Sunnyvale housing staff lay out safe-parking costs, buyback pilots and tiny-home options before April 21 council meeting

Amanda Stultz, Sunnyvale’s housing officer, opened a community briefing on the city’s approach to vehicular homelessness and said staff will present a fuller packet to City Council on April 21. "There are many reasons why people may be residing in their vehicles," Stultz said, and the city is considering multiple strategies rather than a single solution.

Annette Tran described safe parking as "a program that provides vehicle-dwelling households a safe legal place to park overnight while connecting participants to case management, basic needs services, [and] housing navigation." Tran said safe parking is designed as a short stabilization intervention—a bridge to longer-term housing—but acknowledged limitations: some people prefer van- or RV-dwelling, and others rent vehicles from third parties and cannot relocate them without owner permission.

Staff presented regional outcome and cost data to frame Sunnyvale’s options. Tran summarized other cities’ experience as variable: average stays and exit rates differ by program and location, with exit-to-permanent-housing rates commonly ranging from roughly 15% to 40%. Using San Jose program budgets scaled to local sizes, staff estimated annual operating costs of roughly $534,020 for a 10-space site, about $704,000 for a 20-space site, and nearly $900,000 for a 30-space site; capital/site-preparation costs were estimated in the presentation as roughly $3 million to $6.5 million depending on scale.

Jocelyn Vivales reviewed alternate tools some Bay Area cities are testing. She described RV buyback pilots—citing a Berkeley program in which payments were set at $175 per linear foot (a 30-foot vehicle would receive about $5,200), with 15% of cash provided up front and the remainder after tow—and said Berkeley targeted 32 vehicles and 29 accepted the buyback offer. Vivales also described San Francisco’s large-vehicle refuge/permit program, which pairs time-limited parking exemptions with trauma-informed case management and enforcement; staff cited an SF allocation of about $6.5 million per year spread across 437 identified RV dwellers as an example of costs at scale.

Vivales proposed converting Sunnyvale’s current capital-grant pool for safe parking into operating assistance to lower the barrier for community partners to host programs. The city’s capital grant program—released in September 2025 and described by staff as offering $5,000 to $50,000 per request to cover fencing, restriping or permit fees—had not received applicants as of the briefing.

On interim housing, Vivales pointed to noncongregate tiny-home projects in nearby cities, said state legislation streamlines permitting for interim housing (presenter referred to it as SB 1395, the Interim Housing Act), and cited examples: San Jose’s tiny-home effort (staff cited about a 70% retention rate for people who entered interim units and roughly a 50% transition rate to permanent housing) and Mountain View’s LifeMoves tiny-home site (staff said site development cost about $10.5 million and annual operations roughly $2–3 million while serving an estimated 350 individuals annually).

Staff described Sunnyvale’s site work to date: a citywide review of public land that yielded about three candidate public sites that meet minimum size and infrastructure criteria (presenters said a 1.5-acre minimum is recommended for RV-serving lots and that city-sanctioned sites must provide potable water, restrooms and electricity or lighting). Staff also said they released an RFI to private landowners in July 2025 with minimal response and that faith-based outreach produced interest but no applicants—citing insurance and ongoing operating costs as common concerns.

During Q&A, staff clarified that the cost figures presented are annual operating estimates that exclude upfront capital costs, that Project Homekey and private philanthropy have funded some interim housing elsewhere, and that the county’s Office of Supportive Housing previously funded safe parking in some neighboring cities but currently has no new funding available. Staff said they will publish the council packet and RTC documents in advance of the April 21 meeting and will incorporate community feedback and survey results into the city’s draft homelessness strategic plan.

A participant raised immigration-related concerns, suggesting some vehicle dwellers are immigrants and saying the city could “call in ICE.” Staff did not endorse that view and the suggestion drew an immediate, terse response from presenters.

Next steps: staff will finalize the council packet and present recommendations on April 21; they will also follow up on specific site questions raised during the meeting and expect to add more resident-survey data to their analysis.