Dear City Council,

I am writing in opposition to the proposed amendments to Title 11 of the existing municipal code that would establish new parking regulations related to oversized vehicles.

This ordinance is unethical.
These amendments target members of already vulnerable communities who face barriers to long-term, permanent housing. People who live in the RVs call Menlo Park home, may work here, and may have children in Menlo Park schools. They are members of our community.

Given the current hostile atmosphere towards unhoused / housing insecure people and immigrants (as we know, some of these RV residents do not speak English as their first language) -- Menlo Park and our broader Bay Area community would be better served by programs that offer assistance and support towards transitional housing, rather than exacerbating current instability through this punitive ordinance that will cause real, material harm.

I understand that some RV residents are causing serious issues -- releasing waste and disposing of trash, loud generators, etc. Rather than create widespread harm through this ordinance, find ways to address the worst actors in a more targeted way. Not everyone should bear the cost and negative consequences of the actions of a few.

This ordinance may face legal challenges.
Not only is the proposed ban on RVs unethical, it could face legal challenges from civil rights groups. As was shared by respondents in November, bans like these can be illegal and a violation of civil rights.

Numerous cities in California have been sued over their RV bans by groups like the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Disability Rights Advocates, and Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County. These cities include:
Mountain View (https://www.aclunc.org/news/civil-rights-organizations-sue-mountain-view-over-rv-parking-ban)
Sebastopol (https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/yesue-et-al-v-city-sebastopol)
San Diego (https://www.kpbs.org/news/2024/10/15/settlement-approved-in-lawsuit-challenging-san-diegos-vehicle-habitation-laws)
Pacifica (https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/geary-et-al-v-city-pacifica-rv-parking)

In November, we heard from representatives from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Stanford Law School Community Law Clinic -- all asking Menlo Park to not move forward with this ban.

This ordinance is unlikely to be fully enforceable.
In addition to being unethical and potentially illegal, this ordinance would be exceptionally challenging to enforce if RVs do not leave, given city space and resources. Where will RVs be taken to? We do not have space for a holding lot in Menlo Park. What if RV residents cannot afford to repossess their RVs?

Other cities have had the same concerns as Menlo Park, but they have found more ethical, legal, and enforceable solutions. They have made designated areas available for RVs and are working to address the housing crisis at the root of this situation.

Rather than pursue these amendments, I implore the city to:

1) Address the worst actors (those few that are releasing waste, creating too much sound, etc.) under the existing overnight parking ordinance, sound ordinance, and rules that prohibit public trash disposal.

2) Create safe parking locations. Given the limitations of staff capacity, partner with LifeMoves or partner with whoever helped Mountain View design its safe parking program.

3) Support more transitional housing solutions. What if funds that would be needed for this ordinance instead went to assist families transitioning to stable housing?

For all these reasons, I urge the City Council to reject these harmful amendments and instead pursue solutions that uphold the dignity of all Menlo Park residents. Addressing community concerns should not come at the expense of our most vulnerable neighbors.

Thank you,
Maria Doerr

District 5 Resident