terry Holzemer <[email protected]>; Joseph Hirsch <[email protected]>; Ben Lerner <[email protected]>; Greg Schmid <[email protected]>; Suzanne Keehn <[email protected]>; William Ross <[email protected]>; Ron Chun <[email protected]>; Arthur Keller <[email protected]>; Jeff Levinsky <[email protected]>; Becky Sanders <[email protected]>; Chip Wytmar <[email protected]>; Sharon Elliot <[email protected]>; Melissa McDonough <[email protected]>; Janet Hartley <[email protected]>; Charlie Weidanz <[email protected]>; Kevin Mayer <[email protected]>; Boris Folsch <[email protected]>; Ian Halker <[email protected]>; Richard Willits <[email protected]>; Heather Brownlee <[email protected]>; Ken Brownlee <[email protected]>; Robin Holbrook <[email protected]>; Cassandra Paige <[email protected]>; Brad Watson <[email protected]>; Alisa Pendicini <[email protected]>; Ron Ellickson <[email protected]>; Chantal Gaines <[email protected]>; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu <[email protected]>; Stephanie Wansek <[email protected]>; Penny Brennan <[email protected]>; Taryn Sanford <[email protected]>; Maia Harris <[email protected]>; Sayuri Kabutogi <[email protected]>; Bernadette Zimmerman <[email protected]>; Doreen Chew <[email protected]>; Kshama Jirage <[email protected]>; Jenni Simon <[email protected]>; Subadhra Arunasalam <[email protected]>; Robert Russell <[email protected]>; Doug Bacon <[email protected]>; Chuan Wang <[email protected]>; Shchopra <[email protected]>; Al Dorsky <[email protected]>; Phil Wettersten <[email protected]>; Ann Wettersten <[email protected]>; Todd Jin <[email protected]>; Emily Emily <[email protected]>; Daryl Savage <[email protected]>; Anil Rachakonda <[email protected]>; Linda Vanderhule <[email protected]>; Adriana Hernandez <[email protected]>; Stuart Kreitman <[email protected]>; Scott Petersen <[email protected]>; Alex Smelik <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Janie Sydow <[email protected]>; Deborah j Marinaro <[email protected]>; Doria Summa <[email protected]>; Boyd Smith <[email protected]>; Lund Smith <[email protected]>; Milan Milan <[email protected]>; Elliott Lee <[email protected]>; Robert Berkovich <[email protected]>; Letizia Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Brennan Pang <[email protected]>; Brad Eggleston <[email protected]>; Raphael Ruis <[email protected]>; Lo Ria <[email protected]>; Alex Andrade <[email protected]>; Bob Kennis <[email protected]>; Shani Kleinhaus <[email protected]>; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen <[email protected]>; Martin Cuyegkeng <[email protected]>; Julia Sun <[email protected]>; Aki Hirsa <[email protected]>; Colin Swindells <[email protected]>; Andrew Li <[email protected]>; Evan Mathews <[email protected]>; Efrain Monttano Velazquez <[email protected]>; Ignacio Montelongo Jr. <[email protected]>; Joseph Montelongo <[email protected]>; Nayirie Tashjian <[email protected]>; Fernanda Prado <[email protected]>; Dave Rubenstein <[email protected]>; Johnny Vo <[email protected]>; Priyanka Raghuraman <[email protected]>; Andrew Koo <[email protected]>; Joseline Sotomayor <[email protected]>; Dmitri Samsonov <[email protected]>; Gerson Bers <[email protected]>; Mike Emrick <[email protected]>; Anand Srinivasan <[email protected]>; Zohar Gillai <[email protected]>; Maria Orlova <[email protected]>; Marc Husemann <[email protected]>; Niklas Sprungmann <[email protected]>; Kara Apple <[email protected]>; Joe Sinnott <[email protected]>; Linda Zausen <[email protected]>; Danny Whelan <[email protected]>; Gulya Timokhina <[email protected]>; Matt Lynch <[email protected]>; Oksana Selavri <[email protected]>; Chuck Karish <[email protected]>; Fred Bailin <[email protected]>; Dave Adams <[email protected]>; Christian Hothem <[email protected]>; Aditya Jain <[email protected]>; Anjali Jain <[email protected]>; Jenny Lee <[email protected]>; Arun Bodapati <[email protected]>; Soumya Bodapati <[email protected]>; Yingxi Liu <[email protected]>; Susan Dorsky <[email protected]>; Dave Price <[email protected]>; Elaine Goodman <[email protected]>; Brandon Cartwright <[email protected]>; Clark Penado <[email protected]>; Francescarael Rael <[email protected]>; Kaye Crawford <[email protected]>; Jim Crawford <[email protected]>; Lena Yarovaya <[email protected]>; Kenneth Russell <[email protected]>; Jon Hellesoe <[email protected]>; Ryan Judd <[email protected]>; Evan Reade <[email protected]>; Rosalie Cook <[email protected]>; Kay Satit <[email protected]>; Sooji Nam <[email protected]>
Subject: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob's Pre-Council Meeting Count (8/22/26)

Palo Alto City Council, OSV Ad Hoc Committee, and Concerned Residents and Businesses,

I thought it might be beneficial to do one more OSV count before the August 24th City Council Meeting where the OSV Phase II Plan will be discussed. I’m sorry to report that our count is holding pretty static at 140-ish. As mentioned earlier we have seen the numbers fall from when I first started counting in October 2025 from 220 to the current number of 140. A reduction of 36%, but 140 OSVs on our streets is still way more than the community would like to see. And way too many if they happen to be parked in front of your residence or business.

Aside from the count the climate on the streets is deteriorating. I’ve seen video of vandals destroying property, stealing electricity, and now using intimidation by those who feel emboldened by their tenure on our streets. This has to stop! As I take my count on the 21 affected streets I have increasingly been yelled at by those who think they have a right to squat on our streets because the City has been reluctant to take a hard stand to protect the hard-working tax-paying residents and businesses that fund the basic operations of this City.

When I mentioned in one of my earlier e-mails that I was followed for about three blocks after walking East Meadow Circle with my wife a resident of condominiums on East Meadow Circle sent me the following the comment - - "I beg you to please be careful. None of us walk on East Meadow any longer. It is not safe. Please don’t go there especially with your wife.”

Is this the Palo Alto that we want? And since we are on the movie theme who can forget the line “ I’m Mad As Hell and I’n Not Going to Take it Anymore,” from the movie “Network” in 1976.

The time is Now to make this right. Let’s seize the opportunity!

Regards,
Bob Marinaro

E. San Antonio Rd Next to Homekey Transitional Housing Facility (8/21/26). No Parking Zone. I called it in yesterday and it was gone today.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast

East Meadow Circle in front of Echelon Townhomes

East Meadow Circle in front of Google Buildings

East Meadow Circle - - BMW Motorcycles (Average cost $19,500). This guy in the window was yelling at the top of his lungs as I was riding away. These folks feel so entitled. They have been allowed to stay here unfettered for so long that they feel as though they have a right to be here and I am intruding on their domain!

Fabian Way

Transport Street - - One of the ways businesses have to keep the OSVs from taking up their valued parking

Elwell Ct.

Faber Places - - 15 OSVs on a short street segment

Embarcadero Way - - 11 OSVs on a short street segment

Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park

Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - The guy in the van has been here forever and the RV is new this weekend I believe

Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - Lets get these OSVs out of our parks!

Matadero Ave, - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens

Orinda St. - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens

Ash St - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood

Portage Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood

Page Mill - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood

Sheridan Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood

Palo Alto Daily Post Police Blotter - - Friday 8/21/26

ABB promotes sustainability. Please consider the environment before you print. | This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 19 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and the disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication. Please check for any defects or viruses before opening or using any attachments. There is no warranty that this e-mail is virus free or without error. Allana Buick & Bers, Inc. is not liable if an attachment is altered without its written consent. Thank you.

Palo Alto On Street OSV Count
Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs ######### ######## ####### ######## ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ###### ###### ###### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### & 10/22/25 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29 & 4/11 & 8/4
1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 17 0 2 1 5 4 6 3 4 12 11 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd. 9 8 8 7 8 9 8 9 12 10 11 9 11 10 9 9 8 8 3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr. 52 56 53 52 49 53 48 41 43 43 41 40 40 39 38 37 38 39 4 East Meadow At Intersection with Fabian Way - - - - 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Industrial Ave. Between E. Charleston & Transport St. 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 Transport St. Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave. 12 11 11 11 12 11 6 5 4 6 8 7 7 7 5 6 6 5 7 San Antonio Rd. Between E. Charleston & Transport St. 13 13 15 13 11 11 3 3 5 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 3 3 8 San Antonio Rd. East of 101 - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 9 Commercial St. Between E. Charleston & Transport St. 12 15 15 15 16 17 9 11 10 7 7 9 6 6 6 6 8 8 10 Elwell Ct. Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd. 15 10 10 11 11 11 4 4 6 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 11 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd. 12 12 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Colorado Ave. Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd. 5 6 6 2 3 1 1 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 8 8 4 5 13 Amarillo Ave. Bordering North Edge of Greer Park - - - - 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 E. Embarcadero Rd. East of 101 13 15 8 10 5 9 6 9 6 7 8 6 7 9 10 8 9 9 15 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd. 14 10 11 7 7 6 9 9 11 11 11 10 11 10 10 12 12 11 16 Faber Pl. Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd. 25 23 25 20 15 16 17 14 15 17 17 18 18 14 12 12 14 15 17 Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - - - - - - - 4 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 18 Greer Park Greer Park Parking Lot - - - - - - - - 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 19 Ames Av./Ross Rd. At Intersection with Ross Rd. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 2 0 200 197 195 180 165 168 138 136 119 120 120 123 123 123 116 117 124 123 20 Park Blvd. South of Page Mill 6 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 Lambert Ave. Between El Camino & Park Blvd. 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Ash St. (2 segments) Between Oregon Expressway & Portage Ave. 1 0 0 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 3 4 6 5 23 Poratge Ave. Between El Camino & Park Blvd. 4 6 4 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 5 5 24 Olive Ave. Between El Camino & Park Blvd. 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 25 Sheridan Ave. Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 26 Orinda St. Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave. 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 Matadero Ave. Between El Camino & Park Blvd. - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 Acacia Ave. Between El Camino & Ash St. - - - - - - - - - - 3 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 7 5 3 0 0 29 Page Mill Between Park Blvd. & RR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 20 20 20 19 13 12 11 15 12 12 13 13 15 20 14 14 17 17
Total: 220 217 215 199 178 180 149 151 131 132 133 136 138 143 130 131 141 140 Delta: 9 -2 -16 -3 2 -31 2 -20 1 1 3 2 5 -13 1 10 -1
Days since first count: ######## 29 43 60 99 115 129 141 159 170 185 199 213 231 248 262 286 305 Months since first count: ######## 1.0 1.4 2.0 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.6 6.1 6.5 7.0 7.6 8.2 8.6 9.4 10.0 Yellow OSVs on new street Palo Alto City Council: [email protected] Green Utility construction Bob Marinaro: E:Mail: [email protected], Cell: 650-269-5936 Ash Street Numerous auxillary vehicles in addition to OSVs Abandon Vehicle Hotline: 650-329-2258 Some columns may be hidden to facilitate easy one page viewing Ventura Area
RV Inventory_22Aug26 8/24/2026 12:53 PM

OSV IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY
8/6/26 11:43 AM

• Safety – residents do not feel safe in their presence (especially women) • Obstruct egress (sight lines) to the point of several reported accidents (on E. Meadow Circle)
• Dump trash in street
• Dump trash is business dumpsters including large items (mattresses, etc.) • Steal water
• Steal electricity
• Dump waste in sewers and in bushes
• Prevent deliveries to back loading docks
• Block traﬃc such as when OSVs double park for waste removal • Take up needed parking spaces for businesses and other facilities – they also reserve parking spaces adjacent to their OSVs using chairs, cones, etc. • Intimidate business/institution customers & students
• Noticeable increase in crime in OSV dense neighborhoods • Liability issues associated with children playing on private property adjacent to OSVs • OSV slide-outs: dangerous, impedes traﬃc ﬂow, and blocks bike lanes • Inhibits business owners and property managers from leasing vacant properties • Decreases property values which in turn decreases property taxes and revenue to the city
• Discourages property development
• General blight and reduction of quality of life for tax-paying residents and businesses • Services such as food trucks that once came by for lunch no longer stop by (E. Meadow Circle)
• Financial - - Additional costs incurred by businesses:
o Additional utility costs
o Installation of locks on dumpsters
o Installation of cameras and security monitoring systems o Installation of barriers (bollards with chains across driveways, gates, etc.) o Installation of audio systems to inconvenience OSV dwellers (Faber Place) o Additional trash pickup costs and additional burden to business owners who have to properly sort out trash from recycled materials

File: Impacts to the Community_06Aug26.docx
From: David Richardson
To: Council, City
Subject: Oversized Vehicle Parking on City Streets
Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 1:54:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear City Council,
I think it is beholden on all of us to find more ways to accommodate the unhoused in our city.. Complaints about too much traffic or not enough parking and other complaints have prevented housing development in California and the nation for decades so that in this state we are 2 million homes short. It’s a matter of residents losing their housing because those who are earning more money can afford the housing that they cannot. We have a problem that we have to help solve. Everyone needs and deserves a place to live many of whom are earning a living.

RVs seem poised to become part of the solution; they already exist where other transient housing does not and we are short of housing for those who work in our city who have no place to live. It seems we should try to meet their challenges without automatically banning them.

Some measures that help:

1. Provide sewage, water, cleanup, and any other basic services that prevent the communities from becoming eyesores. Make rules to minimize impact.

2. Perhaps setting up a required training program on how to be a good neighbor in an RV and evict any one who is not.

3. Listen to residents and neighbors to accommodate their needs as much as possible and of course look for locations with minimal impact. Challenge neighbors and businesses to help with solutions in their areas.

4. Perhaps having someone as a liaison between neighbors and businesses and RV residents could be a catalyst for solving issues that come up.

5. Pilot projects should help iron out the kinks.

6. Working with neighboring communities is also important and necessary.

Solutions may not be perfect so compromise may be in order in some specific situations. There is no doubt that homelessness is a serious problem that will be difficult to solve given how many homes short we are everywhere.

But we need to tackle this program head on.

Sincerely,
David Richardson
Palo Alto Resident
P.S. Coyote Hill Road is the only parking reasonably close to the Matadero Creek Trailhead. Where will there be parking for that trail after the pilot program is initiated? Stanford research Park has restricted parking everywhere.

From: Oksana Selavri
To: Council, City
Cc: Robert Marinaro
Subject: public comment for August 24th meeting - stop making Palo Alto a dumping ground for RVs Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 2:02:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
City Council and members,
This has to stop! We have seen worsening of the RV situation at Echelon residential complex after Phase 1 and street cleaning has been implemented.

We now have RVs boldly parking right in front of our complex! when before they were abusing the East Meadow circle area. Enough is enough! Please support Palo Alto residents in their plea and NOT the people who are abusing the street space by flooding it with their boats, motorcycles etc!
Oksana Selavri
Echelon Community
Fabian Way and East Meadow circle
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast

From: Kelly Brieger
To: Council, City
Cc: Steve Perna
Subject: SRI Letter Regarding Agenda Item #10 – Proposed OSV Pilot Program Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 3:22:03 PM
Attachments: image001[44].png
SRI letter to PA City Council OSV.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am sharing a letter from SRI’s Steve Perna regarding Agenda Item #10, the proposed overnight OSV parking pilot program, in advance of tomorrow’s meeting. We respectfully request that you include it in the public record for the Council's consideration. Please let us know if you have questions or would like to discuss. Thank you for your time.

City of Palo Alto August 23, 2026
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Proposed Oversized Vehicle (OSV) pilot program, Agenda Item #10 Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council:

I am writing on behalf of SRI to provide our perspective about the proposed overnight OSV parking pilot program. Our company has long supported efforts to address housing insecurity throughout our community, and our position on this proposal stems from operational necessity, not indifference to the community.

For 80 years, SRI has been recognized internationally as a world-class research organization. We want employees, customers, and visitors to experience a campus that reflects our storied history and the amazing innovation being developed every day.

SRI is in the initial stages of a significant modernization as we relocate our headquarters from Menlo Park to 3333 Coyote Hill Road in Stanford Research Park. This new HQ will support our team of more than 300 onsite Bay Area employees, which is expected to reach full capacity over the coming months.

As we plan this transition, safety and security are a top priority for employees and visitors. The Coyote Hill entrance/exit has limited visibility, and OSV parking nearby would create a safety hazard for vehicles and cyclists.

If OSVs are permitted to park directly along our property line, that would also create a greater security burden. We anticipate this could require additional investment in signage, lighting, physical barriers, and potentially 24/7 guard service. These costs would fall to SRI as a direct result of the program.

Our commitment to support the community remains strong. In fact, as part of the sale of our Menlo Park property, we worked with the developer and Menlo Park City Council to secure hundreds of units of dedicated low-income housing.

This investment reflects a strong contribution to addressing housing insecurity in the local area.

Before the Council makes a decision, we respectfully request clarity on a few items:
- Will the city add marked street parking in the area shown on the city drawing? - Will the city reduce the four-lane section of the road to two lanes and add a sidewalk? - What level of street parking is permitted for others along Coyote Hill? - Has a traffic study been performed to understand the impact? We appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns about the proposed plan to permit OSV parking in front of SRI’s Coyote Hill headquarters.

Sincerely,

Steve Perna, SRI, President of Integrated Systems and Solutions

From: Pepper Person
To: Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject: 8/24/2026 City Council Meeting Item 10: Use Existing OSV Data to Design Safer, Measurable Pilots Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 3:42:21 PM
Attachments: PA_OnStreet_OSV_Counts1.png
PA_OnStreet_OSV_Counts2.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are long-time Palo Alto residents, and we are writing regarding Item 10 on the 8/24/2026 City Council Meeting Agenda: the proposed oversized-vehicle (OSV) parking permit program and alternating-side parking pilot.

We support the City’s effort to develop an orderly and humane response to vehicle dwelling, including using pilots rather than premature permanent policy. But a useful pilot must begin with the evidence already available, test identifiable hypotheses, protect public safety before implementation, and avoid merely transferring impacts among streets and neighborhoods.

We respectfully ask Council to condition authorization on four requirements before activating location-specific restrictions.

1. Use the natural experiment that has already occurred The City already has a meaningful longitudinal dataset: at least 16 displayed count periods covering ~262 days, from October 2025 through approximately July 10-11, 2026. [Credit: Bob Marinaro; 7/25/2026 email forward included in 2026-07-27 City Council Emails.pdf retrieved 8/23/2026 from https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/] This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
The counts show two distinct phases. First, the citywide OSV count fell from 220 to 131, i.e., ~40%. But then the decline stopped. During the final ~3.4 months, the displayed counts were 131, 132, 133, 136, 138, 143, 130, and 131, with an average of ~134 and identical first and last values.

Overall, this two-phase structure shows an initial reduction followed by a relatively stable equilibrium. However, subsequent changes increasingly involved OSV location rather than continued citywide disappearance.

The Ventura Area (see image) illustrates this point. Its total declined from 20 to 14, but within the area:

Ash, Portage, Olive, and Acacia increased collectively from 6 OSVs to 10 and reached 15 at one count.

Their share of the Ventura total increased from 30% to 71% and exceeded 84% at one observation.

Park, Sheridan, and Lambert declined collectively from 13 OSVs to 2.

Therefore, an area-wide decline masks substantial concentration and redistribution among adjoining streets. Acacia’s appearance as a “new street,” sustained across more than ten observations, is particularly relevant evidence of spillover rather than a single-count fluctuation.

These changes cannot be attributed automatically to one cause. They occurred amid Phase I enforcement, construction, lost curb capacity, transportation changes, and other interventions. That is precisely why the existing series must be incorporated into the pilot design. January 2027 should not be treated as an unaffected baseline.

The Council should preserve the October-2025-to-launch period as a formal pre-pilot phase, continue standardized counts (in partnership with Bob Marinaro), and identify the timing of enforcement, construction, signage, traffic-control, and other relevant changes.

2. Design experiments capable of answering causal questions The staff report correctly predicts that the restrictions are likely to produce spillover.

But the proposal does not establish a sufficiently detailed baseline or comparison framework to determine how much spillover the pilots cause, where it goes, or which of the simultaneous interventions produced it.

The two pilots also test different hypotheses.

For the alternating-side pilot, the City should determine whether restrictions improve street sweeping, visibility, sanitation, and access; whether OSVs move across the street, to adjoining streets, or outside the city; and how OSVs and their auxiliary vehicles respond to a side change.

For the permit pilot, the City should measure participation, compliance, enforcement contacts, service engagement, housing and safe-parking outcomes, and operating cost per participant and successful placement.

These effects cannot be separated if all interventions begin simultaneously without comparison areas. Staff should stagger implementation across matched segments where feasible and publish the hypotheses, baseline, measurement protocol, intervention dates, and decision thresholds before implementation.

Measurements should include occupied curb feet, auxiliary vehicles, duration, relocations, complaints, enforcement, sanitation, traffic effects, and service outcomes, in addition to OSV counts.

The existing spreadsheet (constructive suggestions; this was a massive effort) could benefit from refinement and expansion before the pilot baseline measurements begin. For example, Ash is aggregated into two segments extending from Oregon Expressway to Portage, making it impossible to isolate Pepper, Page Mill/Oregon Expy, or the individual Ash blocks proposed for treatment. Pepper Avenue (among others) is not currently counted separately. The spreadsheet also notes “numerous auxiliary vehicles” on Ash without counting them.

Specifically, Acacia, Portage, Olive, Pepper, the individual Ash blocks, etc., should be measured separately before outreach or signage causes anticipatory relocation.

The proposed six-month parking periods are also too long for risk management and experimental evaluation. If a restriction causes unsafe access, severe concentration, or neighborhood spillover, six months is an unreasonable period to leave that condition in place.

Analytically, assigning one side from January through June and the other from July through December makes side assignment inseparable from season, construction, school and traffic patterns, weather, and other time-varying conditions. With only one crossover, the City will have no replication and little ability to determine whether an observed difference was caused by the selected side or the six-month period.

Council should authorize a 12-month adaptive pilot, not two fixed six-month exposures.

Staff should use staggered activation, different initial-side assignments on comparable segments where feasible, and 30-60-day evaluation cycles. Reviews should occur after 14 and 30 days, with comprehensive evaluation no later than 60-90 days.

Shorter evaluation cycles need not require frequent forced relocation. A side assignment can remain in place while conditions remain within established limits. Changes should be triggered by evidence rather than an arbitrary calendar, and predefined safety, access, spillover, sanitation, and concentration thresholds should require prompt mitigation, modification, or suspension.

Because the citywide count has plateaued despite ongoing enforcement, the evaluation should also track whether “exit-side” capacity, such as safe parking, case-management placements, storage, buyback, or similar options, is expanding. Redistribution alone cannot reduce the population against which the pilots will be evaluated.

3. Establish safety and emergency access as preconditions Emergency access should not be an outcome the City learns about by waiting for an impaired response.

For example, Ash, Olive, and Pepper must be evaluated as a connected street system. Pepper has limited outlets. Its El Camino end can be affected by queues associated with El Camino and Page Mill/Oregon Expressway, while its eastern access depends on Ash, where OSVs, trailers, passenger vehicles, and other auxiliary vehicles already reduce maneuvering space.

Restrictions on Ash and Olive may improve some conditions, but they may also concentrate large vehicles on Pepper (El Camino end), Acacia, Portage, or constrained portions of Ash, reducing effective street width, sight distance, turning clearance, and redundant emergency access. Requirements may change depending on what is built; for example, fire code may require 26' rather than 20' vehicle access for fire hydrants or tall buildings.

Naturally, the same safety requirement should apply to the permit corridors. Coyote Hill requires verification of fire access, egress, and emergency communications. Embarcadero requires review of roadway geometry, flood exposure, and airport land-use compatibility.

People directed to those locations deserve the same pre-activation safety analysis as residents of affected neighborhoods.

Before activating any segment, Council should require written, location-specific findings from Fire, Police, Public Works, and Transportation addressing:

Clear street width under representative parking conditions; Swept paths for fire engines, ladder trucks, ambulances, refuse trucks, and tow trucks; Field testing with actual apparatus where geometric margins are limited; Intersection turning movements and opposing traffic;
Hydrant, driveway, sight-distance, and daylighting clearance; Peak traffic queues under the El Camino/Page Mill-Oregon no-turn-on-red condition; and
Alternative emergency routes if either end of Pepper or part of Ash is obstructed.

The findings and required mitigations should be public before implementation. A street that cannot maintain applicable emergency-access and operational margins should not be used as an OSV concentration or foreseeable spillover location.

4. Address cumulative and distributional impacts citywide The objective should not be merely to reduce OSVs on selected streets. It should be to prevent excessive concentration and allocate unavoidable impacts according to measurable capacity, safety, land use, and equity considerations.

Staff estimates that the alternating-side streets could retain ~116 or 125 OSVs, depending on the period, while the permit locations could accommodate ~37. That represents a nominal combined capacity of ~153-162 spaces, compared with the latest observed total of 131 OSVs.

The central problem is therefore not solely aggregate capacity. It is whether that capacity is genuinely usable and how its impacts are distributed among neighborhoods, businesses, OSV residents, and the transportation network.

The City should:

Establish maximum block-level concentration and occupied-curb-foot thresholds; Prefer multiple appropriately designed locations over a few concentrated locations; Evaluate cumulative traffic, bike-lane, parking-removal, development, BMR-housing, construction, and emergency-access burdens;
Determine whether lower-income or more housing-dense areas would bear a disproportionate share;
Prevent omitted spillover streets from becoming unregulated de facto OSV zones; and Continue pursuing regional and off-street capacity so Palo Alto’s streets are not the only management mechanism.

Requested Council direction
We respectfully ask Council to direct staff to:

1. Incorporate the complete October 2025 to present count series into the administrative record and pilot baseline.

2. Begin standardized citywide and adjacent-street measurements immediately, including all potentially impacted streets (with street subsegments clearly separated; e.g., Ash), auxiliary vehicles, and occupied curb feet.

3. Publish a prospective experimental protocol identifying hypotheses, comparison areas, intervention dates, outcome measures, and decision thresholds.

4. Use staged implementation and 30- to 60-day evaluation cycles, with mandatory 14-, 30-, and 60-day reviews and predefined modification and stop criteria.

5. Require written emergency-access and traffic-operability findings before activating each location, including assessing and remediating the connected Ash/Olive/Pepper/Page Mill network, as well as similarly-impacted areas.

6. Complete a cumulative-impact and distributional-equity analysis before finalizing the street list.

7. Make the underlying non-personal data and interim and final evaluations publicly available.

The City has already accumulated ~8.6 months of evidence showing both an initial reduction and substantial redistribution. It should not spend the proposed funds merely to confirm that displacement occurs.

A properly designed pilot can answer the questions that remain unresolved: whether permits and services improve outcomes, whether alternating-side restrictions produce operational benefits, how displacement can be controlled, and how safety and neighborhood impacts can be distributed fairly.

We urge Council to make these safeguards part of the authorization now, before outreach, relocation, and implementation begin.

Warm regards,
Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA
Jieming Robinson, MA, Economics
From: Chris Schremp
To: Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Lythcott-Haims, Julie Cc: Loren Brown; Dmitri Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Chris Schremp; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin Swindells; Christine Schremp; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bryna Chang; [email protected]; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen
Subject: Procedural Breakdown on Staff Report #2606-6479: Taxpayer Accountability Matters Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 4:02:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Mayor Veenker, City Manager Shikada, and Members of the City Council, Ahead of Monday’s meeting, I am writing to address a severe procedural breakdown and a concerning lack of administrative accountability regarding Staff Report #2606-6479.

As residents and taxpayers who fund municipal operations and pay city salaries, we expect professional, transparent, and responsive governance from City Management and staff.

Their primary responsibility is to protect the public right-of-way, enforce local laws, and serve the tax-paying citizens and businesses of Palo Alto.

Instead, we learned through multiple conversations this weekend, that the process leading to this $823,800 staff proposal reflects a complete disregard for community input and elected oversight:

Bypassing the Council’s Own Ad Hoc Committee: City staff authored this pilot proposal in an administrative silo, completely bypassing direct collaboration with the Council’s appointed OSV Ad Hoc Committee.

Premature Public Release Without Committee Vetting: Staff shared this proposal broadly before giving the Ad Hoc Council members a chance to review, influence, or shape it.

Ignoring Taxpayer Input & Viable Alternatives: For months, neighborhood coalitions and local business stakeholders have submitted detailed, legally sound, and cost-effective proposals. Staff completely ignored this input, choosing instead to propose an expensive $823,800 "street shuffle" experiment that explicitly predicts spillover onto surrounding residential blocks.

Through our conversations with civic leaders, we also learned that the Mayor and City Staff remain hesitant to act due to a fear of potential lawsuits. This fear is completely unfounded.

The legal authority to prohibit overnight OSV parking is already on the books (PAMC §

10.44.020) and has already been successfully enforced in other Palo Alto neighborhoods.

Furthermore, many of these OSVs are operating in active violation of public safety laws— failing to move within required timeframes, running unshielded gas generators directly in the public street, and using our residential blocks as mid-week commuter pads. As neighboring municipalities have demonstrated, there is no valid legal ground for a lawsuit as long as the City provides fair advance notice before enforcing a citywide ban. Citing fear of litigation to avoid enforcing municipal code is an administrative excuse, not a legal reality.

Because of this fundamentally flawed process, Staff Report #2606-6479 should not even be brought forward for adoption.

We should not be forced to debate or reject an administrative experiment that failed basic procedural standards, bypassed the OSV Ad Hoc Committee, and ignores the taxpayers paying for it.

ACTION REQUESTED: Instead, the Council should set aside this staff pilot entirely.

You should be voting directly on the sound, community-supported proposals submitted by your taxpayers—initiating the advance notice process for a citywide OSV restriction and allocating a significantly lower, responsible amount of funds toward border signage execution.

We urge the Council to hold City Management accountable, set aside Staff Report #2606- 6479 on August 24, and direct staff to execute the clear municipal code enforcement taxpayers deserve.

Regards,
Chris Schremp
From: Colin Swindells
To: Council, City
Subject: OSV comment - Enact citywide overnight OSV parking restriction + stop the proposed pilot program Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 4:47:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veenker, Mr. Shikada and Councilmembers:

I strongly support a citywide overnight OSV parking restriction via an amendment to PAMC §

10.44.020 and a complete rejection of the proposed pilot to be discussed at the Aug 24 meeting.

As part of a citywide overnight OSV parking restriction, I fully support the Palo Alto City Council in their efforts to compassionately interact with people currently dwelling in OSVs.

The $823,800 saved by rejecting the proposed pilot program would significantly fund such initiatives.

I also fully support the City Council's recent plans to revitalize business and residential areas in Palo Alto. A citywide overnight OSV parking restriction would significantly help this revitalization.

Specifically, I request the City Council act to stop this wasteful market drag across the 13 linear corridors most impacted by the current OSV situation [1]. Using a midpoint estimated commercial, industrial and residential value of $8.5 B, a 1.1% overall drag due to this OSV situation amounts to about $92.5 M (or, about $740,000 per OSV based on the 125 vehicles targeted by the currently proposed pilot program). Such economic waste is an insult to everyone involved.

I would also like to highlight the disproportionate burden on residential areas directly fronting these streets (e.g., Echelon, Park Blvd townhomes). The $92.5 M estimate above is based on:
- Directly Fronting Residential (e.g., Echelon, Park Blvd townhomes): ~$400 M total market value x 15% drag = -$60 Million
- Adjacent Commercial & R&D Parks: ~$6.5 B total market value x 0.5% drag = -$32.5 Million
In addition to these base market drags, I urge City Council to consider the full yearly business drags to commercial and R&D park activities across these 13 linear corridors due to direct impacts of this ongoing OSV situation. Specifically, I estimate annual additional business costs of $5.5 M - $13.0 M annually:
- Security & Site Fortification costs of $1.8 M - $3.5 M / yr This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
- Sanitation & Site Maintenance costs of $800 k - $1.8 M / yr - Logistics & Supply Chain Friction costs of $1.5 M - $3.2 M / yr - Leasing Friction & Soft Rent Discounts costs of $1.4 M - $4.5 M / yr Over a 10 year period, these additional annual business costs directly resulting from the unaddressed OSV situation along these 13 linear corridors effectively double the market drag of $92.5 M.

Please fix this situation as soon as possible with a combination of citywide overnight OSV parking restrictions and a compassionate transition program for those currently residing in the OSVs.

Sincerely,
Colin (Swindells) Heschel
Echelon community, Palo Alto
[1] 13 linear corridors most impacted by the OSV situation:
- 4000 Block of Transport Street
- 900 Block of Commercial Street
- 900 Block of Industrial Avenue
- 100 Block of Page Mill Road
- 2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard
- 200-400 Block of Olive Avenue
- 2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street
- 200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue
- 1000 Block of Elwell Court
- 1000 Block of Corporation Way
- 1000 Block of East Meadow Circle
- 2400 Block of Embarcadero Way
- 2400 block of Faber Place
From: Michelle Rosengaus
To: Council, City
Subject: OSVs
Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 6:24:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The City of Palo Alto should ban parking of oversized motor homes and vehicles serving as residences from all Palo Alto streets.

Families living in these vehicles for lack of housing, should apply to the city for help.

Michelle Rosengaus
3704 Ortega CT
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: [email protected]
To: Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Lythcott-Haims, Julie Cc: "Dmitri Samsonov"; "Robert Marinaro"; "stephanie wansek"; "Chris Schremp"; "Christine Schremp"; "Roger Smith"; [email protected]; [email protected]; "Bryna Chang"; "Peter Xu"; "Barry Katz"; "Ceci Kettendorf"; "Dana Dahlstrom"; "Lydia Kou"; "Bill McLane"; "Dave Stellman"; "Charlie Weidanz"; "Jeanette Baldwin"; "Titan (Zhengtian) Gu"; "Becky Sanders"; "John Schafer"; "Scott Petersen"; "Martin Cuyegkeng"; "Loren Brown"; "Colin Swindells"; [email protected]; [email protected]; "John Seltzer"; vic52@victor- aviation.com
Subject: Response to the OSV Pilot Parking Program
Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 8:06:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Staff,

We are writing to express our strong opposition to City Staff’s proposed pilot program addressing Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking. As presented, this program will not alleviate the ongoing issues in Palo Alto’s residential and business corridors. Instead, it will deepen an already untenable situation and place an even greater burden on the neighborhoods and commercial businesses that have been forced to manage the consequences after years of inaction by the City.

Our property is located on Embarcadero Way, an approximately 850‑foot‑long, 40‑foot‑wide cul‑de‑sac. For the past 8-10 years, it has effectively been the Wild West. Although recent months have brought sporadic enforcement of City ordinances, the reality is that our street has long been overwhelmed by 14–16 OSVs parked end‑to‑end on both sides. In fact, one OSV resident has remained on our street for more than two years—note that other business owners report that it’s been closer to five years.

During this time, we have dealt with vicious dogs, accumulated trash, personal belongings obstructing both the street and sidewalks, human feces on the sidewalks and lawn, theft, hijacked water and electricity, and even approximately 25 gallons of human waste poured directly into storm drains that flow to the nearby Baylands (video available). We have witnessed assaults. We have seen our street become unsafe, unsanitary, and unrecognizable. And despite clear ordinances, overnight parking rules are not consistently enforced.

The consequences for businesses have been severe. Customers are afraid to exit their vehicles to pay their bills. Prospective tenants decline to rent after seeing the conditions. Delivery trucks cannot safely access our street. Driveway and road sightlines are obstructed, making it dangerous to exit many of the driveways / parking lots on our street. This is not a manageable situation. It is a crisis.

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

This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast

The pilot program submitted by Staff does not solve these problems. It legitimizes them. Allowing OSVs to continue parking on one side of the street for six months—and then the other—does not address the root issues. It formalizes and expands them. It asks residents and business owners to continue bearing the burden of a crisis the City created, tolerated, and allowed to grow. We urge you to consider how you would feel if these conditions existed in front of your own business or home.

We ask Council and Staff to return to the drawing board and develop a plan that:

Prevents long‑term OSV parking in all business, commercial, and residential districts in Palo Alto.

Strengthens and enforces existing ordinances consistently and transparently.

Ensures that solutions do not move, shift, or expand the problem elsewhere in the City.

Palo Alto deserves a plan that addresses the OSV crisis responsibly and effectively—not a pilot program that entrenches the very conditions that have harmed our community for nearly a decade.

We urge you to immediately—not in six months, not in a year or more—ban OSV overnight parking in commercial, business, and residential areas of the City.

Sincerely,

Nancy Ellickson & Scott Hayes
Owners, 2425 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto
From: Thomas Nguyen
To: Council, City
Subject: RV parking on East Meadow Circle
Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 9:19:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposal to allow oversized recreational vehicles to remain permanently on East Meadow Circle.

This proposal should not be viewed simply as a change to parking policy. Permanently permitting RVs to remain on a residential street effectively creates a location for long-term vehicle habitation in a neighborhood where people have purchased homes with the reasonable expectation that their residential streets will remain safe, accessible, sanitary, and consistent with residential use.

Palo Alto already has a law addressing this very issue. Municipal Code §10.44.020 prohibits oversized vehicles from parking on streets in residential zones between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., subject to limited exceptions. The City’s own definition of an oversized vehicle includes vehicles exceeding 20 feet in length, 7 feet in height, or 7 feet in width. (City of Palo Alto ⁠)
The City therefore should be asking why it is considering creating an exception that would effectively authorize what the existing ordinance was designed to prevent.

The impact on surrounding homeowners is not theoretical. Permanently stationed RVs can create:
obstruction of sight lines and reduced pedestrian and bicycle visibility; increased traffic and parking conflicts;
noise and activity immediately adjacent to homes;
sanitation and waste-disposal concerns;
increased demands on public services;
diminished privacy for homeowners whose properties directly face the vehicles; difficulty accessing curb space and maintaining streets; and the gradual conversion of a residential street into a de facto vehicle-dwelling area.

The City’s own materials acknowledge that the growing number of people living in vehicles creates additional health and safety concerns and neighborhood challenges. (City of Palo Alto⁠) There is also a fundamental policy issue here. A public street is public infrastructure—not private residential land that can simply be converted into permanent housing sites without considering the effect on the homeowners who live there. If the City wants to establish designated safe-parking or vehicle-dwelling locations, it should do so through a comprehensive, transparent process with appropriate sanitation, safety, service, and management provisions—not by effectively turning a residential street into a permanent RV site.

Most importantly, please do not confuse compassion for people living in vehicles with an obligation to permanently authorize vehicle habitation on a particular residential street. Those are separate policy questions. The City can provide appropriate alternatives and services without imposing the consequences of permanent RV habitation on a small group of neighboring homeowners.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
I respectfully urge the Council not to authorize permanent RV parking on East Meadow Circle and instead to enforce the City’s existing parking regulations and pursue appropriately designated alternatives that do not shift the burden disproportionately onto residential neighborhoods.

The residents who live around these vehicles should not have to sacrifice the safety, privacy, accessibility, and residential character of their neighborhood because the City has not yet developed a comprehensive solution to vehicle habitation.

Please enforce the laws already on the books rather than creating an exception that effectively nullifies them.

Sincerely,
Tom
From: Melinda McGee
To: Council, City
Subject: OSV Pilot Programs Please Vote Against.

Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 10:14:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Palo Alto City Council,

Addressing RV habitation is a regional challenge that requires coordinated efforts with neighboring cities including Mountain View, Redwood City, San Mateo, San Jose and San Francisco. Accurate, current data—and thoughtful boundaries on how local funds are used—will be essential to crafting an effective and fair regional policy.

Clearly a lot of thought and effort has been put into developing these “pilot" programs. Why would Palo Alto be the only city to run this kind of permit and parking program?

I am adamantly opposed to the pilot programs recommended by the ad hoc committee to the City Council for a vote on the Monday, August 24, 2026 meeting for the following reasons:

· What are the short and long-term costs of such a “pilot” program? One year cost? Cost over 2, 5, 10-year use of taxpayer dollars?

· What is the cost of moving 37 OSVs to two different locations?

Initially, per the ad hoc committee document:
- “The work to prepare the areas for OSVs parking includes: What is the cost of each of these preparation steps?
·
Landscaping to reduce fire risks along Coyote Hill Road · Temporary restriping of Embarcadero Road to allow for OSVs to park without blocking the bike lane
· Signage installation that clearly states ’parking by permit‘ only · Outreach to current OSV dwellers to gain participants for the permit program
Staff also need to execute service contracts for: What is the ongoing cost of these services? Cost per vehicle? Cost of contractors?
·
Case management and program support through a formal solicitation process
· Onsite port-a-potties and hand-washing stations · Waste management bins (via Greenwaste of Palo Alto) · Signage installation · Road restriping design and labor

· Who are the 37 vehicle dwellers and why is it the City of Palo Alto’s responsibility to provide virtually free parking for them with a goal of providing permanent housing?
The proposed cost of a permit not to exceed $15 is laughable. It will probably cost way more than $15 to create such a permit. Let’s do the math $15 x 37 =$555.00. How much is the cost of staffing the permitting process?

WHAT IS THE REAL COST OF PREPARING FOR AND IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAM? Let’s say the real cost of one year of the designated parking pilot program is $1M/37 vehicles = ~$27k per vehicle.

Why would Palo Alto give its valuable real estate and land to set up an expensive and virtually free campground to 37 oversized vehicles at a significant cost to the taxpayers?

This is a regional problem. If the people living in vehicles are low-income workers, then their employers need to take responsibility for providing better pay and parking for them, not Palo Alto taxpayers.

What is Stanford’s responsibility for the contract workers, employees, and students living in OSVs? Stanford has land and can provide space for their related worker vehicles.

What is the responsibility of other area employers? If employers paid a livable wage, then people would be able to afford housing and commute to work. Most people cannot afford to live in Palo Alto. We cannot fix that.

People have always commuted to work from housing in less expensive areas.

How do you define “resident?” Is a “resident “anyone who parks their vehicle on one of our streets?”

Again, why would Palo Alto be the only city to run this kind of permit and parking program?

Please City Council – JUST SAY NO TO THIS PROGRAM – and work with other Bay Area communities to deal with this ongoing problem. The pilot programs outlined are not a solution – it will add huge costs in staff, management and contractor time and money for a small benefit and will have unintended consequences – the spaces 37 vehicles moved to new parking will free up space for 37 more vehicles to relocate here as other nearby communities push out OSVs from their neighborhoods.

Please this is not a common sense practical and cost-effective solution. If you build it, they will come, and come, and come. Work with the neighboring communities; it is a regional problem. Not Palo Alto’s to solve alone. Please vote against it.

Thank you.

Melinda McGee
Palo Alto Resident
From: John Melnychuk
To: Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith Cc: Shikada, Ed
Subject: Vote NO on proposed RV Permit Pilot.

Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 12:15:11 AM
Attachments: Palo_Alto_RV_Flyer_Email_Page_1.png
Palo_Alto_RV_Flyer_Email_Page_2.png
Microsoft Word - Palo_Alto_RV_V27_LOCKED_EDIT_TRULY_FINAL.docx.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Veenker, Vicemayor Stone and City Councillors, With respect, please:

John Melnychuk,
Fairmeadow, Palo Alto,
(650) 9i06-5656
CITY COUNCIL: VOTE NO ON THE PROPOSED RV PARKING PLAN. COMPASSION HAS NO LIMITS, BUT BUDGETS DO. Help people in need. But do not make RV living on Palo Alto streets the new normal. Palo Alto is already addressing a $17.1 MILLION General Fund deficit. WHY ARE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES DEMANDING ACTION? STREETS Large RVs crowd streets built for ordinary cars and SUVs.

BUSINESSES Parking, customer access and commercial appearance are harmed.

SAFETY Large vehicles reduce sightlines and complicate traffic movement. SANITATION Complaints include debris and improper human-waste disposal.

NEIGHBORHOODS Concentrated RV living changes daily use and appearance of streets.

CITY SERVICES Cleaning, enforcement, Police, Public Works and staff time add cost. RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES ASKED FOR RELIEF. THIS PERMIT PROGRAM INSTEAD FACILITATES THE EXACT CONDITION THEY ASKED CITY HALL TO REDUCE.

ABOUT 4× MORE ≈ $27,000 a year for one added Geng Road RV space — about four times the $6,743 General Fund revenue benchmark per resident household. $823,800 / YEAR → $8.2 MILLION / 10 YEARS Before inflation. Before costs not fully allocated to the RV program. DON’T ASSUME “PILOT” MEANS TEMPORARY. ONCE A BENEFIT CREATES RELIANCE, IT BECOMES HARD TO END. Permits, services and designated places create expectations and reliance. The City should decide what is fair for everyone before creating a benefit that may become permanent. HELP PEOPLE. PROTECT THE CITY. DO NOT EXPAND RV LIVING AS AN ACCEPTED CITY PROGRAM. PALO ALTO RV POLICY • PUBLIC ADVOCACY BRIEF

Compassion matters. Council’s first responsibility is to decide what is best for Palo Alto as a whole. County benchmark: about $41,639 per person counted as unhoused in the 2025 Point-in-Time census. Geng Road: ≈ $27,000+ per added RV space. Council must distribute scarce benefits and burdens fairly across the whole community. BEFORE CREATING THIS BENEFIT, THE CITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER: 1 WHO QUALIFIES? Need deserves compassion. But presence alone should not create a special claim to scarce City money or public streets. 2 WHY THESE STREETS? Why should selected neighborhoods and businesses carry impacts that other Palo Alto neighborhoods largely avoid? 3 WHAT IS SUCCESS? Success means fewer RVs on City streets and more people in stable housing - the result the community is asking for. 4 HOW DOES IT END? What happens after people rely on the benefit? If Council cannot realistically end it, do not call it temporary.

ONE CITY. ONE STANDARD. Would Council adopt the same policy if every Palo Alto neighborhood had to accept an equal share? If not, do not ask selected neighborhoods and businesses to carry a burden the rest of the City would not accept. GENG ROAD Excellent humanitarian help. Managed, off-street + services.

HOMEKEY Housing + services. A path toward stability. PROPOSED PLAN Facilitates RV street living as an accepted City program. THE BETTER DIRECTION: HELP PEOPLE HUMANELY - AND REDUCE RVs ON OUR STREETS. VOTE NO ON THIS “PILOT.” KEEP GENG ROAD AND HOMEKEY. SEEK CREATIVE, COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS WITH REGIONAL PARTNERS. HELP PEOPLE MOVE TOWARD STABLE HOUSING. DO NOT MAKE RV LIVING PALO ALTO’S NEW NORMAL. COMPASSION REQUIRES HELP. GOOD GOVERNMENT REQUIRES FAIRNESS TO THE WHOLE CITY. City sources: FY2026-27 budget update; Oversized Vehicles staff materials. Geng Road expansion: ≈$270,000 annually for 10 added RV spaces. $6,743 is a General Fund revenue-per-resident-household benchmark, not a household tax bill or benefit. PALO ALTO RV POLICY • PUBLIC ADVOCACY BRIEF From: Anupa Bajwa
To: Council, City
Subject: PETITION TO EXCLUDE OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS FROM PALO ALTO’S PILOT OSV PARKING

PROGRAM
Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 7:43:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Respected Members of the City Council,
This is regarding item #10, "Recommendation from the Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Ad Hoc Committee to Launch Two Pilot OSV Parking Programs", on the agenda for the City Council meeting of Monday, August 24, 2026.

As stated in our petition text below, we request that the Olive Avenue blocks be excluded from the list of allowed parking areas for OSVs in your pilot program. We detail the safety and operational impacts if OSVs were allowed to park on our residential street.

Residents of 17 of the 22 currently-occupied homes on Olive Avenue have signed this petition. The signed copy will be delivered to the City Clerk.

Please contact me at this email address if you require further clarification.

Regards,
Anupa Bajwa
Olive Avenue (El Camino Real to Park Blvd)
PETITION TO EXCLUDE OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS FROM PALO ALTO’S PILOT OSV

PARKING PROGRAM
TO: The City Council of Palo Alto and the Department of Transportation DATE: August 23, 2026
LEAD BLOCK ORGANIZER: Dr. Anupa Bajwa
ADDRESS: 450 Olive Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94306 EMAIL: [email protected] STATEMENT OF INTENT:

We, the undersigned residents and property owners of Olive Avenue (bounded by El Camino Real to the west and Park Boulevard to the east), hereby petition the City of Palo Alto to exclude Olive Ave blocks from the Pilot OSV Parking Program.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Our request is based on the following specific municipal safety and operational impacts:

1. Sightline Obstructions: The prolonged parking of oversized vehicles along this corridor severely impairs visibility for residents exiting standard residential driveways, creating an immediate traffic hazard for oncoming motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Olive Avenue experiences heavy cut-through traffic so clear visibility is crucial for the safety of residents exiting driveways and for kids riding their bikes to and from school.

2. Emergency Vehicle & Utility Access: The narrow (35-foot) width of this residential street, combined with large vehicles parked, creates logistical challenges for municipal waste management, street sweeping machinery, and emergency vehicles.

3. Preservation of Residential Access: To ensure that street access conforms with the local character and safety of this residential neighborhood, we must protect street access for current residents and new residents in apartments, condominiums, townhomes within a block of this neighborhood.

From: Sanne Smith
To: Council, City
Subject: Written comment for agenda item #10 for City Council Meeting 08/24 Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 7:45:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing as a parent and as a Traffic Safety Representative for Escondido Elementary in Palo Alto regarding the proposed oversized vehicle parking restrictions (agenda item #10).

First, I want to express my appreciation for the City's efforts to find a workable solution to the challenges created by oversized vehicle parking. I particularly appreciate that maintaining access to bike lanes is part of the motivation behind the proposal. Keeping bike infrastructure clear and usable is an important part of making Palo Alto safer and more accessible for people who bike.

I would, however, encourage the City to give particular consideration to the safety of young bicyclists when determining where designated oversized-vehicle parking should be located.

This is especially important along Park Boulevard between approximately the 2800 and 3200 blocks. Although this area may appear relatively low-traffic on a map, Park Boulevard is an important bicycle route for Palo Alto students. Children use this corridor to travel between neighborhoods and schools, including Escondido Elementary, Palo Alto High School, and JLS Middle School, as well as destinations such as Mitchell Park Library and JLS Pool.

For young cyclists, the issue is not simply whether a bike lane technically remains open.

Visibility and adequate space are critical safety considerations. Large vehicles parked near intersections and crosswalks can create significant sight-line obstructions, making it harder for children to see approaching vehicles and harder for drivers to see children. I encourage the City to ensure that designated parking areas leave ample clear space around intersections, crosswalks, and other conflict points so that children and drivers have sufficient visibility.

I would also encourage the City to consider the actual width and usability of the bicycle space alongside designated parking areas. Young children do not always ride in a perfectly predictable line. A younger cyclist may need to ride alongside a parent or another adult, and children may need additional lateral space to navigate safely. A bike lane that remains technically unobstructed but becomes narrow or uncomfortable because of adjacent oversized vehicles may not function well as a Safe Routes to School facility.

I support the City's effort to develop a reasonable solution to oversized vehicle parking, and I This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
appreciate the recognition that bike-lane accessibility matters. My request is simply that, as specific street segments are considered, the City evaluates them through the lens of the youngest and least confident cyclists who use them every day.

In particular, I hope the City will consider sight lines at intersections and crosswalks, adequate separation from conflict points, and sufficient usable width for children biking alongside an adult when determining where oversized vehicles can safely be accommodated.

Thank you for considering the safety of Palo Alto's young cyclists as part of this proposal.

Sincerely,
Sanne Smith
Traffic Safety Representative
From: Elena Kadyrova
To: Council, City
Subject: Oversized Vehicle Parking Plan and Student Bike Commute Safety Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 8:51:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and members of the Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Elena Kadyrova. I live directly on Park Boulevard and I am a mother of three kids.

Every day I watch my children and many other neighborhood kids bike down Park Boulevard to get to Escondido Elementary and JLS Middle School, Gunn and Paly. It is a designated bike boulevard and it is the main safe street on this side of El Camino. It connects Ventura to Escondido and Paly and it links Mayfield Stanford College Terrace Southgate and Evergreen Park to JLS and Gunn (see the pictures from the offical Palo Alto bike roads maps in the attachments ).

Just this year city cleaned Park Blvd and the RVs stopped parking here. Our kids were so glad they did not have to pass big RVs on their way to school anymore. It felt safe again.

I understand the city needs rules for RV parking. But putting RVs on Park Blvd is very dangerous for our children.

Large RVs block the view so drivers cannot see small kids on bikes at crosswalks and intersections. RVs are wide so they make the bike street narrow and force kids closer to moving cars. Some RVs also have loud dogs that bark and jump suddenly which scares the kids on their bikes.

Also RVs obstruct the street to John Boulware Park. This is the new park that our city and neighborhood is so proud of. With oversized vehicles our young kids feel afraid on the way to go and enjoy the new park.

Please protect our kids on their daily bike ride to school. Please keep Park Boulevard off the oversized vehicle parking list.

Thank you for listening and keeping our children safe.
-
Elena Kadyrova,
parent and Park Boulevard resident
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast

From: Barry Hart
To: Council, City
Subject: Do homework before starting a pilot RV program Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 9:13:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council -
Please do your homework before deciding on a pilot program.

Ask nearby cities why they completely banned RVs and not attempted to regulate and limit numbers?
Determine the increase in arson and fires caused by transient population vs non-transient population in Santa Clara County and on the peninsula.

Have other cities attempted to deter illegal activities of RV residents? Did they have success?
Review the documented issues that homeowners and businesses have filed about RV residents and determine if a plan can be reasonably created to make sure these issue do not continue
There is much information from other cities experiences with RV residents - and Palo Alto is not really any different. Let's not make a pilot program that ignores these lessons
Barry Hart
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Aram James
To: Vicki Veenker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Council, City; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke; [email protected]; [email protected]; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; EPA Today; Diana Diamond
Subject: Re: Just Say No To Banning RVs on The streets of Palo Alto without a well-thought-out back up Plan - Email Details
Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 9:40:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Re: Just Say No To Banning RVs on The streets of Palo Alto without a well-thought-out back up Plan - Email Details https://share.google/JSjZlSFEXg6d6RB6v From: Carly Lake
To: Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; City Mgr
Cc: Steve Bollert; David Waller
Subject: OPPOSE OSV PARKING PILOT - Embarcadero Way
Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 10:10:20 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council,

Bioscience Property Investments writes on behalf of ownership, as the operator and developer of the commercial building on the 2400 block of Embarcadero Way, to request that this block be removed from the proposed OSV parking pilot and that the City prohibit long-term RV and OSV parking in this commercial area.

We have invested heavily in conversion of these buildings to Class A Life Science laboratories and offices. The block houses employers (including City of PA offices), generates lease revenue, and contributes directly to the City's tax base. Long-term RV conditions here are actively crushing that economic driver — not in the abstract, but in dollars: added operating costs, damaged curb appeal, and leasing activity that stalls every time a prospective tenant tours the block. Every month these conditions continue, they push tenants and future employers toward more presentable properties elsewhere, and this corridor loses ground.

As ownership, we already absorb what long-term RV parking does to a block:

We pay for added cleaning just to handle the public space cleanup and monitoring.

Our team has hauled away dumped furniture, bulky items, and garbage, repeatedly.

Campfire ash near our landscaping has killed plants and created a fire hazard.

Persistent odors and waste affect how the property presents to tenants, employees, and visitors.

Unsafe conditions create an environment of hostility and fear for tenants.

We've reported these conditions through the City's channels repeatedly. Nothing has changed.

Leasing is where this economic damage shows up clearest. Before one high-priority tour, we had to escalate the RV conditions to the City's economic advisor and coordinate a temporary RV relocation just to present the property safely. Once we did, we leased roughly 8,000 square feet — nearly half the building. That's a direct, demonstrated link between RV conditions on this block and ownership's This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
ability to lease space, retain tenants, and keep this corridor economically viable.

The alternating-side pilot doesn't fix this — it just moves the same RVs from one side of the street to the other every six months, so the impacts, and the economic damage, continue year-round.

Signage, red curbs, sweeping, and towing don't cover the porter costs, cleanup, landscaping damage, or lost leasing revenue ownership has already absorbed. They manage where the RVs sit, not whether they're here.

We're not asking the City to manage or rotate RVs on this block. Remove it from the pilot and make this commercial area a no-OSV-parking zone.

Ownership and the businesses we house are core economic drivers for Palo Alto — the jobs, lease revenue, and tax base the City depends on. Formalizing long-term RV parking on this block doesn't just cost us; it erodes the commercial vitality of this entire corridor and the tax revenue the City relies on. Protect the safety, cleanliness, and economic viability of the Embarcadero Way commercial area by rejecting this pilot and rezoning the 2400 block.

Sincerely,
Carly Lake

Carly Lake
Principal | BioScience Property Investments
M: 858.692.6952
E: [email protected]
bioscienceprop.com

From: Carly Lake
To: Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; City Mgr
Cc: Steve Bollert; David Waller
Subject: OPPOSE OSV PARKING PILOT - Coyote Hill
Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 10:15:46 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council,

Bioscience Property Investments writes on behalf of ownership for 3380 Coyote Hill Road, to oppose the proposed OSV Parking Permit District.

Coyote Hill Road sits within one of Palo Alto's key commercial and research employment corridors.

The businesses here anchor jobs and generate meaningful tax revenue for the City — revenue that funds the very services this pilot is meant to provide. Concentrating up to 40 vehicles directly against these properties threatens that economic base directly: it puts tenant safety, curb appeal, and marketability at risk, and that risk converts immediately into lost leasing activity, lost jobs, and lost tax revenue. This isn't a marginal cost to ownership — it risks crushing one of the City's own economic engines.

We support real solutions for people living in vehicles. We do not support parking dozens of RVs next to an established commercial area that has no RV activity today. This proposal doesn't manage an existing problem — it creates one, and ownership bears the cost. The scale alone is disqualifying. The district would run 1,105 feet and could hold up to 20 OSVs plus a personal vehicle per OSV — as many as 40 vehicles on this stretch of road. That changes roadway visibility, traffic circulation, emergency access, and pedestrian and cyclist safety. If demand exceeds capacity, it spills onto adjacent streets.

The location also adds a fire risk the City cannot ignore. This site sits in the Wildland Urban Interface next to dry, unmonitored open grassland, with round-the-clock human activity, propane tanks, generators, and open flame. This isn't hypothetical: two fires broke out near this exact location in the past year — one near Deer Creek Road in 2025 that burned several acres before Palo Alto firefighters got it under control, and one near Coyote Hill Road this past July, caused by human activity.

Concentrating OSVs here puts new ignition sources on the driest, least-monitored land around, right next to sensitive open space and watershed habitat — and next to the businesses that keep this corridor economically viable.

Ownership is asking the City Council to reject Coyote Hill Road as an OSV Parking Permit District.

If the Council proceeds anyway, we ask, at minimum, that the City:

Take responsibility for cleanup, property damage, and impacts beyond the designated parking area.

Set measurable standards for tenant safety, sanitation, fire prevention, environmental conditions, and property access.

Suspend or relocate the program immediately if those standards aren't met.

Sunset the pilot automatically unless the Council affirmatively re-approves it after evaluating outcomes and consulting affected property owners.

These conditions are not our endorsement. They are the floor of accountability ownership needs if you proceed over our objection. Spend the City's resources on long-term housing, case management, and properly managed off-street facilities — not on new fire and safety risks next to one of Palo Alto's own economic engines. Ownership is not asking the City to choose between compassion and commerce — we're asking you to stop funding one by crushing the other.

Reject this permit district.

Sincerely,
Carly Lake

Carly Lake
Principal | BioScience Property Investments
M: 858.692.6952
E: [email protected]
bioscienceprop.com

Palo Alto City CouncilAugust 24, 2026

Palo Alto City Council
August 24, 2026