Cupertino has become the latest Bay Area city to ban RVs and oversized vehicles from parking overnight on city streets — a new ordinance that many believe will help alleviate nuisance areas while others have expressed concern about those displaced.
Despite arguments by some councilmembers that the city had not conducted enough outreach to alert those who will be displaced by the new restrictions, many thought the ban was long overdue.
“We’re having a challenge which every city is having,” said Councilmember Ray Wang in an interview, asserting that Cupertino has seen an influx in RVs as nearby cities have enacted restrictions on parking for RVs and oversized vehicles. “If you’re the last city with (a ban), you’re the one left holding the bag.”
Currently, the city has a 72-hour limit for vehicles parking on public streets, though vehicles were only required to move six inches to avoid a violation, said Cupertino Mayor Liang Chao in an email. “This is a loophole in the current law that we must fix.”
Even though municipal law already restricts sleeping in vehicles, according to Cupertino Interim City Attorney Floy Andrews, some RV residents had parked on streets permanently, clustering in two locations in the city, triggering residents to voice concerns about safety and congestion.
“The issue with the current ordinance is that it allows the vehicles to park substantially and indefinitely day and night,” said Andrews at a September 3 meeting. “This creates a nuisance. It impacts residents and businesses. It fails to prevent … individuals from living in vehicles.”
After months of deliberation, the City Council settled on prohibiting oversized vehicles – such as RVs and campers – from parking on public streets citywide from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Cupertino households are allowed 20 free permits annually, which would be obtained online and allow permit holders to park a vehicle on city streets for 72 hours.
Additionally, the policy would ban “vanlording” — renting out vehicles like RVs and vans for human habitation.
With the move, Cupertino joins several other cities throughout the Bay Area with RV parking restrictions. Late last year, Fremont passed an RV parking ban that required vehicles to move 1000 ft every 72 hours. In San Jose, the city is creating dozens of tow-away zones throughout the year focusing on areas with high complaints. Mountain View passed parking restrictions for oversized vehicles, but after a lawsuit settlement in 2022, had to designate over three miles of streets where oversize vehicle parking was allowed.
The new Cupertino ordinance bans all overnight parking for oversized vehicles without a permit, and does not designate any areas in the city that are exempt from the ban. While the city has a safe parking program for cars, there is not a similar program for RVs and oversized vehicles.
Although some residents and councilmembers who spoke at the council meetings said that RV restrictions in other cities had pushed people into Cupertino, others expressed concern that some of those living in RVs might be people working and attending schools in Cupertino. Chao noted that given the high cost of housing in Cupertino, some who work in the city might choose to live in RVs.
Councilmember J. R. Fruen acknowledged while some living in RVs might not be in dire need, many are likely members of the Cupertino community “down on their luck,” and might be families whose children attend school in the city.
“It’s very clear that we haven’t done the outreach on this situation to ensure we’re not constructing a Cupertino of cruelty and to ensure … that the streets will be cleaner and safer for all concerned,” said Fruen in an interview. “I think the public has the right to its right-of-way, but we also have to ensure that the people that are most vulnerable there aren’t swept away.”
At an earlier City Council hearing on the issue, Fruen asked that along with the ban, the city create a plan of outreach to those living in the RVs to connect people there with services.
The ban passed unanimously Tuesday and will go into effect in a month. City staff expect the policy to cost $51,000 in the first year due to expenses associated with the online permitting system and new street signs communicating the ban — a process that may take months to roll out.
After a year, the City Council will return to the ordinance to assess its impact. “Any policy is an evolving process,” said Chao in an email. “The council has adopted a version that we think make most sense at this time and we will review its effectiveness and its impact after one year.”
