San Jose council adds implementation review to van‑lording, trespass ordinances after debate

San Jose City Council on June 17 approved changes tied to two related ordinances aimed at giving property owners clearer tools to remove trespassers and targeting “van‑lording” — people or companies that lease space in vehicles and RVs for others — while delaying full enforcement so the city can return with implementation details.

The council voted 9–1 to adopt a substitute motion that accepted the existing trespass ordinance language but asked staff to return with an information memo on how the city will implement trespassing enforcement and to consider alternative language on van‑lording that focuses on landlords who lease out RVs rather than criminalizing people living in vehicles. Councilmember Campos voted no.

Why this matters: Council members and advocates said existing laws leave property owners without a clear, consistent process for asking police to remove people who remain on private property. At the same time housing and homeless‑service advocates and legal groups warned that an outright ban on sleeping in vehicles could push people into more dangerous street encampments and expose the city to legal challenges.

What council discussed: Councilmember Campos said the ordinance text was “a bit ambiguous” and sought clarity about whether police would enforce private‑property trespass only after property owners provided written authorization. Police Chief Paul Joseph told the council, “for a private property trespassing, we will always need authorization from the owner of the property or their agent,” and that police would enforce in response to complaints rather than proactively.

Several council members and outside groups pushed the council to avoid criminalizing people who are unhoused. Councilmember Cohen, who helped craft the substitute motion, said the van‑lording language should focus enforcement on those who exploit tenants by renting them space in RVs rather than targeting people living in vehicles.

City attorneys also warned of legal risk if the ordinance was drafted too narrowly. Johnny Phan, chief deputy in the City Attorney’s Office, explained that the team included a prohibition on overnight sleeping in part because other cities that tried to prosecute landlords had difficulty defending cases in court when the underlying activity (sleeping in a vehicle) was not itself barred. Matthew Tolnay, from the City Attorney’s Office, confirmed the council could remove that provision but warned it could make prosecution harder.

Action and next steps: The council adopted a substitute motion that keeps the current trespass language in place, directs staff to return with an implementation plan for trespass enforcement (including how property owners can authorize police to remove trespassers), and gives staff time to propose alternative van‑lording language focused on the landlords who lease RVs. The council delayed any proactive enforcement changes until that memo is returned in August.

Community reaction and context: Legal and housing nonprofits warned the council that a blanket ban on vehicle living could be challenged in court and worsen public‑health outcomes. The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley and HomeFirst, among others, urged caution; HomeFirst told the council that people living in vehicles often have medical vulnerabilities and that loss of vehicle shelter could “increase the risk of illness, trauma, and displacement.”

Ending note: Councilmembers framed the vote as seeking a middle ground — to strengthen tools for property owners while avoiding punitive measures that could increase street homelessness or expose the city to litigation. Council direction asks city staff to return with clarified language and an implementation memo before stricter enforcement begins.