Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Safe Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RV residents urge San Jose to expand safe parking and pause enforcement sweeps
Summary
Multiple speakers during open forum urged the council to expand safe parking capacity, match enforcement policy to the number of people living in vehicles, provide sanitation and case management, and pause sweeps until alternatives exist; speakers said the city currently operates two safe-parking sites and that many more people live in vehicles.
Dozens of public commenters used the City Council’s open forum on Oct. 7 to press San Jose elected officials for expanded safe parking options, stronger protections for people living in vehicles and changes to enforcement practices.
Several speakers described conditions for people living in mobile homes and recreational vehicles and requested city action to expand capacity, provide sanitation and trash pickup, offer case management, lower entry barriers and pause enforcement sweeps where no safe alternatives exist. “Sweeps and bans don't end homelessness,” a speaker said during public comment. “They scatter people.”
Azazel Holmquist and Yari Castillo said the RV community needs citywide expansion of safe parking, better data sharing and inclusion of RV residents in program design. They asked the city to “match the real number of people living in vehicles,” to ensure 72-hour notice and outreach before relocations, and to form an RV resident advisory group.
Speakers gave competing tallies of available safe-parking capacity. One comment noted the city’s two safe-parking sites and said one site on Berryessa Road is open to about 20–25 vehicles and the other at the Santa Teresa light-rail station is also in operation. Another public speaker and a later commenter said the sites have 86 and 42 spaces, respectively, and called attention to estimates that more than 1,000 people live in vehicles across the city. Those figures were presented as statements from speakers and were not verified in the hearing record.
Several commenters urged an end to rotating tow-away zones under what one speaker described as the city’s “oversized and lived-in vehicle enforcement pilot,” which some speakers said clears up to 50 streets per year and can destroy resident stability and property. Commenters asked the council to ensure that enforcement does not leave people without any place to go and to coordinate with county and transit partners for longer-term parking solutions.
Speakers also recounted personal hardship tied to repeated relocations and asked for affordable, stable options for people who sleep in vehicles. Several asked councilmembers or staff to visit sites and meet directly with RV residents to co-design solutions.
Councilmembers did not take formal action on these requests during the Oct. 7 meeting; open forum comments were recorded for the public record and, in some cases, prompted staff follow-up offers from council offices.
