|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A row of RVs parked along Bohannon Drive in Menlo Park on February 24, 2025. Photo by Anna Hoch-Kenney. 
A surveliance tower is seen in the parking space of an office park, near an RV parked on the side of Scott Drive in Menlo Park on Feb. 24, 2025. Photo by Anna Hoch-Kenney. 
A row of RVs parked along Bohannon Drive in Menlo Park on February 24, 2025. Photo by Anna Hoch-Kenney.
The Menlo Park city council voted at its Feb. 25 meeting to pass an ordinance restricting oversized vehicles and RVs from parking overnight on all public streets in the city. The vote was 4-1, with Council member Jeff Schmidt dissenting.
The council was originally supposed to vote on this ordinance in November, but opted to hold off until after the newly elected council members Schmidt and Jennifer Wise were seated, and city staff provided more information on possible support that could be provided to the people living in RVs.
Currently, RV parking in the city is concentrated in the commercial area bordered by Bohannon Drive, Scott Drive and Campbell Avenue. For months, business owners and patrons of the businesses in this area of the city have been asking the council to address the influx of RVs and what they say are “unsanitary” and “unsafe” conditions created by their presence and the people living in them. People who own buildings and work in the area have sent the city council numerous emails in the past year complaining of raw sewage and trash in the street, difficulty driving on streets due to impeded views and aggressive off-leash dogs.
Property owners say that the commercial area is the only one in the city that lacks these regulations preventing oversized vehicles from parking, and that conditions in the area are making it difficult to rent empty office space to new tenants.
“Campbell Avenue is clearly currently a hazard,” Tito Bianchi, who owns commercial property in the area, told the council at the meeting. “My tenants in the building have complained about the sidewalks being essentially unusable due to barbecues, heavy amounts of trash and intimidating dogs. … I do understand that the RVs and their occupants need a place to park, and the city needs to find suitable locations for this, but in the meantime, this Wild West scenario is making Menlo Park workers feel unsafe in their own buildings.”
Menlo Park Police Cmdr. William Dixon, who presented the ordinance to the council, told council members that, by the department’s most recent count, there are approximately 53 inhabited RVs in the area. Approximately 20% of those RVs are inhabited by families. He also mentioned that some of the people living in the area were given RVs by charitable organizations and specifically told to park in the area.
The ordinance, he said, would be another tool in the police department’s tool belt that would help officers conduct enforcement in the area, because none of the laws that are currently in place keep RVs out of the area longterm. Officials say that citations are often ignored, or do not apply to all of the vehicles.
“There is a state law that says you have to move your car every 72 hours. … We can go through and mark all 53 today and tomorrow, and 52 of them will move, and then we have to start from scratch on all those cars again.” he said. “It’s just a cat and mouse game.”
Critics of the ordinance, such as community nonprofit Menlo Together, say that banning RVs throughout the city is inhumane, and asked that the city instead talk to nonprofits that work to aid homeless individuals, such as WeHope and LifeMoves. Advocates suggest the city explore alternatives to an RV ban that have been implemented in other nearby cities, such as safe parking programs, relocation assistance and other anti-displacement measures.
Several commenters, including former Menlo Park city council member Maria Doerr who vehemently opposed the ordinance when it originally came before the council, said that it may face legal challenges as several other cities in California have been sued for similar ordinances. In an email to the council, Doerr instead advocated for using existing laws, such as rules that prohibit littering, that ban vehicles from standing for over 72 hours, sound ordinances and animal control laws to “address the worst actors.”
Five people who live in RVs along Bohannan and Campbell stood up and spoke at the meeting. Nearly all of them said that they were not living in RVs by choice, but by necessity, and asked the council to reconsider or at least delay implementation of the ordinance — giving them more time to figure out where to go.
“If you pass the ordinance and we don’t have anywhere to go, what happens to us?” asked Karine Murray, a resident of one of the RVs on Campbell Street. Murray, who works at the Menlo Park Post Office, said she has been working with LifeMoves and WeHope, and has applied for affordable housing, but that the options she has been presented with are either too expensive or would not be able to accommodate her two dogs. “I’m working, I’m paying my taxes, but I have circumstances that pushed me in the street,” she told the council. “I am lucky to be able to be the owner of my RV, but I need a solution before I get pushed out of where I am.”
Dixon assured the council that the MPPD would take an education-first approach to enforcement of the ordinance, and would not tow anyone’s RV without first conducting extensive outreach and attempting to find solutions for those living in the vehicles. He told the council that the police department already partners with WeHope and LifeMoves, as well as other homeless service providers, and has helped several people living in encampments and RVs throughout the city to find housing placements.
“Every single contact that we have made there, every person is offered some sort of assistance,” said Dixon.
The ordinance would go into effect 30 days after the council does a second reading and votes again to adopt the ordinance. The police department would also install signage in the area to inform RV residents of the new ordinance, and conduct a 30-day educational campaign before carrying out any enforcement. Dixon estimated that enforcement, meaning courtesy notices and citations, would begin 45 days after the ordinance is in place. City Manager Justin Murphy also assured the council that there would be no impact to the school year for any children living in the RVs.
Schmidt, who ultimately voted against the ordinance, said that he would be in favor of approving restrictions on oversized vehicles as long as enforcement was deferred for at least six months to give residents of the RVs enough time to find alternative housing, and so that any children who live in the RVs to be able to finish out the school year with minimal disruptions.
Mayor Drew Combs said that the business owners and workers in this part of the city have already endured the conditions caused by the RVs for too long, and that a six-month delay would only exacerbate the issue. He asked Schmidt if he and his constituents would welcome the RVs into their neighborhoods for six months. Combs represents District 2, which includes the area where the RVs are concentrated.
“I am empathetic about the situation, but I think to let the situation continue as it has, does no one any good,” said Combs. “I do think that engagement from city staff and the police department has been one of great empathy and concern, but I think the scenario has reached a certain degree of criticality.”
Council members Betsy Nash and Cecilia Taylor were not enthused about the prospect of the ordinance potentially negatively impacting RV residents, but said that the city has not been able to offer any solutions for either the residents of the RVs or the business park patrons who feel unsafe in the many months since this was brought to the council’s attention.
“Like everybody else, I’m having a lot of trouble with this, but I also believe that it has been going on for a long time, and that things are not going to change until we do something different,” said Nash. “I’m reluctantly supportive of the ordinance.”
Taylor said that the ordinance may actually empower the police department to further help the individuals living in vehicles.
“It’s already been a year of increased activity from the PD, and maybe three people were housed,” said Taylor. “If we delay this another 12 months … then maybe six people would have been housed, as opposed to doing something fully and thoughtfully that is not going to impact someone tomorrow. … I do know that the police department, along with the service providers, are going to do exactly what they say.”
The council requested that city staff provide more information about resources available for homeless individuals at future city council meetings.
I’m in favor of allowing RVs to park on streets overnight only in the instance that there is a carve out to allow it only at city hall, in downtown, and within the 100 yards of street in front of each council member’s home.
This is ridiculous. If you have business along 101 it looks like a homeless encampment. Well, it is. We don’t need to turn Menlo Park into a shanty town. I can’t imagine the sanitary conditions along Bohannon, not to mention the fire dangers.