Sunnyvale City Council
September 29, 2026

From: Chuck Fraleigh
To: Council AnswerPoint; HousingHumanServices AP; Tim Kirby; Trudi Ryan; Amanda Sztoltz Cc: Agnes Veith
Subject: Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness Feedback Date: Monday, September 7, 2026 10:17:31 PM
Attachments: community-feedback-letter.pdf
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Good Day, Commissioners, Council and Staff,
We are sending you the Community Input and Feedback on Sunnyvale's Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness, developed collaboratively by Sunnyvale community advocates, representatives of local nonprofit organizations and community members following the City's release of its Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness 2026-2030.

Its purpose is to
supplement the City's work by examining homelessness from the perspective of people and organizations working closely with affected residents and by offering recommendations for a measurable and effective local strategy.

If you would like to meet with us to discuss this document, please contact - Agnes Veith

or
Chuck Fraleigh
and we will contact you to schedule a time to meet.

Regards,
Alpana Agarwal, Helping Hands Silicon Valley
Marie Bernard, Sunnyvale Community Services
Chuck Fraleigh, Livable Sunnyvale
Rose Gregorio, Community Advocate
Pratima Gupta, Helping Hands Silicon Valley
David Hernandez, Sunnyvale Community Services
Mike Serrone, Livable Sunnyvale
Agnes Veith, Livable Sunnyvale
Jerry Wrobleski, Community Member
Attachment 7

Attachment 7

Community Input and Feedback on
Sunnyvale’s Strategic Plan to
Address Homelessness
Understanding Homelessness in
Sunnyvale: Needs, Responses and
Recommendations
September 7, 2026
Attachment 7

Table of Contents
Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................2 Section 1 - Executive Summary..................................................................................................4 Section 2 - Introduction...............................................................................................................6 Section 3 - The Unhoused...........................................................................................................7 Who is Unhoused and What Do They Need?.......................................................................... 7 Definition............................................................................................................................ 7 Demographics....................................................................................................................7 Levels of Need................................................................................................................... 7 Section 4 - How Do We Respond to Homelessness?...............................................................9 Prevention................................................................................................................................9 Other Prevention Programs............................................................................................. 10 Stabilization............................................................................................................................11 Housing Pathways................................................................................................................. 13 Coordinated Assessment System....................................................................................14 Emergency Shelter...........................................................................................................15 Permanent Supportive Housing....................................................................................... 16 Transitional Housing........................................................................................................ 17 Rapid Rehousing..............................................................................................................17 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program......................................................... 18 Section 5 - Sunnyvale’sResponse...........................................................................................19 Relative performance.............................................................................................................19 Programs and Funding.......................................................................................................... 20 Housing Fund Projects - Affordable Housing Development.............................................20 General Fund Programs...................................................................................................23 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Grant........................................................ 24 Federal Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Grant.............................................. 24 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)............................................................... 24 Low and Moderate Housing Fund....................................................................................24 Abatements and Other Enforcement................................................................................24 Future Budget.................................................................................................................. 25 Section 6 - Recommendations..................................................................................................26 Strategic Plan recommendations........................................................................................... 26 Set a Realistic, Measurable Overarching Goal................................................................ 26 Establish Stage-Specific Metrics......................................................................................26 Funding Commitment.......................................................................................................27 Track Fiscal Spending and Program Cost........................................................................27 Measure Enforcement Actions and Community Impact...................................................27 Elevate Unhoused Programs (Human Services)............................................................. 28 Community Advisory Committee......................................................................................28 2 Attachment 7

Program Recommendations.................................................................................................. 29 Safe Parking.....................................................................................................................29 Prevention........................................................................................................................29 Existing Stabilization Programs........................................................................................29 Tiny Homes...................................................................................................................... 29 Managed Communities.................................................................................................... 30 Section 7 - Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 31 Contributors............................................................................................................................... 32 References..................................................................................................................................33 Appendix A - Homelessness Prevention vs. Intervention..................................................... 36 Appendix B - Sunnyvale Community Services....................................................................... 45 Homelessness Prevention System (HPS)............................................................................. 45 Homelessness Prevention System - Emergency Response (HPS-ER): Support for Households with Unsatisfactory Immigration Status..............................................................46 Emergency Financial Assistance Program (EFA).................................................................. 46 Medical Case Management with Financial Assistance.......................................................... 47 Benefits & Referrals Program................................................................................................ 47 Financial Literacy Program.................................................................................................... 48 Appendix C - Helping Hands Silicon Valley.............................................................................50 HHSV’sRole in the Homelessness Prevention & Response System....................................50 Services & Assistance........................................................................................................... 51 Housing Stability & Emergency Financial Assistance......................................................51 Benefits, Documentation & Resource Navigation............................................................ 51 Transportation Assistance................................................................................................51 Short-Term Respite Motel Assistance..............................................................................52 Food, Hygiene & Essential Needs................................................................................... 52 3 Attachment 7

Section 1 - Executive Summary
On January 21–23, 2026, Santa Clara County conducted its annual Point-in-Time (PIT) count, a single-night snapshot of everyone experiencing homelessness across the county. In Sunnyvale, that count identified 421 residents without stable housing: 93 sheltered in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or safe havens, and 328 living unsheltered sleeping in vehicles, in tents, or outdoors [1]. Three out of four unsheltered are doing so in a vehicle rather than on the street.

These numbers are not abstract. So far this year, seven members of the unhoused community in Sunnyvale have died [2]. Every resident of Sunnyvale, regardless of income or circumstance, needs a place to sleep and a way to be safe, and it is our responsibility as a community to ensure that need is met.

This white paper was developed collaboratively by Sunnyvale community advocates, representatives of local nonprofit organizations and community members following the City's release of its Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness 2026–2030. Its purpose is to supplement the City's work by examining homelessness from the perspective of people and organizations working closely with affected residents and to offer recommendations for a measurable and effective local strategy. The contributors include representatives of Helping Hands Silicon Valley, Sunnyvale Community Services and Livable Sunnyvale, as well as community advocates and people with lived experience.

This paper is structured in three parts. Sections 2 and 3 provide context on who experiences homelessness in Sunnyvale and why. The unhoused are often reduced to the image of someone sleeping in a tent outside the library or in a neighborhood park. The reality spans a much wider range including families priced out of housing, seniors on fixed incomes, people cycling in and out of vehicles, and individuals with more complex, long-term needs. The growth in homelessness is driven primarily by the high cost of housing. As housing costs have increased, more residents are pushed toward instability and, eventually, homelessness.

Sections 4 and 5 examine how to support the unhoused and detail the range of programs currently in operation. This landscape of programs is often confusing and we attempt to provide a reference for understanding what is out there. One of the most important pieces is that research consistently shows that preventing homelessness costs a fraction of what it costs to manage it after it occurs. Preventing one household from becoming chronically homeless through Santa Clara County's Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) costs approximately $6,893 all-in, roughly 12 times less than the $83,000 per year that each chronically homeless person costs the public in emergency services, healthcare, and incarceration [3][4].

Section 6 then offers concrete recommendations for the City’sStrategic Plan, organized into two categories: goals and structure for the Plan, and specific programs to prioritize. 4 Attachment 7

In summary, we recommend that the Strategic Plan:
● Establish measurable goals for reducing the number of unhoused in Sunnyvale and outcome-related metrics focused on stages of homelessness response: prevention, stabilization, and pathways to housing.
● Commit to sustained funding from the General Fund for unhoused support programs. ● Report annually on fiscal spending for programs and enforcement, progress toward the goals and metrics, and statistics on enforcement actions and community impact. ● To reflect the priority of this growing crisis, elevate staff working on the strategy and other unhoused issues to a dedicated group under the Office of the City Manager. ● Establish a community advisory committee.

We also recommend that the City focus on the following programs, in priority order:
● Vehicle and RV safe parking
● Homelessness prevention
● Existing stabilization programs
● Tiny homes
● Managed communities
Sunnyvale cannot solve the Bay Area housing crisis by itself. It can, however, determine how effectively it uses the tools within its control. A strategic plan built around prevention, stabilization, housing pathways, measurable outcomes and collaboration across the local service network can reduce human suffering, use public resources more effectively and improve conditions for the broader Sunnyvale community.
5 Attachment 7

Section 2 - Introduction
Experiencing homelessness is profoundly destabilizing. Unhoused individuals face constant exposure to the elements, chronic sleep deprivation, heightened risk of violence and theft, and severely limited access to food, sanitation, and medical care. Without a stable address, basic civic participation becomes difficult. Securing employment, accessing benefits, or maintaining personal relationships all grow exponentially harder. The cumulative toll on physical and mental health is severe, and the absence of safe shelter makes it nearly impossible to build the stability needed to exit the cycle of homelessness.

Sadly, the number of people living this reality has grown significantly in Santa Clara County over recent years. Every two years, there is a nationwide point-in-time (PIT) count to measure a snapshot of the number of people experiencing homelessness [5]. From the PIT count data, the number of unhoused in Santa Clara County has grown from 7,254 in 2018 to 10,711 in 2025, a 48% increase [6].

When people try to explain this rise, a familiar set of culprits tends to come up: mental illness, substance abuse, poverty, “woke”generous public assistance programs. These explanations feel intuitive, and there is a grain of truth in them. Mental illness, substance use, or a job loss can absolutely be the thing that tips a particular person into homelessness. But they cannot explain why homelessness has grown so dramatically. The number of people experiencing mental illness or substance use has not increased 48%.

What has surged is the cost of housing. Research has found that housing costs are the dominant driver of homelessness rates [7]. In high-cost areas like the Bay Area, even a modest personal setback can be enough to push someone out of their home with nowhere affordable to land. In less expensive areas, that same person might struggle but ultimately find a way through.

As one landmark study concluded, "median rent level has the dominant effect on metro homelessness rates [8].”
This is not a problem that will resolve itself, and it is not one with easy answers. The forces driving homelessness, above all the cost of housing in our region, have been building for decades and will not be reversed quickly. In the meantime, the human toll continues to mount, and so do the demands on city resources. Encampment sweeps are costly to conduct and often temporary in effect, as residents relocate nearby. Police, fire, and emergency medical services respond to calls associated with unsheltered individuals, diverting resources from other community needs. Code enforcement and sanitation are an ongoing expense. These costs, spread across multiple city departments, represent a real and growing burden on the city, one that will persist as long as the underlying problem goes unaddressed.

If Sunnyvale can achieve its goal of becoming "a model to prevent homelessness, prioritize new housing and support the unhoused community," the rewards will be profound. Our most vulnerable neighbors will suffer less, and the city will see meaningful relief from the financial and operational burdens that homelessness places on city services and the community as a whole. 6 Attachment 7

Section 3 - The Unhoused
Who is Unhoused and What Do They Need?
Many people carry a mental image of what a homeless person looks like. Someone sleeping in a tent outside the library, or perhaps someone sleeping on a park bench with their belongings piled around them. That picture is not wrong exactly, but it is incomplete. The reality of homelessness is far broader than this familiar image suggests, and that gap between perception and reality matters when it comes to crafting an effective response.

Definition
The unhoused population spans a wide range, but at its core falls into two broad categories.

Sheltered homelessness includes those staying in occupied emergency shelters, transitional housing and safe havens. Unsheltered homelessness are those sleeping outdoors on the street; at bus and train stations; in parks, tents and other make-shift shelters; and in vehicles and abandoned properties.

In Sunnyvale's 2025 Point-in-Time (PIT) count, 93 individuals were sheltered and 328 were unsheltered, for a total of 421 unhoused [1]. Of those living unsheltered in Sunnyvale, roughly three quarters were living in a vehicle and one quarter were living fully outdoors. It is important to take a moment and reflect on this last comment. 75% of the unsheltered residents in Sunnyvale are living in vehicles.

Demographics
The unhoused population is also more diverse than many people realize. While many are single adult males, the unhoused community includes families with children, seniors, veterans, and people from all walks of life who found themselves without stable housing, often through no fault of their own. From the 2025 Santa Clara County PIT count [1]:
● 16% are families, 3% are unaccompanied youth under 25 ● 25% are seniors
● 70% are men and 28% are women
● 50% are Hispanic/Latino/e/a, 12% are Black/African/African American, 7% are Asian/Asian American/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 4% are American Indian/Native Alaskan/Indigenous, 36% are White.
● 82% report mental health issues and 65% report substance use either before or after entering homelessness [9]
● 72% have been victims of physical or sexual violence [9] Levels of Need
Just as the unhoused population is more diverse than most people realize, so too are their needs. There is no single path back to stable housing, and understanding what each person 7 Attachment 7

actually needs is essential to helping them get there. Broadly speaking, those needs fall into three tiers, and individuals may move between them as their circumstances change.

Tier 1: At Risk / Recently Displaced (Low Needs). These are recently displaced individuals who have experienced a sudden housing disruption such as an eviction, a job loss, or a natural disaster, with little or no prior history of homelessness. Their primary needs are financial assistance and stabilization. With timely intervention, relatively targeted tools such as rental assistance, eviction prevention, and rapid rehousing can be highly effective. For this group, acting quickly is critical: early intervention is far less costly, both humanly and financially, than allowing a short-term crisis to deepen into long-term homelessness.

Tier 2: Episodic / Transitional Homelessness (Moderate Needs). In the middle of the spectrum are those experiencing episodic or transitional homelessness, individuals or families who cycle in and out of housing due to unstable employment, rising costs, or limited support networks. Their needs are more complex, often requiring help navigating systems and connecting to resources. Effective interventions for this group tend to include housing navigation, case management, employment support, and temporary subsidies that provide a bridge while longer-term stability is established.

Tier 3: Chronic Homelessness (High Needs). At the far end of the spectrum are those experiencing chronic homelessness, defined federally as continuous homelessness for 12 months or more, or four or more episodes over three years totaling at least 12 months. This group typically faces disabling conditions such as serious physical illness, severe mental health challenges, or substance use disorders, and their needs are the most intensive. Permanent supportive housing, combined with ongoing case management and integrated health and behavioral health services are needed to support this population. In Santa Clara county, this tier represents 43% of the unhoused population [1].
8 Attachment 7

Section 4 - How Do We Respond to Homelessness?
Homelessness is not a problem with a single solution. The unhoused population spans a wide spectrum of situations and needs, and no single program or intervention can address all of them. An effective response requires a layered approach that meets people where they are. It needs to span several key areas:
● Prevention - keeping housed people from losing their homes in the first place. ● Stabilization - stabilizing those who have already lost housing. ● Housing Pathways - creating clear pathways back to permanent housing.

While the city must manage the very visible impact of unsheltered homelessness on public spaces, much of what cities have historically spent on homelessness has gone not toward prevention and constructive responses but toward enforcement which often just moves unhoused residents from one location to another at significant cost and with little lasting impact.

As an example, in 2019 San Jose spent $8,577,000 responding to encampments [10].

The prevention and stabilization work carried out by Sunnyvale Community Services, Helping Hands Silicon Valley, the City's contracted service providers, and other community partners plays a meaningful role in supporting residents at different stages of housing instability.

Prevention
Homelessness prevention is one of the most effective and cost-efficient strategies for addressing housing instability. Helping a household remain housed is significantly less disruptive and far less costly than assisting a family after they have entered homelessness. Prevention preserves community connections, protects health and well-being, supports educational and employment outcomes, and allows families to maintain the stability necessary to thrive.

The primary tool for homelessness prevention in Santa Clara County is the County’s Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) [11]. It is an evidence-based approach designed to prevent homelessness before it occurs. The program provides targeted financial assistance and supportive services to households facing an immediate risk of losing their housing. The model focuses on identifying households most likely to experience homelessness and intervening early with flexible resources and individualized support. This program serves over 2,500 households each year, and after one year 95% of these households remain housed [12].

HPS is overseen by the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing, but is administered by 19 partner agencies. In Sunnyvale, HPS is administered by Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS), which is both the largest and most successful of the 19 partner agencies. Last year, SCS served 326 households through HPS, with 98% remaining housed after one year (Appendix B).

One reason for SCS’ssuccess is that they provide an integrated continuum of housing stability and wraparound support services designed to help individuals and families remain safely housed, meet their basic needs, and build long-term self-sufficiency. This holistic approach 9 Attachment 7

recognizes that stable housing is closely connected to health, nutrition, income, and access to resources.

Through coordinated services, SCS helps households navigate these challenges before they become crises. Food assistance reduces pressure on limited household budgets, allowing families to redirect resources toward housing and essential expenses. Benefits enrollment increases access to income and healthcare support. Financial literacy strengthens long-term financial resilience. Medical case management addresses health-related barriers that often contribute to housing instability. Together,these interventions create a comprehensive safety net that helps households remain housed and connected to their community. Details on the full range of support services offered by SCS can be found in Appendix B.

Smaller community-based organizations complement Sunnyvale's prevention system by responding to needs that may fall outside established funding categories or require more immediate and flexible assistance. Helping Hands Silicon Valley (HHSV), for example, works with low-income and unhoused Sunnyvale residents on emergency financial assistance, housing and benefits navigation, transportation, documentation, and other barriers that can threaten housing or employment stability.

This type of flexible intervention is particularly valuable when a relatively modest expense can trigger a much larger housing crisis. A vehicle repair may determine whether a person can continue working; transportation assistance may make it possible to reach work or medical care; assistance with a utility bill or other urgent expense may free limited income for rent. An effective prevention strategy should therefore include both large-scale programs with established eligibility structures and smaller, flexible community-based interventions capable of responding to individual circumstances.

However, despite the success of these programs, current capacity falls far short of the need. For every household that the Homeless Prevention System (HPS) successfully keeps housed, nearly two additional households that could not be served enter homelessness [12].

Other Prevention Programs
The City of Sunnyvale has taken steps, outside of direct aid, to help prevention efforts. The City’s Tenant Protection Program (TPP) requires landlords to offer year long leases and to provide rental assistance to tenants who are evicted without fault. The City also funds Project Sentinel which offers tenants assistance resolving issues with landlords.

Prevention has proven to be a cost-effective approach to addressing homelessness (see Appendix A for details). The City's Strategic Plan should explicitly identify the steps it is taking to invest in prevention, and evaluate whether directing more of the City's resources toward prevention would be more cost-effective and yield better outcomes for our unhoused neighbors.

Directly supplementing the County's Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) infrastructure is one concrete way the City could make that investment rather than remaining on the sidelines. 10 Attachment 7

Stabilization
Stabilization is the stage of homelessness response that begins after a person or household has already lost housing, but before permanent housing has been secured. Its purpose is to reduce immediate harm, create a basic level of safety and functioning, and make it possible for people to engage consistently with services, case management, and housing pathways. Stabilization does not, by itself, end homelessness. Rather, it provides the foundation that allows individuals and families to take the next steps toward permanent housing.

Homelessness quickly creates conditions that make progress much harder. People who are sleeping in vehicles, moving nightly to avoid enforcement, or living outdoors often struggle to rest, shower, store medications, keep important papers dry, charge phones, receive calls, or maintain a consistent connection to service providers. Even highly motivated individuals miss opportunities simply because they are exhausted, displaced, sick, unreachable, or trying to meet their most basic daily needs. In practice, stabilization is the bridge between immediate survival and meaningful movement toward housing.

A strong stabilization system should include several core functions. First, it should provide safety, including protection from weather, violence, medical deterioration, and sleep deprivation.

Second, it should support basic functioning, such as hygiene, food, transportation, phone access, document replacement, and connection to benefits. Third, it should provide low-barrier engagement, allowing outreach workers and community organizations to build trust over time rather than requiring individuals to navigate a fragmented system on their own. Fourth, it should begin the early stages of case management, helping people gather documents, maintain contact information, attend appointments, and prepare for entry into housing pathways.

Stabilization should therefore be understood as a structured set of interventions that allow an unhoused person to move from an unmanaged crisis toward active problem-solving.

This is particularly important because Santa Clara County’scoordinated entry process (the process for moving into temporary or permanent housing described in the next section) is not, by itself, a substitute for stabilization. The County makes clear that the housing queue is not a first-come, first-served waiting list, that housing is not guaranteed through this process, and that accurate, up-to-date contact information is critical when an individual is selected for a housing opportunity. In practical terms, many of the tasks that make this process work, maintaining contact, helping people stay reachable, supporting follow-through, and addressing immediate barriers, require active, ongoing management during the stabilization phase.

Sunnyvale currently operates several stabilization programs that provide important support to unhoused residents. Sponsored by the City of Sunnyvale, the Dignity on Wheels mobile hygiene program offers laundry, showers, and other personal hygiene services twice a week, addressing one of the most basic and pressing daily needs of unhoused individuals. The City also operates a temporary hotel program that provides five hotel rooms as a bridge for those moving towards permanent housing solutions and expands this capacity during periods of inclement weather to protect residents from dangerous conditions. These programs reflect a genuine commitment to meeting unhoused residents where they are and provide a meaningful foundation to build on. 11 Attachment 7

For the past two years, the City also funds a street outreach program administered by WeHope which has the potential to be one of the most important stabilization tools available, as consistent outreach is often how trust is built and individuals are connected to services and housing pathways. It is worth noting that outreach can look very different in practice. At one end of the spectrum, it may consist of a single contact in which an individual is asked to complete a Vulnerability Index - Service Prioritization Decision Assistance (VI-SPDAT) assessment for the County’scoordinated entry process and then receive no further follow-up. At the other end, it involves regular, ongoing meetings with a dedicated case manager who tracks progress, addresses emerging barriers, and maintains a consistent relationship over time. The difference between these two approaches is significant, and the latter is far more likely to result in meaningful progress toward housing. However, from discussions with our unhoused community, and interface with case workers, there are questions about whether the program is currently achieving its intended impact. Routine follow up meetings with City Staff, WeHope and advocacy groups working directly with the unhoused will help to answer these questions.

Community-based organizations play an important role in this stage because they provide the flexible, relationship based support that larger systems cannot deliver quickly. In Sunnyvale, Helping Hands Silicon Valley (HHSV) provides this community-level stabilization work. Through recurring contact with unhoused and very low-income residents, HHSV provides or coordinates practical assistance including food and hygiene supplies, short-term motel stays, transportation assistance, benefits and documentation support, housing navigation, and emergency financial assistance. The organization also works with clients over time to address barriers and connect them with larger agencies and public systems when appropriate.

Organizations such as HHSV can therefore serve as both a direct source of assistance and a bridge into the broader service system. Their recurring community presence makes it easier to maintain contact, identify emerging problems quickly, and provide individualized follow-up. This is particularly important for people living in vehicles, individuals with intermittent employment, seniors, families and others whose needs may cross multiple program categories. These organizations should be viewed as part of Sunnyvale's stabilization infrastructure rather than simply as supplemental charitable services.

Accordingly, it is recommended that Sunnyvale explicitly define stabilization as a distinct stage within its homelessness response system. The City’s Strategic Plan should identify the programs, partners, and operational handoffs that comprise this stage and should evaluate success not only by the number of services delivered, but by whether individuals move forward from crisis.

If Sunnyvale intends to meaningfully reduce homelessness, its strategic plan must treat stabilization not as an optional set of temporary services, but as a core stage of intervention that makes housing progress possible.
12 Attachment 7

Housing Pathways
There is a common perception that housing an unhoused individual is as simple as extending an offer and waiting for a yes or no. In reality, as the chart below illustrates, securing housing is a multi-stage process that can take years to navigate, with permanent placement far from guaranteed. Between 2015 and 2023, over 38,000 households entered the process in search of a permanent housing solution, yet only 16,300 were ultimately placed in a housing program [13]. 13 Attachment 7

Outreach
Because of the complexity of the housing system, individuals experiencing homelessness often need someone knowledgeable to help them navigate it. This may include identifying their specific needs, determining which agencies or programs can help, gathering required documentation, completing applications, and following up as their circumstances change.

Outreach is one way these relationships begin. A case worker may meet an individual where they are living, or an individual may seek assistance from an organization and develop a relationship with someone who can help them. Meeting people where they are is not as easy as it sounds. The first interaction may be between two strangers, and the person being approached may not be ready or willing to accept help. Mental health challenges, previous negative experiences with service systems, or simply the stress of surviving without stable housing can make building trust even more difficult.

When trust is built, however, the person providing assistance can become an important connection between the individual and a complicated network of services. They may help someone obtain identification and other documentation, access Social Security or veterans benefits, apply for public assistance, obtain transportation or a cell phone, connect with medical care, receive mail, or complete applications for housing and other services. These needs may appear small individually, but unresolved barriers can prevent someone from moving forward in the housing process.

Case workers who meet their clients through an agency such as Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS), one of Santa Clara County’sEmergency Assistance Network (EAN) agencies as well as Helping Hands Silicon Valley (HHSV) may have an easier time building trust because they are recognized by individuals in need as someone trained to provide assistance. The City of Sunnyvale has also contracted with WeHope, headquartered in East Palo Alto and serving the greater bay area to provide, among other services, case worker outreach.

Maintaining that connection can itself be difficult. Language barriers, transportation constraints, an unreliable or lost phone, difficulty keeping a phone charged, and frequent moves can all make it difficult for service providers to reach an individual. A missed phone call or appointment that would be a minor inconvenience for someone with stable housing can mean losing an important opportunity for someone who is unhoused. For this reason, successful outreach requires not only making the initial connection, but also consistent follow-up and coordination as the individual moves through the system.

Coordinated Assessment System
The primary path to being placed in a housing solution is to navigate the County’sCoordinated Entry System. This starts by an individual completing the Vulnerability Index - Service Prioritization Decision Assistance (VI-SPDAT) survey.
14 Attachment 7

This survey is administered by trained individuals and is designed to quickly determine a person's level of vulnerability and whether they need permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing, or just light support (such as emergency shelter or drop-in services). Of course, the individual’sassessment is always determined by how they respond to the survey questions and the interpretation of their response. Unfortunately, their response may not always reflect their need based on their understanding of the questions and their needs may change over time making their initial survey response irrelevant to their current situation.

Individuals are scored on a point system based on their history of housing, health/wellness risks, and vulnerability. Higher scores indicate a greater need for immediate, intensive housing assistance. Individuals are scored on a point system based on their history of housing, health/wellness risks, and vulnerability. Higher scores indicate a greater need for immediate, intensive housing assistance. Based on the score, applicants are placed in queues for permanent supportive housing (high need applicants), rapid rehousing or transitional housing (moderate need applicants), or simply referred to other services (low need applicants). It is important to note that completing the survey is simply an entry point into the system. It does not guarantee an individual will receive timely services.

In addition, if the individual is called by an agency, they may not receive the call due to phone instability, phone loss, etc. and may move further down the queue because they were unresponsive although their need for assistance did not change and in fact may have gotten worse since they completed the survey. If they do respond to the call, a case worker is still a vital link for them.

Emergency Shelter
An individual or family who completes the VI-SPDAT may be referred to an emergency shelter.

Emergency shelters provide critical services to people facing a housing crisis or fleeing an unsafe situation. Shelters are intended to provide a temporary living situation. The county runs both year-round and cold weather shelters. There are different types of shelters designed to cater to specific populations run by the county as well as non-profit organizations. In an effective crisis response system, emergency shelters help people quickly exit homelessness although there are not always enough shelter beds for the number of people in need.

A congregate shelter houses multiple individuals or households in a shared common area.

Residents typically sleep on cots or bunks in large open rooms and share communal spaces like bathrooms, showers, and dining areas, operating on designated intake, curfew, and departure times.

Hamlin Court Shelter in North Sunnyvale was initially a congregate shelter. Due to a spike in the number of families with children experiencing homelessness as well as strong community advocacy, Hamlin Court transitioned to a family shelter. The shelter has been transformed to offer separate, covered living spaces for individual families. In addition, spaces are being created to support children’sneeds such as designated homework areas and play spaces. This shelter is run by the Bill Wilson Center and financed by Santa Clara County. 15 Attachment 7

In discussions with the unhoused, many individuals have shared their dislike for emergency shelters. While their reasons vary, the common concern is personal safety and the safety of their personal belongings. The design of the living spaces at the Hamlin Court Shelter can be a prototype for congregate shelters, possibly alleviating these safety concerns. If the unhoused feel more comfortable staying in a shelter, this decision could help their transition into permanent housing through the help of onsite case workers. In addition, this will make it easier for the case worker to foster trusting relationships, help them stabilize their life by connecting them to available services, and the individual will have an address to use to receive necessary documents.

On April 7, 2026 representatives from the County of Santa Clara presented a report to the Sunnyvale City Council [12]. According to the County, in 2025, 414 Sunnyvale-affiliated households received aid in the form of emergency shelter.

Permanent Supportive Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is defined as, an evidence-based intervention that pairs affordable, long-term rental assistance with voluntary, wraparound support services—such as case management and healthcare. It is designed to help chronically homeless individuals and families with disabilities achieve housing stability and live independently.

According to a 2025 report issued by the National Prevention Science Coalition, studies have shown that – in practice, and not just in theory – providing people experiencing chronic homelessness with permanent supportive housing saves taxpayers money [14].

According to the County, in 2025, 247 Sunnyvale-affiliated households received aid in the form of permanent supportive housing at an estimated annual cost of $37,380 per year per household [12].

An example of permanent supportive housing is the Ira D. Hall Square project built by MidPen [15]. MidPen Housing is one of the largest, non-profit developers, owners, and managers of high-quality affordable housing in Northern California. Ira D. Hall Square located at 1178 Sonora Court is MidPen's newest affordable housing community in Sunnyvale. This property offers 176 units, including studios as well as 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartment homes. Seventy-five of the apartments will be filled via referral process: 30 apartments through the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County and 45 units in partnership with the Santa Clara County Office of Support Housing.

The remaining 99 non-manager units are filled through an application process independent of the county's referral process; preference for these units is given to qualified applicants who live and work in Sunnyvale at the time of application.

In partnership with Peninsula Healthcare Connections New Directions Program, MidPen provides housing stability and housing retention assistance to the chronically unhoused in the 45 units in partnership with the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing, as well as other residents as needed through their case management program. The ratio of case manager to resident varies depending on the resident's needs. During the transition from being chronically 16 Attachment 7

unhoused to housed, the ratio of case manager to resident is typically 1:15 to 1:20 providing assistance including: learning to use appliances and safety features in their home, basic living and housekeeping skills, lease education, connection to food and transportation resources, access to benefits income, linkages to medical and mental health providers, connections to schools for children, and more.

The first twelve months after move-in are critical for these residents. With intensive support, often 90% of the individuals who acclimate to this new environment will remain housed for at least twelve months. For residents who are more accustomed to living in a sheltered environment and who have a lot of support connections prior to move-in, the ratio can vary from 1:20 to 1:25 (Case Manager to Resident). Services focus on providing assistance from connecting with a variety of community resources, increasing access to income through employment and additional benefits, and support setting goals for self-sufficiency. With this level of assistance, 90% of the residents will often stay housed far beyond twelve months.

The approximate cost of a MidPen case manager ranges from $100-115K.

Transitional Housing
Transitional housing in Santa Clara County includes interim shelters and homeless services.

Access to these services is centralized and placement is done through the county’scoordinated assessment system. This program is designed to be a short-term, temporary residential intervention designed to stabilize unsheltered individuals and families. It provides a safe stepping stone out of homelessness while participants await permanent housing placement. The county's approach to interim housing includes these key elements:
● Private Accommodations: Features non-congregate, individual spaces (e.g., tiny homes, motel conversions, or small apartments) with locking doors, privacy, and personal storage, rather than traditional large dormitory-style shelters. ● Supportive Services: Provides on-site case management, healthcare, financial planning, and employment resources aimed at long-term stability and rehousing. ● Duration: Meant as a temporary stay (typically a few months to two years) while staff help participants prepare to move into permanent, supportive, or subsidized housing. ● Accessibility: Designed to be a low-barrier, pet-friendly environment that allows people to remain on-site during the day and keep their belongings secure.

According to the County, in 2025, 24 Sunnyvale-affiliated households received aid in the form of transitional housing [12].

Rapid Rehousing
Rapid Rehousing (RRH) is an intervention designed to help individuals and families experiencing homelessness exit the shelter system and quickly return to permanent housing.

Programs offer short- to medium-term financial assistance—such as security deposits, move-in costs, and time-limited rental subsidies—alongside voluntary case management and housing search services.
17 Attachment 7

According to the County, in 2025, 170 Sunnyvale-affiliated households received aid in the form of rapid housing at an estimated annual cost of $29,250 per year per household [12].

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program
To support rapid rehousing, the City receives a federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant for the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program [16]. This program is focused on rapidly rehousing unhoused residents. A small number of households who are at imminent risk of homelessness are sometimes included in the TBRA program. The City distributes those funds to SCS who works directly with the at risk clients.
18 Attachment 7

Section 5 - Sunnyvale’s Response
Sunnyvale cannot solve the regional housing crisis, cannot unilaterally expand the supply of affordable units across Santa Clara County, and cannot control the economic forces that have made the Bay Area one of the most expensive places in the country to live. What the City can control is how it deploys its own resources, how it structures its programs, and how seriously it treats homelessness as a policy priority requiring sustained attention and accountability.

Rather than approaching homelessness services as a collection of individual programs, the City should view them as a local continuum—with prevention, stabilization, and housing pathways connected through organizations of different sizes and capabilities. This coordinated approach will allow for a more effective overall strategy.

This section examines Sunnyvale's current response, how the City compares to its neighbors, what programs are in place, and where investment and focus are most needed.

Relative performance
To start, we consider how the number of unhoused in Sunnyvale compares to neighboring cities. The graph below shows the number of unhoused individuals per 1,000 residents in Sunnyvale and its neighbors, based on the most recent Point-In-Time (PIT) count data and 2025 U.S. Census population estimates [1][17].
19 Attachment 7

At first glance, Sunnyvale's numbers look relatively favorable. Sunnyvale has fewer unhoused per capita than Mountain View, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, and San Jose. It is tempting to read this as straightforward evidence that Sunnyvale's programs are working, and there is truth to that.

The prevention and stabilization work carried out by Sunnyvale Community Services, Helping Hands Silicon Valley, the City's contracted service providers, and other community partners plays a meaningful role in supporting residents at different stages of housing instability.

However, low counts of homelessness can also be the result of stronger enforcement or structural differences between the cities rather than just the effectiveness of programs. Cities with very low counts such as Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Cupertino have limited public transit, fewer service organizations, and a pattern of aggressive enforcement that discourages unsheltered individuals from remaining within city limits. Low numbers can reflect, at least in part, displacement rather than resolution.

Programs and Funding
Sunnyvale funds and operates a range of programs to address homelessness across the prevention, stabilization, and housing pathway continuum and devotes additional resources to enforcement and other responses. We have touched on these in previous sections, but for the public it can be difficult to get a clear picture of what the City is actually doing, how much it is spending, and where that money comes from. What follows is our best effort to map that landscape comprehensively and accurately. We recognize there may be gaps or inaccuracies in this account, and we hope the City's Strategic Plan will provide greater transparency on these questions and help correct any misunderstandings reflected here.

In total, Sunnyvale’s homelessness-related programs draw on five distinct funding streams:
● Housing Fund - funded by developers and finances affordable housing developments. ● General Fund - direct City funding for services such as street outreach and mobile. hygiene. Also funds enforcement activities.
● State Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) grant - inclement weather program and some capital projects.
● Federal Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) grant - Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program.
● Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - primarily for capital projects, but some funding for services.

Much of this information is from the FY2026-27 budget document which was very well prepared [18][19]. We appreciate the effort City Staff went to to present a clear picture of the City’s finances, and we encourage readers to refer to this for more detailed descriptions.

Housing Fund Projects - Affordable Housing Development
Permanent housing is, ultimately, the only real solution to homelessness. Prevention, stabilization, outreach, and shelter buys time and reduces harm, but the underlying problem cannot be resolved without more homes that people with low or no income can actually afford. 20 Attachment 7

Sunnyvale funds the construction of affordable housing developments through two types of fees collected from market-rate developers deposited into the City’s Housing Fund:
● Housing Mitigation Fees - paid by developers of commercial projects such as office and retail space, as well as developers of rental housing, to offset the housing demand generated by the employment their projects create.
● Inclusionary In-Lieu Fees - paid by residential developers of more than seven units who choose to satisfy their inclusionary zoning obligation (which requires that 15% of new units be below market rate) through a fee payment rather than by building the affordable units directly.

These fees along with minor additional revenue have historically averaged $5.5 million per year.

At the start of the FY2026-27 budget cycle, the Housing Fund carried a balance of $53 million, of which the City plans to allocate $27 million to new projects this year.

Who Gets Access to These Units?
One topic which has been much discussed recently is who should be placed in affordable housing funded through these programs. It is natural to assume that if Sunnyvale is funding affordable housing, those units should go to unhoused Sunnyvale residents. In practice, the picture is more complex.

Affordable housing development is expensive, and City fees alone are insufficient to finance a project. Developments require layered funding from multiple sources, including County, State, and Federal grants. To reflect the complex mixture of funding sources, affordable housing units are allocated in a complex manner. In the Ira D. Hall development described above Sunnyvale residents are given preference for 99 units while 75 units are allocated by Santa Clara County.

This co-funding structure has a corresponding implication for access. Residents from across Santa Clara County are eligible to be placed in Sunnyvale affordable housing units, and Sunnyvale residents are likewise eligible for affordable units in cities throughout the County. This regional system gives Sunnyvale residents access to a much larger pool of opportunities than the City could create on its own.

Some have proposed that Sunnyvale restrict its affordable units to Sunnyvale residents only. We believe this would be counterproductive. If Sunnyvale moves in this direction and other cities follow, the regional pool available to unhoused Sunnyvale residents could shrink. Restricting access locally, without a corresponding increase in local production, would likely leave our most vulnerable residents with fewer options, not more.

This conclusion is motivated by the data shown in the chart below. This chart shows the number of permitted affordable units in each City for every 1,000 City residents over the past 10 years. It draws on data cities are required to report as part of the state Housing Element process [20].

The blue bars are the number permitted during the 2015-2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle, and the red bars are the number permitted so far in the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. While there are subtle differences between the number of permits issued and the 21 Attachment 7

number of units actually completed, this data provides a good way to compare what is happening in different cities.

Sunnyvale is on the lower end of affordable housing developments with only Milpitas, Cupertino, Palo Alto, and Campbell, permitting fewer units per capita than Sunnyvale.

Per-capita comparisons can draw criticism when population sizes vary dramatically across the group. A city of 30,000, like Saratoga, that permits 489 units looks impressive on a per-capita basis, but those units make a modest contribution to the regional shortage. To address this, the following chart shows the total number of units permitted to give a sense of each city’sabsolute contribution to the regional housing supply.
22 Attachment 7

In total, Sunnyvale permitted 1,436 affordable units representing 6% of the total units while representing 9% of the total population. Given this mismatch, we caution against moving toward an environment where cities restrict access to affordable housing units in their jurisdiction to only their residents.

General Fund Programs
Sunnyvale funds several programs from the General Fund:
● Street Outreach and Temporary Hotel Program - case management services and five temporary shelter beds for unhoused individuals. $651,000 was allocated in FY2024-25.

No future funding currently appears to be allocated, and we have questions about this below.
● Mobile Hygiene Services - mobile showers, restrooms, and laundry services at 2 sites per week. $258,000 was allocated in FY2024/25 but no further funds have been allocated.
● Safe Parking Capital Grants - $100,000 to provide assistance to third-parties interested in implementing safe parking programs.
● Project Sentinel - the City allocates $50,000 annually through 2027/28 to fund dispute resolution services
● Temporary Housing for Unhoused Individuals - The FY2026/27 budget includes this program, but it is unclear if it is still ongoing. This appears to be historic funding for HomeFirst shelter beds.
23 Attachment 7

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Grant
The City received a $3.1M grant from the state under the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) program for an initial five-year period. These funds have been allocated to:
● Carroll St. Inn Rehabilitation - $500,000.
● Inclement Weather Hotel Program - $73,000 to provide temporary hotel rooms during inclement weather periods.
● Bill Wilson Safety Net Shelter - $49,000.
● Unhoused Services - $1.6M has been reserved to be allocated by council for potential projects such as warming center, safe parking, case management and outreach or other programs.

Federal Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Grant
Sunnyvale receives a HOME grant from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is expected Sunnyvale will receive ~$400,000 in the FY2026/27, and the fund had a balance of $1.7M from prior grants at the start of FY2026/27.

These funds are used for the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program. Over the next 2 years this will provide ~$1M per year as the balance is drawn down. After that it is estimated to provide ~$450,000 in annual funding.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Sunnyvale also receives a CDBG from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development intended primarily for “brick-and-mortar”projects. Up to 15% of these funds can be used for public services for lower-income households and this provides ~$150,000 per year in grants to outside groups who provide community human service needs.

In the past these funds have also been used to fund ~$500,000 annually for Downtown Streets.

Low and Moderate Housing Fund
Sunnyvale has a balance of $2.2M in funds from the former Redevelopment Agency/Successor Agency. These funds have been allocated to provide $250,000/yr. until FY2032/33 for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing (HPRR) program which is operated by Sunnyvale Community Services.

Abatements and Other Enforcement
Sunnyvale also devotes staff time and budget to encampment abatements, vehicle towing and other enforcement actions related to unsheltered homelessness. Unlike the programs described above, the full costs of these activities are not readily available to the public, making it difficult to understand what the City is spending on enforcement relative to services. 24 Attachment 7

This lack of transparency is a problem. Without clear data, the public and council cannot make informed judgements about whether the current balance between enforcement and services reflects the right priorities. Anecdotally, it has been suggested that a single encampment abatement can cost upwards of $70,000 depending on the amount of cleanup needed.

For vehicle abatements, the FY 2026/27 budget allocates 3.75 headcount at ~$180,000 each, a total of $675,000 annually just for staffing. This does not include the direct costs of towing vehicles.

Ideally, a strategic plan would provide clear and complete accounting of enforcement costs.

However, even basic data such as the number of encampments cleared, or the number of vehicles towed would allow the public to start to understand the ongoing costs and weigh those expenditures against the cost and impact of preventive and supportive alternatives.

Future Budget
The FY 2026/27 budget did not appear to include specific future funding for programs such as street outreach, mobile hygiene, the temporary hotel program and other programs. This is not necessarily cause for alarm. The City is developing the Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness, and it is reasonable that specific program allocations would await the conclusion of that process.

However, some aspects of the current budget picture warrant clarification. Sunnyvale has historically funded some homelessness services from the General Fund, but that investment appears to have declined over time. The changes at the shelter and discontinuation of the HomeFirst funding is one example. That funding does not appear to have been redirected to other services. More broadly, while the budget earmarks $1.6 million of the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) grant for future unhoused services, it does not appear to commit any General Fund dollars to fill that same space.

We would urge the City to be clear about what this means in practice. The PLHA reserve is a genuine opportunity, but it should be used to expand the City's response, not to replace General Fund spending that would otherwise have continued. If the General Fund contribution to homelessness services is quietly wound down while the PLHA funds are treated as a one-for-one substitute, the net investment in addressing homelessness will not grow, and may shrink once the PLHA funds are spent. For a City that has identified homelessness as a strategic priority, that outcome would be difficult to reconcile with the stated ambition. 25 Attachment 7

Section 6 - Recommendations
We appreciate the City’s proactive commitment to developing a Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness. While homelessness is a regional crisis that Sunnyvale cannot solve alone, the City has proven its ability to lead on complex, large-scale challenges. Rather than approaching homelessness services as a collection of individual programs, the City should view them as a local continuum—with prevention, stabilization, and housing pathways connected through organizations of different sizes and capabilities. This coordinated approach will allow for a more effective overall strategy.

We have a set of recommendations around the general content and structure of the Strategic Plan and recommendations on specific projects which should be implemented.

Strategic Plan recommendations
Set a Realistic, Measurable Overarching Goal
The Strategic Plan should set a measurable, time-bound goal to reduce the overall number of unhoused residents in Sunnyvale. While we recognize the ambitious nature of this work and the reality of limited City resources, setting a macro-level goal is essential. The purpose of this goal is not to assign blame, but to establish a benchmark for tracking progress and identifying when strategic adjustments are needed.

To be effective, this overarching goal must be realistic. Given the large-scale nature of the problem, it may only be realistic to limit increases in the number of unhoused residents. Setting an overly aggressive target risks continuous missed benchmarks, making it impossible to evaluate whether specific programs are working. A realistic, time-bound goal provides the honest baseline needed to adjust strategies over time.

Establish Stage-Specific Metrics
An overarching goal is important, but a count of people experiencing homelessness can go down for many reasons that have nothing to do with people finding stable housing, and a plan that tracks only the top-line number cannot distinguish between those outcomes. To ensure that the Strategic Plan is actually reducing homelessness by moving people into housing rather than by relocating the problem elsewhere through stricter enforcement, the Strategic Plan should establish clear sub-goals and metrics across the three core operational stages:
● Prevention: Track the number of households successfully remaining housed after receiving assistance, the average duration of support required, and the total volume of households seeking help (to identify emerging economic trends early). ● Stabilization: Monitor the number of unhoused residents served by temporary shelter, street medicine, and support programs. (The draft plan already includes strong baseline metrics in this area.)
26 Attachment 7

● Housing Pathways: Track the number of unique residents receiving active (weekly) case management, the number successfully transitioned into permanent housing, and the average timeframe from initial outreach to permanent placement.

Funding Commitment
Homelessness is not an issue that will be solved through pilot programs or a set of outside grants. It requires sustained investment by the City itself.

In the current 2026/27 budget, from what we can tell Project Sentinel is the only homelessness support program funded from the General Fund, and that funding only lasts through 2027/28.

Street Outreach, the Temporary Hotel Program, and other programs previously supported by the General Fund have no ongoing funding in this budget.

As mentioned earlier, this is not necessarily cause for alarm. The strategic plan was still being developed while the budget was being prepared, so it may have been inappropriate to allocate specific dollar amounts to programs which were not clearly defined.

However, moving forward, if the City wants to have a meaningful impact on homelessness, it will need to allocate sustained General Fund support.

Track Fiscal Spending and Program Cost
While tracking outcomes is critical, the City must also demonstrate responsible stewardship of public funds. Transparency around municipal spending ensures taxpayers can see where resources are allocated and evaluate which programs deliver the highest return on investment.

To achieve full financial clarity, the annual status report should include a detailed fiscal accounting across all municipal departments, including:
● Total Expenditure Breakdowns - clear line items distinguishing total dollars spent from the General Fund versus state, federal, or county grants. ● Service vs. Enforcement Costs - explicit tracking of funds allocated to services versus enforcement activities (encampment abatements, vehicle towing, police responses, and site cleanups).
● Program Cost Analysis - Baseline metrics evaluating overall program efficiency, such as the average municipal cost per household prevented from entering homelessness or the average cost per successful permanent housing placement.

Measure Enforcement Actions and Community Impact
In addition to service metrics, the plan must track enforcement and abatement activities.

Transparency around these actions is critical for two reasons: evaluating fiscal responsibility and measuring the broader community impact.

Recommended enforcement metrics include:
27 Attachment 7

● Abatements: Number of encampment abatements, number of individuals impacted per event, and total municipal cost per abatement.
● Vehicle Enforcement: Number of unhoused-occupied vehicles cited or towed, alongside the direct and indirect costs associated with these actions. ● Community Feedback: Total number and resolution rate of homelessness-related service requests and complaints received from the public.

The fundamental purpose of this plan is to provide dignified assistance to our most vulnerable neighbors. However, a successful strategy must also deliver tangible benefits to the broader Sunnyvale community ensuring clean, accessible, and safe public spaces for all residents and business owners. Tracking community complaint trends alongside service outcomes ensures the City can evaluate whether its interventions are successfully balancing individual support with community-wide wellness.

Elevate Unhoused Programs (Human Services)
Homelessness is a growing crisis and complex issue for the City, and being a “modelto prevent homelessness” has been identified as one of five Council Strategic Priorities. To reflect this importance, we recommend relocating staff working on unhoused issues to a dedicated team under the Office of the City Manager.

This change would give unhoused services the visibility and standing that these issues warrant and would allow staff to devote their full attention to the unhoused. It would signal that the City is treating homelessness as a standing high-level priority and it would create the administrative structure needed to sustain that priority over time.

Community Advisory Committee
Quantitative data alone cannot capture the full picture of on-the-ground conditions. To ensure the Strategic Plan remains responsive and practical, the City should actively collect qualitative feedback from frontline service providers, community advocates, and impacted residents.

Working with the community will provide Staff with a variety of perspectives and solutions.

Forming a collaborative working relationship with the community is an important first step to address the City’sunhoused crisis. To formalize this continuous feedback loop, we recommend establishing a dedicated Unhoused Advisory Committee.

Membership should include people with lived experience of homelessness, representatives from both larger service agencies and smaller community-based organizations, community advocates, residents, and other stakeholders directly affected by homelessness. Including organizations of different sizes and roles is important because they often interact with different populations and see different gaps in the system.

A committee with this range of perspectives can help the City identify emerging needs, evaluate whether programs are working as intended, improve coordination between service providers, and ensure that the Strategic Plan continues to reflect actual conditions in the community rather than relying solely on program data.
28 Attachment 7

Working collaboratively with those who are closest to the crisis, whether through lived experience or daily service delivery, will build the trust necessary for effective implementation and help ensure that the City's efforts are guided by the realities residents and providers face, not just the data available on paper.

Program Recommendations
To support these goals, the strategy should continue and expand existing programs already showing results, while also identifying new programs to address the community's needs. The programs below are listed in the order we believe reflects their importance.

Safe Parking
According to the 2025 Santa Clara County Point-in-Time count, the majority of Sunnyvale unhoused residents (75%) are vehicle dwellers [1]. Business owners have complained before Council that individuals living in an RV are turning customers away and residents have complained about the presence of RVs in their neighborhood. While it is understood that land is at a premium, we suggest considering multiple locations throughout the City to establish a variety of safe parking solutions to support both passenger vehicles and RVs.

Prevention
Due to uncertainty in the Santa Clara County budget, funding for the Homelessness Prevention Service did not receive its typical annual increase this year, and it is unclear what will happen to funding levels in the future given the current budget situation.

Given how successful and cost effective prevention has proven to be, we recommend the City commit, at minimum, to directly fund prevention services if they are at risk of being cut, and ideally supplement funding to increase the number of residents served.

Existing Stabilization Programs
The City should commit to sustain existing programs such as the TBRA, the Temporary Hotel Program, Street Outreach, and Mobile Hygiene and scale them as demand requires.

We recommend funding local non-profits such as Helping Hands Silicon Valley which provides direct assistance and individualized support to unhoused and low-income residents.

Tiny Homes
Tiny homes are a successful and low cost solution to providing temporary housing and we recommend the City implement this approach as soon as possible.

A prime example is San Jose’sBridge Housing Communities (BHCs), a set of interim housing sites using small private rooms (not tents) rather than a traditional encampment. The city currently operates five such communities. The most recent and largest, Via del Oro, cost $17.2 29 Attachment 7

million to build for 135 rooms on 2.5 acres — roughly $127,000 per room in construction cost — and costs about $2.7 million a year to operate, or roughly $18,000–20,000 per bed annually.

Across San Jose's interim housing system, utilization runs 95–97%, average stays are under nine months, and city figures cite roughly 70% of residents remaining off the streets and about 40% graduating to permanent housing.

The original 2018 Bridge Housing pilot (40 cabins) cost about $73,125 per unit to develop and about $33,575 per unit annually to operate — notably cheaper per-unit than a tent-based safe sleeping site
Managed Communities
Although tiny homes can be readily purchased, fully assembled, it may take years to get them in place. Until better solutions are implemented, an alternative is to provide sanctioned, safe sleeping sites.

Academic and municipal data show that an encampment is rarely successful without specific logistical guardrails. Effective models universally incorporate:
● Low-Barrier Referral Entry: Most successful sites do not allow walk-ups. Instead, they use specialized outreach teams to transition established, vulnerable local street campers into the site [21][22].
● Robust Wrap-Around Services: The site must not act as a permanent destination but as a "bridge." This requires on-site caseworkers, mobile healthcare units, and behavioral health resources [23][24].
● Sanitation & Waste Infrastructure: Coordinated trash collection, greywater management, and mobile restroom/shower trailers are mandatory to prevent the public health failures common in unsanctioned camps [25][26].
● 24/7 Managed Security: Clear "Good Neighbor" guidelines combined with perimeter monitoring are vital to prevent drug trafficking and external harassment.

While some communities have had unsuccessful experiences with poorly managed encampments, we believe that a properly sanctioned and well-managed encampment can avoid those pitfalls offering safety, sanitation, and stability rather than the disorder often associated with unmanaged sites.
30 Attachment 7

Section 7 - Conclusion
Moms, dads, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and grandparents are the homeless. They are not a number to debate, but a person just like you. Homelessness is not just about lacking a home, it’sabout feeling invisible, dehumanized and forgotten. Homelessness and financial hardship do not define a person’scharacter, they are circumstances that people experience, not who they are. Yet, too often, those facing these struggles are treated as if their hardship is a personal failure rather than the result of systemic issues.

People experiencing homelessness should not feel shame, guilt, or embarrassment for what they are going through. There is no shame in doing what it takes to survive yet society often treats those experiencing homelessness as if they are undeserving of compassion. There should be a space for them to share their experiences, express their emotions and be vulnerable because their struggles are real and survival is nothing to be ashamed of.

But no one can overcome these challenges alone. Community is essential. To truly address homelessness, we must first move beyond judgment and isolation and instead build a network of support resources and compassion that empowers people to rebuild their lives. 31 Attachment 7

Contributors
Alpana Agarwal, Helping Hands Silicon Valley
Marie Bernard, Sunnyvale Community Services
Chuck Fraleigh, Livable Sunnyvale
Rose Gregorio, Community Advocate
Pratima Gupta, Helping Hands Silicon Valley
David Hernandez, Sunnyvale Community Services
Mike Serrone, Livable Sunnyvale
Agnes Veith, Livable Sunnyvale
Jerry Wrobleski, Community Member
32 Attachment 7

References
[1] Santa Clara County Point-in-Time Count Community Report 2025, https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1571/2025-09/santa-clara-county-point-in-time-count-20 25-final-report.pdf?VersionId=Rl1.G6aaDKy9frtsmdKUrEepVwgOmZQ3 [2] Santa Clara County Medical Examiner-Coroner, Unhoused (Homeless) Deaths dataset, https://data.sccgov.org/Health/Medical-Examiner-Coroner-Unhoused-Homeless-Deaths-/kemd-3 zbq/about_data
[3] Kaminski, Kathryn, “Supportive Housing Systemin Santa Clara County,” Letter to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Jan. 16, 2025,
https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1571/2025-04/sh-dashboard-and-hp-system-report_janu ary-2025.pdf
[4] Flaming, Daniel, Halil Toros, and Patrick Burns, “Home Not Found: The Cost of Homelessness in Silicon Valley,” Economic Roundtable, 2015, https://destinationhomesv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/er_homenotfound_report_6.pdf [5] The 2025 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress - Part 1:

Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness, May 2026,
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2025-AHAR-Part-1.pdf [6] Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing Point-in-Time Count, https://osh.santaclaracounty.gov/data-and-reports/point-time-count [7] Colburn, Gregg, and Clayton Page Aldern, “HomelessnessIs a Housing Problem: How Structural Factors Explain U.S. Patterns,” University of California Press, 2022. [8] Lee, Barrett A., Townsand Price-Spratlen, and James W. Kanan. "Determinants of Homelessness in Metropolitan Areas," Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 25, no. 3, 2003 [9] Kushel, Margot, et al, “Toward a New Understanding:The California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness,” UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, June 2023,
https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencin g-homelessness.
[10] Dunton, Lauren, et. al., “Exploring HomelessnessAmong People Living in Encampments and Associated Cost: City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, January 2021, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Exploring-Homelessness-Among-People.html [11] Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System, https://preventhomelessness.org/ 33 Attachment 7

[12] “2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness Update,” Presentation by the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing, Sunnyvale City Council Meeting, 7 Apr. 2026, https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15372178&GUID=6086BF83-56E5-45E3- A1FE-0497FA5ABCF1
[13] Hernandez, Consuelo, “Coordinate Entry Systemand Increasing System Capacity,” Letter to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, May 24, 2024, https://api.sccgov.org/offagendaapi/api/getpdf?id=1145
[14] “Fact Sheet: Cost of Homelessness,” NationalPrevention Science Coalition, Jan. 4, 2016, https://www.npscoalition.org/post/fact-sheet-cost-of-homelessness [15] MidPen Housing, Ira D. Hall Square,
https://www.midpen-housing.org/property/ira-d-hall-square/ [16] “Sunnyvale Community Services, Preventing Homelessnessand Hunger in our local community since 1970,” Presentation to the Sunnyvale Housing and Human Services Commission, Mar 25, 2026,
https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15340040&GUID=940E3803-A67A-42A3- 9A96-4C5C1881E340
[17] United States Census Bureau Quick Facts, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ [18] City of Sunnyvale Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2026/27 Volume 1: Summary and Operating Budget,
https://docaccess.com/docviewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunnyvale.ca.gov%2Fhome %2Fshowpublisheddocument%2F6677&url_hash=84f26e1fae31a4c290ad261d6057d1b0&dom ain=sunnyvale.ca.gov&site=45baf585-ee08-45d9-8183-8a4962e3f43a&found_on=https%3A%2 F%2Fwww.sunnyvale.ca.gov%2Fyour-government%2Fgovernance%2Fcity-budget [19] City of Sunnyvale Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2026/27 Volume 2: Projects Budget, https://docaccess.com/docviewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunnyvale.ca.gov%2Fhome %2Fshowpublisheddocument%2F6679&url_hash=ee8744584dc6eefca8dca4c74ddf4e89&doma in=sunnyvale.ca.gov&site=45baf585-ee08-45d9-8183-8a4962e3f43a&found on=https%3A%2F %2Fwww.sunnyvale.ca.gov%2Fyour-government%2Fgovernance%2Fcity-budget [20] Housing Element Implementation and APR Dashboard, California Department of Housing and Community Development, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-open-data-tools/apr-dashboard [21] Sacramento County Department of Homeless Services and Housing - Frequently Asked Questions, https://schs.saccounty.gov/us/en/faqs.html#gsc.tab=0 [22] Galicia, Erik, “California town touts a ‘progressive’approach to homelessness. How its legal encampment works,” The Sacramento Bee, Sept. 19, 2024,
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article292751364.html 34 Attachment 7

[23] Kalofonos, Ippolytos, et. al., “A Sanctioned Encampment as a Strategy for Increasing Homeless Veterans' Access to Housing and Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, Jul. 2023,
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10356730/
[24] Chu, Joyce, “San Jose sees safe sleeping sitesas option for homeless residents,” San Jose Spotlight, Aug. 17, 2024,
https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-sees-safe-sleeping-sites-as-option-for-homeless-residents /
[25]
https://www.sjpl.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/142/2023/09/D4Policy-Recommendation_-Sanctio ned-Encampments.pdf
[26] CalRecycle, “Homeless Encampment Reference Guide,” https://calrecycle.ca.gov/illegaldump/homelesscamp/
35 Attachment 7

Appendix A - Homelessness Prevention vs.

Intervention
A Cost Comparison for Santa Clara County, California
Research compiled July 2026 | Sources: Destination: Home, Results for America, HUD, City of San José, Economic Roundtable $2,138 cost per person — HPS prevention (all-in)
$83,000 cost per chronically homeless person per year
Executive Summary
Homelessness in Santa Clara County is both a humanitarian crisis and a major public expenditure.

Research consistently shows that preventing homelessness costs a fraction of what it costs to manage it after it occurs. This report compares per-person costs across the full spectrum — from upstream prevention to encampment clearing, emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing.

The central finding: preventing one person from becoming chronically homeless through Santa Clara County's Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) costs approximately $2,138 per person all-in — roughly 39 times less than the $83,000 per year that each chronically homeless person costs the public in emergency services, healthcare, and incarceration.

1. Homelessness Prevention — HPS
The Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) is a nationally recognized program launched in 2017, co-led by Destination: Home and Sacred Heart Community Service, and delivered through a network of 19 nonprofits across the county. It targets households at imminent risk of losing their housing — typically within 14 days — and provides a combination of temporary financial assistance, case management, and legal services.

Program Costs
● $2,138 per person (all-in, including administrative costs and direct financial aid) ● Average financial assistance per household: $6,119 — can cover rent arrears, security deposits, car repairs, medical bills, or any expense that keeps someone housed ● Santa Clara County contributed $17.1 million; City of San José contributed $8 million in FY2023
36 Attachment 7

Scale & Reach
● 7,247 households and more than 17,000 individuals served since the program launched in 2017 ● 19 nonprofit partner agencies deployed throughout Santa Clara County, including Sacred Heart Community Service, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, LifeMoves, HomeFirst, and others ● Targeted outreach to undocumented households, health clinics, and courts serving at-risk populations Outcomes (2023 Randomized Controlled Trial, University of Notre Dame) ● Participants were 81% less likely to experience homelessness within 6 months of enrollment ● Households receiving HPS experienced homelessness at a rate 3.8 percentage points lower than the control group
● 94% of participants remained housed one full year after leaving the program ● Program returns $2.47 in public benefit for every $1 spent ● Individuals without children and those with a prior history of homelessness experienced the largest benefits
In 2026, Santa Clara County's HPS model was selected as the basis for 10 new pilot programs launched nationwide, funded through Destination: Home's $80 million private fundraising campaign. Each community received $500,000 to plan their program and at least $5 million to operate it over three years.

Sources:
$2,138 per person (all-in cost)
Results for America, Economic Mobility Catalog — HPS Program Profile (updated October 2025). Stated verbatim: "Cost: $2,138 per person (administrative costs and aid)." $6,119 average financial assistance per household
Same Results for America page. Stated as: "On average, each household receives $6,119 in total assistance while participating in HPS."
$17.1 million (County) and $8 million (City of San José) — FY2023 contributions All Home CA — Santa Clara County HPS profile and Destination: Home reporting, surfaced in the search results for the Santa Clara HPS program.
$2.47 in public benefit per $1 spent
Results for America HPS Program Profile (same source above), citing the program's commissioned cost-benefit analysis.
7,247 households / 17,000+ individuals served since 2017 Results for America catalog and preventhomelessness.org. The preventhomelessness.org page stated "16,818 individuals from 6,107 families" as of January 2024; the Results for America figure of 7,247 households reflects a later update.
81% less likely to be homeless within 6 months; 3.8 percentage points lower 2023 Randomized Controlled Trial, University of Notre Dame Lab for Economic Opportunities, cited in the Results for America profile.
94% remain housed one year after leaving the program
HPS program outcome data reported on preventhomelessness.org and the Results for America catalog. 37 Attachment 7

78% less likely to become homeless (Santa Clara County prevention pilots in the 2026 CalMatters piece) CalMatters — "A New Homelessness Strategy Is Sweeping California" (March 2026), referencing Destination:

Home's results from the Santa Clara County pilot.
$80 million private fundraising / $500,000 planning grants / $5 million operating grants Same CalMatters article above, describing Destination: Home's national expansion of the HPS model.

2. The Cost of Chronic Homelessness (No Intervention)
A landmark study by the Economic Roundtable examined public costs generated by approximately 2,800 chronically homeless individuals in Santa Clara County. The findings are clear: leaving people without housing is the most expensive option of all.

Annual Cost per Chronically Homeless Person: $83,000
This figure represents spending across local jails, emergency rooms, hospital systems, mental health crisis services, and shelters. Over a six-year period, more than $3 billion was spent county-wide on services tied to homelessness.

Cost Breakdown by Sector
Cost Category Share of $83K/yr Description
Healthcare 53% Emergency room visits, hospitalization, mental health crisis care
Justice System 34% Jail stays, court costs, law enforcement responses Social Services 13% Shelter stays, social worker time, benefits navigation Project Welcome Home — Case Study
Project Welcome Home was California's first Pay for Success initiative, targeting the county's highest-cost homeless individuals — those with the most frequent ER visits, jail stays, and acute mental health episodes. Run by Abode Services in partnership with Santa Clara County:
● Before enrollment: participants averaged 20 emergency department visits and 3 jail stays per person in the prior two years
● After placement in permanent supportive housing: 86% remained housed for an average of 2.5 years ● The county committed up to $8 million in success payments over six years Sources:
$83,000 per person per year
Economic Roundtable study, reported by CBS SF / Destination: Home (2015) and Governing magazine. The figure reflects ~2,800 persistently homeless individuals in Santa Clara County. 38 Attachment 7

53% healthcare / 34% justice / 13% social services (cost breakdown) Same Economic Roundtable study, cited in the CBS SF / Destination: Home article. $3 billion over six years in county-wide homelessness-related spending Same Economic Roundtable study.
~2,800 chronically homeless individuals in Santa Clara County Same Economic Roundtable study.
$520 million per year in public costs (2015 figure)
Same Economic Roundtable study, cited in the Mercury News / Destination: Home article headline. 20 emergency department visits and 3 jail stays per person (before Project Welcome Home enrollment) Third Sector Capital Partners — Santa Clara County Project Welcome Home and the Project Welcome Home Fact Sheet.
86% remained housed for an average of 2.5 years (Project Welcome Home) San José Spotlight — "Santa Clara County permanent supportive housing project sees success" and Third Sector Capital Partners.

Up to $8 million in success payments over six years (Project Welcome Home) Project Welcome Home Fact Sheet and Third Sector Capital Partners page.

3. Encampment Clearing
Encampment sweeps are highly visible but have limited impact on overall homelessness. People displaced from one site typically relocate to another, and only a small fraction accept offers of shelter.

Costs in San José and Santa Clara County
● Per-person encampment clearing cost in San José: ~$1,672 (HUD national study — lowest among major cities studied)
● San José received $4.8 million in state Encampment Resolution Funding in 2024 — less than smaller Bay Area cities received
● Caltrans cleared 115 encampments in San Joséin FY2024–25, removing 9,200 cubic yards of debris ● Major multi-agency creek cleanups (Guadalupe, Coyote Creek corridors) cost $90,000–$500,000 depending on scope
● San José's BeautifySJ Encampment Management Program visits ~180 active encampments weekly for trash services and outreach
Effectiveness Limitations
● Only 20–30% of people offered a shelter bed during a sweep accept it ● People displaced from encampments typically relocate nearby — homelessness is not resolved, only moved
● Encampment clearing does not address root causes and generates no long-term housing stability 39 Attachment 7

~$1,672 per person cleared (San José)
HUD USER — "Exploring Homelessness Among People Living in Encampments and Associated Cost". The study also cited $6,208 in Tacoma, $2,835 in Chicago, and $2,102 in Houston for comparison. $4.8 million state Encampment Resolution Funding (San José, 2024) KRON4 — "San Jose receives $4.8M for homeless encampment cleanup". 115 encampments cleared / 9,200 cubic yards of debris (FY2024–25) City of San José BeautifySJ Encampment Management Program page, referencing Caltrans activity in San José. ~180 active encampments visited weekly
Same City of San José BeautifySJ page, stated directly in the "Weekly trash services" section. $90,000–$500,000 for creek cleanups
San José Spotlight — "Santa Clara County agency's homeless creek cleanup sparks concern" and related San José Spotlight reporting on Coyote Creek cleanup costs.
20–30% of people offered shelter during a sweep accept it Cited in the City of San José documents and confirmed in the earlier general research via National Alliance to End Homelessness reporting. The San Francisco context (same range) was noted in earlier searches. $131 million state encampment grants / ~$39,000 per person / 3,364 people helped / 1,565 permanently housed Governor Newsom press release — "$131 million to address homeless encampments" (October 2024). The per-person figure ($131M ÷ 3,364) is a calculation from those announced numbers.

4. Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing
Emergency shelter and transitional housing are important parts of the crisis response system, but carry significant per-person costs and high turnover rates compared to prevention.

Emergency Shelter
● National cost range: $8,000–$13,000 per person per year ● Santa Clara County has 3,697 total temporary shelter beds as of 2025, after adding 235 new beds since 2023
● Roughly 1 shelter bed for every 3 homeless people in the county ● Emergency shelter for a family can reach $5,000 per month — more than many prevention interventions cost for an entire year
Shelter Diversion
An intermediate approach — helping someone find alternative housing immediately after losing it rather than entering shelter — costs approximately $12,900 per family, compared to $22,500 to shelter and then re-house the same family through the traditional path.

Sources:
$8,000–$13,000 per person per year (emergency shelter)
National figure from HUD Emergency Shelter Grants data and National Alliance to End Homelessness research, surfaced across multiple search results.
40 Attachment 7

$5,000 per month for family emergency shelter
NPS Coalition — Fact Sheet: Cost of Homelessness and related search results. 3,697 total temporary shelter beds (2025); 235 new beds added since 2023 Santa Clara County homelessness spending search results, citing county budget and program reporting: "Since 2023, the County has added 235 new shelter beds, bringing the total available temporary housing bed count in Santa Clara County to 3,697."
~1 shelter bed per 3 homeless people
NBC Bay Area / San José Spotlight — "Santa Clara County has 1 shelter bed for every 3 homeless people". $12,900 per family (shelter diversion) vs. $22,500 (shelter + re-housing) National Alliance to End Homelessness — Diversion explainer. The $12,899/$22,528 figures appeared in the search results for that page.
$150,000 per modular transitional housing unit
First search results referencing Bay Area housing cost comparisons (the calmatters/housingca results).

5. Permanent Supportive Housing
Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is the most expensive upfront investment but generates the strongest long-term outcomes and substantial downstream savings by reducing chronic use of emergency systems.

Construction Costs (Bay Area)
● $400,000–$750,000 per unit in the Bay Area
● California statewide average: ~$650,000 per unit
● Highest-cost Bay Area projects: up to $1.1 million per unit Annual Operating Costs
● National range: $12,800–$20,000 per person per year
● Santa Clara County operates at the higher end of this range given local housing and labor costs Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness
● The county spent approximately $446 million across all homelessness programs in FY2024–25 ● These investments helped move 8,000+ people from homelessness to housing between 2023 and 2025
● Every dollar spent on housing saves $4 in emergency response costs (national research) ● Denver PSH study: supportive housing saved $15,733 per person per year in public system costs Sources:
$400,000–$750,000 per unit (Bay Area construction)
California Globe — "The Real Cost of Permanent Supportive Housing for California's Homeless" and related California housing cost search results.
41 Attachment 7

~$650,000 California statewide average; up to $1.1 million in major cities Same California Globe article and related search results. $12,800–$20,000 per person per year (annual operating cost) NCBI — "Cost-Effectiveness of Permanent Supportive Housing" and National Alliance to End Homelessness research; the $12,800 figure and $20,115 figure both appeared in the search results. $446 million in FY2024–25 total county homelessness spending Santa Clara County budget search results, citing county reporting: "Direct funding of homelessness solutions in Santa Clara County reached approximately $446 million in the 2024–25 fiscal year." 8,000+ people moved from homelessness to housing (2023–2025) Same Santa Clara County budget search results.
$15,733 per person per year saved in Denver
National Alliance to End Homelessness / systematic research review and related search results citing the Denver supportive housing evaluation.
$1 in housing saves $4 in emergency costs
NPS Coalition Fact Sheet and Father Joe's Villages — "What is the Cost of Homelessness?", surfaced in the cost-effectiveness searches.

Median cost $16,479 / median benefit $18,247 (Housing First programs) NLIHC — "Systematic Research Review Finds Benefits of Housing First Programs Outweigh Costs".

Numbers That Are Calculated (Not Directly Cited)
"39 times less" (prevention vs. chronic homelessness)
Calculated from the two cited figures: $83,000 ÷ $2,138 ≈ 38.8. Both inputs are sourced above. ~$39,000 per person (California encampment resolution grants) Calculated from the Governor's press release: $131 million ÷ 3,364 people = ~$38,942.

One important caveat: the $83,000/year chronic homelessness figure and the Economic Roundtable study are from 2015. All other figures are from 2023–2026. The $83,000 figure is likely an undercount today given healthcare cost inflation and rising Bay Area public-sector wages, which means the prevention-vs.-chronic-homelessness cost gap is probably wider than the 39× ratio suggests.
42 Attachment 7

6. Summary Cost Comparison
The table below consolidates cost and outcome data for each intervention type in a Santa Clara County context.

Intervention Cost SCC Context Outcome
HPS Prevention $2,138/person (all-in) County $17.1M + City of SJ $8M in 2023
94% remain housed; $2.47
return per $1
Emergency Financial
Assistance
~$6,119/household avg.
grant
17,000+ people served
since 2017
81% less likely to be homeless
at 6 months
Encampment Clearing
(San José)
~$1,672/person cleared $4.8M state grant (2024);
115 camps cleared
Temporary — 70–80% decline
shelter offer
Emergency Shelter ~$8,000–$13,000/perso
n/year
3,697 beds countywide
(2025)
Short-term; high churn
Permanent Supportive
Housing
$12,800–$20,000/perso
n/yr operating;
$400K–$750K+/unit
construction
86% housed via Project
Welcome Home
Ends homelessness; saves
downstream costs
Chronic Homelessness
(no action)
$83,000/person/year in
public costs
~2,800 chronically
homeless in SCC
Costs compound via ER, jail,
crisis services
Note: The "$83,000/year" cost of chronic homelessness reflects public spending on emergency services, healthcare, and incarceration — it is not a program cost but the cost of inaction.

Here's the source for each row:

HPS Prevention — $2,138/person; 94% remain housed; $2.47 return per $1 Results for America Economic Mobility Catalog, HPS Program Profile (updated October 2025). This page explicitly states the $2,138 all-in cost, the $2.47 ROI, and cites the 2023 Notre Dame RCT for outcomes. The $17.1M / $8M funding figures came from the All Home CA profile and Destination: Home reporting.

Emergency Financial Assistance — ~$6,119/household; 17,000+ served; 81% less likely homeless at 6 months Same Results for America page and the preventhomelessness.org program site. The $6,119 average grant figure and the 81% outcome at 6 months both come directly from that catalog entry, which cites the Notre Dame RCT.

Encampment Clearing — ~$1,672/person; $4.8M grant; 115 camps cleared The $1,672 per-person cost comes from the HUD USER national encampment cost study. The $4.8M state grant figure is from KRON4. The 115 encampments cleared came from San José's city encampment management page.

The 20–30% shelter acceptance rate (hence 70–80% declining) was cited in San José city documents and confirmed in the earlier general research.

Emergency Shelter — ~$8,000–$13,000/person/year; 3,697 beds The cost range is a national figure from HUD's Emergency Shelter Grants data and National Alliance to End 43 Attachment 7

Homelessness research cited in earlier searches. The 3,697 bed count came from the Santa Clara County budget/homelessness spending search, which stated the county added 235 beds since 2023 to reach that total.

Permanent Supportive Housing — $12,800–$20,000/yr operating; $400K–$750K+ construction; 86% housed via Project Welcome Home
Operating cost range from the NCBI review of PSH cost-effectiveness and National Alliance research. Bay Area construction costs ($400K–$750K+) from the California housing cost searches. The 86% housing retention figure comes from Third Sector Capital Partners' Project Welcome Home page and San José Spotlight.

Chronic Homelessness — $83,000/person/year; ~2,800 chronically homeless Both figures come from the same source: an Economic Roundtable study commissioned in Santa Clara County, reported by CBS SF / Destination: Home and Governing magazine. Note this study is from 2015, so the $83,000 figure is likely conservative given inflation and rising healthcare costs since then.

One caveat worth flagging: the $8,000–$13,000 emergency shelter cost range and the operating costs for permanent supportive housing are national figures, not Santa Clara County-specific numbers. County costs are almost certainly higher given Bay Area wage and real estate costs.

7. Key Takeaways
● Prevention is the highest-leverage investment. At ~$2,138 per person all-in, HPS prevention costs roughly 39× less per year than the public cost of chronic homelessness ($83,000), with a 94% one-year housing retention rate.
● Encampment clearing is the least cost-effective strategy. It displaces rather than solves homelessness, with 70–80% of people declining shelter, and produces no reduction in overall counts. ● Emergency shelter is a necessary but expensive safety net — costing $8,000–$13,000/person/year with no permanent resolution.
● Permanent supportive housing has high upfront costs but generates long-term savings by dramatically reducing chronic use of emergency rooms, jails, and crisis services. ● For every person prevented from becoming chronically homeless, the public system avoids approximately $83,000 in annual costs — making every dollar spent on prevention worth roughly $39 in avoided downstream spending.
44 Attachment 7

Appendix B - Sunnyvale Community Services
Homelessness Prevention System (HPS)
Sunnyvale Community Services participates in Santa Clara County's Homelessness Prevention System (HPS), an evidence-based approach designed to prevent homelessness before it occurs. The program provides targeted financial assistance and supportive services to households facing an immediate risk of losing their housing. The model focuses on identifying households most likely to experience homelessness and intervening early with flexible resources and individualized support.

Services may include:
● Rental assistance to prevent eviction or housing loss ● Utility assistance and other housing-related financial support ● Housing stabilization case management
● Budgeting and financial planning
● Referrals to employment, public benefits, legal services, and community resources ● Landlord mediation and housing retention support
● Problem-solving and crisis intervention services
Priority Populations May Include:
● Extremely low-income households
● Families with children
● Older adults
● Individuals with disabilities or chronic health conditions ● Survivors of domestic violence
● Households experiencing a temporary financial crisis
● Individuals and families facing barriers related to immigration status or limited access to public benefits
● Households with significant risk factors associated with homelessness Program Approach
The Homelessness Prevention Program recognizes that many households facing eviction or displacement are experiencing a temporary crisis rather than a long-term inability to maintain housing. By providing timely financial assistance and supportive services, the program helps families remain stably housed, avoid the trauma of homelessness, and maintain connections to employment, schools, healthcare, and community support systems 45 Attachment 7

Homelessness Prevention System - Emergency Response (HPS-ER):

Support for Households with Unsatisfactory Immigration Status Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) provides housing stabilization services to households facing an immediate risk of homelessness, including individuals and families who may have barriers related to immigration status and limited access to mainstream public benefits.

Many households with unsatisfactory or unresolved immigration status experience unique challenges, including restricted eligibility for income support, limited access to public assistance programs, employment barriers, and increased vulnerability to housing instability. HPS-ER focuses on addressing the immediate housing crisis while connecting households to available community resources and legal support.

Services may include:
● Emergency rental assistance to prevent eviction or housing loss ● Housing stabilization and crisis intervention
● Case management and individualized service planning
● Referrals to immigration legal services and advocacy organizations ● Connections to employment, workforce development, and community resources ● Financial coaching and budgeting support
● Navigation of available benefits and assistance programs for which the household may qualify
● Landlord communication and housing retention support
Emergency Financial Assistance Program (EFA)
Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) provides one-time, short-term financial assistance to help individuals and families overcome unexpected financial hardships and maintain stability.

The program is designed to address immediate crises that could otherwise lead to housing instability, utility shutoffs, or other significant disruptions.

Assistance may include:
● Rent and past-due rent payments
● Security or rental deposits
● Utility assistance
● Medically related expenses
● Transportation assistance and other critical household needs ● Other essential expenses on a case-by-case basis
Program Approach
SCS caseworkers work collaboratively with households to assess their circumstances, identify immediate needs, develop a realistic stabilization plan, and connect participants to additional community resources and benefits that can support long-term financial well-being. Assistance is 46 Attachment 7

paired with resource navigation whenever appropriate to help address the underlying causes of the financial crisis.

Medical Case Management with Financial Assistance
Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) provides Medical Case Management with Financial Assistance to support individuals and families whose health-related challenges create barriers to stability, independence, and overall well-being. Medical emergencies, chronic health conditions, disabilities, and recovery from illness or injury can often result in increased expenses, lost income, transportation challenges, and difficulty meeting basic needs.

Through individualized case management and targeted financial assistance, SCS helps participants address immediate challenges while building a pathway toward long-term stability and improved health outcomes.

Services may include:
● Assessment of medical, social, and financial needs
● Care coordination and resource navigation
● Assistance accessing healthcare services and community resources ● Referrals to benefits programs, including Medi-Cal, Medicare, SSI, SSDI, and IHSS ● Transportation assistance for medical appointments and essential services ● Financial assistance for critical needs that support health, safety, and stability ● Support accessing food, housing, and other basic necessities ● Advocacy and coordination with healthcare providers and community partners Program Approach
SCS caseworkers work collaboratively with participants to assess their circumstances, identify immediate needs, and develop a personalized stabilization plan. Financial assistance may be provided to address urgent barriers that could negatively impact a participant's health, recovery, or ability to remain stable. Assistance is paired with ongoing case management, resource navigation, and connection to community supports to help participants achieve lasting outcomes.

Benefits & Referrals Program
Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) provides Benefits & Referrals services to help individuals and families access public benefits, community resources, and supportive services that promote financial stability, health, and overall well-being. Many households are unaware of available resources or face barriers navigating complex eligibility and application processes. SCS helps bridge these gaps by providing personalized guidance and support.

Through resource navigation and benefits enrollment assistance, participants are connected to programs that can help meet basic needs, increase household income, reduce financial stress, and improve long-term stability.
47 Attachment 7

Services may include:
● Screening for available public benefits and community resources ● Assistance applying for programs such as CalFresh, Medi-Cal, Medicare Savings Programs, and utility assistance
● Referrals to housing, employment, legal, healthcare, and behavioral health services ● Information and referrals for food assistance and emergency resources ● Support accessing senior and disability-related services ● Connection to community-based organizations and specialized support programs ● Follow-up assistance to help participants navigate application and enrollment processes Program Approach
SCS staff work one-on-one with participants to assess their needs, identify available resources, and provide guidance throughout the referral and benefits enrollment process. The program emphasizes reducing barriers to access and ensuring participants are connected to the services most relevant to their circumstances.

Financial Literacy Program
Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) provides Financial Literacy services to help individuals and families build the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to make informed financial decisions, increase financial stability, and achieve long-term self-sufficiency. The program focuses on strengthening participants' ability to manage household finances, navigate financial challenges, and plan for future goals.

Through individualized coaching, education, and practical tools, participants learn strategies to improve financial wellness and reduce the risk of future financial crises.

Services may include:
● Budget development and money management education
● Financial goal setting and action planning
● Strategies for reducing debt and improving financial health ● Banking and financial services education
● Credit building and credit report review
● Savings and emergency fund planning
● Understanding income, expenses, and household cash flow ● Consumer education and financial resource referrals
Program Approach
SCS staff work collaboratively with participants to assess their financial circumstances, identify opportunities for growth, and develop realistic strategies to strengthen financial stability.

Education is tailored to each household's needs and may be integrated with other SCS programs, including housing stabilization, emergency financial assistance, workforce development, and case management services.
48 Attachment 7

The program emphasizes practical, achievable steps that empower participants to make informed decisions and build lasting financial habits.
49 Attachment 7

Appendix C - Helping Hands Silicon Valley
HHSV’s Role in the Homelessness Prevention & Response System Helping Hands Silicon Valley (HHSV) is a Sunnyvale-based nonprofit supporting unhoused and low-income individuals and families experiencing housing instability, financial hardship, and other barriers to stability.

HHSV's work is individualized and relationship-based. Clients rarely come to us with just one need. Someone seeking help with rent may also have lost their benefits, lack required identification, have no transportation, or be dealing with a health or employment issue. HHSV helps identify what needs to happen next, addresses needs directly when we can, and connects clients with organizations that have the appropriate programs and resources when we cannot.

HHSV works alongside larger service organizations, government agencies, healthcare providers, housing programs, and other community partners.

Our role is often in the space between established programs and services:
● Identify what is preventing someone from moving forward ● Address immediate needs that may not fit within an established program ● Help clients navigate services and complete the steps necessary to receive assistance ● Connect clients with organizations that have specialized expertise or greater resources ● Follow up when a referral does not result in assistance or another barrier emerges ● Maintain an ongoing point of contact as clients' circumstances and needs change A referral alone does not always result in someone receiving help. Applications may be difficult to complete, documents may be missing, eligibility may be unclear, or the first resource may not work out. HHSV helps clients work through these barriers and continues problem-solving when additional assistance is needed.

For someone living with very limited resources, a relatively small problem, a missing ID, a broken car needed for work, a stalled benefits application, transportation to an appointment, or a few nights indoors following a medical procedure - can have significant consequences.

HHSV's flexible, hands-on approach helps address these practical barriers while connecting clients to the broader network of services available in the community. 50 Attachment 7

Services & Assistance
Housing Stability & Emergency Financial Assistance
HHSV provides flexible assistance to help prevent homelessness, resolve an immediate crisis, or remove a barrier to stability. Assistance is based on individual circumstances and available resources and may include:
● Rent assistance and eviction prevention
● Security deposits and move-in expenses
● Utility and essential phone payments
● Housing applications and documentation
● Communication with landlords and housing providers
● Connections to housing programs and partner organizations ● Vehicle Maintenance for those whose home is their vehicle ● Other urgent expenses that can help prevent a household from falling further into crisis Benefits, Documentation & Resource Navigation
HHSV provides hands-on assistance to help clients access public benefits and community resources, including:
● CalFresh, Medi-Cal and General Assistance, Social Security, SSI and SSDI ● Identification, birth certificates and Social Security cards ● Housing and shelter resources
● Healthcare and vision care
● Employment and legal resources
● Other community programs based on individual needs
Assistance may include identifying the appropriate resource, helping gather documentation and complete applications, communicating with agencies, and following up when clients encounter barriers.

Transportation Assistance
Transportation support is provided when lack of reliable transportation interferes with employment, healthcare, housing, or other essential needs. Assistance may include:
● Public transit passes
● Transportation for medical appointments and other essential services ● Transportation related to employment and housing
● Bicycles through community partners
● Limited vehicle repair assistance when a vehicle is important to maintaining employment or stability
51 Attachment 7

Short-Term Respite Motel Assistance
HHSV provides limited short-term motel stays when an unhoused individual or family has an immediate health, safety, or crisis need. Priority circumstances may include:
● Older or medically vulnerable individuals and DV survivors ● Recovery following illness, medical treatment, or hospitalization ● Families with children experiencing an immediate housing crisis ● Severe weather or other urgent safety concerns
● Short-term respite while another shelter, housing, or support option is being pursued Motel stays are intended as a short-term stabilization measure rather than a substitute for shelter or permanent housing.

Food, Hygiene & Essential Needs
HHSV maintains a consistent weekly presence in Sunnyvale and provides:
● Prepared meals and snacks
● Hygiene supplies
● Clothing and shoes
● Tents, sleeping bags and other outdoor necessities when available ● Other essential personal items based on client needs
Weekly service is an important point of connection with the unhoused community. Consistent contact allows relationships and trust to develop over time. Clients who initially come for food or basic necessities often return for assistance with benefits, documentation, transportation, healthcare, housing, or another concern.
52 Attachment 7

From: Agnes Veith
To: HousingHumanServices AP
Subject: Agnes Veith - Comments on the Newly Released Draft Sunnyvale Homeless Response Plan 2026-2031 Date: Monday, September 21, 2026 6:45:09 PM
Attachments: Comments to the Sunnyvale Homeless Response Plan 2026-2031.pdf WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Hello Commissioners,
I apologize for not sending this to you sooner. I will be speaking during your 23 September meeting and want you to see my overall comments on the draft Homeless Response Plan 2026-2031 before you meet. Hopefully you will have time to review it.

Again, my apologies for getting this to you so soon before your meeting.

Regards,
Agnes Veith
Attachment 7

Sunnyvale Homeless Response Plan 2026-2031
Released September 15, 2026

General Comments

● For complete transparency, it is important to cite the baseline number along with each percentage noted in the report.
● Actual dollar amounts allocated/spent should be shared. ● Dates grants have been awarded for should be noted to better inform the reader when this funding will/may end.
● How often will Staff present to Council and the public progress made to goals noted?

Specific Questions

Goal 1: Reduce unsheltered homelessness by at least 25% by 2031. “Measured by the City’s 2031 PIT Count.”
Does this mean we will not begin to monitor the 25% reduction until we know the 2031 PIT Count? How will the City report out on progress toward this goal and how often will progress toward this goal be shared?

and programs.

Can you share specifics behind the "quantitative analysis” completed for City and County programs? Specifically, during the planning process, what metric was used to demonstrate if existing services and programs met their intended goal(s), how were percentages assigned to ? How many individuals or families were impacted by City supported services and programs over what period of time…?

Guiding Principles

2. Advance Housing as the Primary Solution
Housing is the foundation of long-term stability. The City will expand supportive housing, interim housing, rental assistance, and other housing pathways and supportive services that help individuals and families exit homelessness and achieve lasting housing outcomes.

Expand how and by how many? How will the success of these programs be measured and how often?

Attachment 7

Pages 8-9

Non-City Controlled Resources Addressing Local Homelessness

The County invested 22.6M to assist 766 Sunnyvale-affiliated households.

Should the county cut their funding for these households, will the City fund programs cut and what criteria will the City use should they decide to continue to fund programs the County has funded?

Focus Area 1: Homeless Prevention

Strategy 1.1: Increase awareness and utilization of tenant protection and fair housing resources.

Activity 1: Create a new City webpage for tenant protections and fair housing policies.

Target: Launch a webpage by 2027
How will the City monitor compliance? What action will be taken on the part of the City if landlords are not following tenant protections and fair housing policies?

Activity 2: Conduct robust community outreach to increase awareness of local tenant protection policies and resources.

What does the City consider,”robust” outreach? How will the City conduct their annual outreach, will they report out on their annual efforts and how will they measure the success of these efforts?

Strategy 1.2: Preserve existing housing stock to prevent displacement and reduce inflow into homelessness.

Activity 1: Support critical home repairs for low-income homeowners through local home repair programs.

Target: Assist a minimum of 50 households annually through City-funded home repair programs.

How many households is the city currently funding and what is the average funding awarded per household? What is the data that shows this existing program has been successful in keeping residents housed?

Funding Sources
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): HUD Funding $$$(1-10M) Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA): California Dept of Housing and Community Development Funding $ ($0-499,999)
How long have these sources been allocated for, what is the exact dollar amount and how will the City determine which program(s) to continue to fund should the funding not be renewed Attachment 7

Focus Area 2: Housing Shelter, Vehicle-Based Solutions, and Supportive Services

Strategy 2.2: Strengthen housing stability and emergency shelter options

Activity 1: Maximize utilization and impact of the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance(TBRA) program.

Target: Increase TBRA utilization to serve up to 40 households annually, with at least 85% of participants exiting to permanent housing.

How many households are participating today and how often will you monitor the number of households participating and the percent exiting to permanent housing? Also, how frequently will the City report out on this data?

Activity 2: Implement an ongoing Inclement Weather Hotel Program.

Target: operate program annually, dependent on inclement weather events with a 95% or greater occupancy rate.

How many rooms will this be, what is the baseline used to assess a 95% or greater occupancy and how many rooms has this program supported?

Strategy 2.3: Increase access to safe, service-connected vehicle-based shelter options for people experiencing vehicular homelessness.

Activity 1: Pursue the development of a low-barrier interim shelter program for unsheltered and vehicularly housed individuals and couples.

Target: Develop and operate a low-barrier interim shelter program with capacity to serve at least 50 individuals annually, prioritizing people experiencing unsheltered and vehicular homelessness, with at least 25% of participants exiting to permanent housing or other stable housing destinations.

In Table D-2, Summary of Stakeholder Primary Priorities (Appendix D) none of the responses under the column titled, People with Lived Experience asked for more access to low-barrier interim shelters. This tracks with my reading and discussions with the unhoused about their disinterest in staying in a shelter. What was the basis for this suggestion?

Activity 2: Implement and operate a safe parking program that provides designated overnight parking and connections to supportive services.

Target: Establish and operate a safe parking program that provides at least 10 designated overnight parking spaces annually and connects 100% of participating households to housing navigation and supportive services with the goal of increasing exits to permanent housing.

Attachment 7

Implementation Timeline
2026-27: conduct community outreach, site planning/pre-Development, RFP for operator.

If I remember correctly, Staff has presented to council that this work began in 2025. 2027-2029: Site improvements/site development; program launch.

Why will it take another two years for this program to launch? 2029-2031: Ongoing implementation
Livable Sunnyvale(LS) began talking with the City about safe parking in 2022. LS sent a letter to City Council, the City Manager and Connie Verceles citing Jenny Carloni had told LS that Sunnyvale recently received a grant to begin studying this issue with the target for starting the pilot in 2025. According to the 2025 PIT count, 75% of our unhoused residents live in a vehicle yet there will be no relief for them for another 3 years?

Activity 4: Establish an RV permit parking program on a designated City street to provide safe parking and services for households experiencing vehicular homelessness.

Target: By 2027, establish at least 30 designated oversized vehicle parking spaces and maintain an average utilization rate of 80% or higher, with participating households offering connections to housing navigation and supportive services.

How does Activity 2 and 4 differ? If a permit is going to be issued as noted in Activity 4, when will the permit expire and how long must the vehicle dweller wait to request another permit to return to the street they were last parked on? If offering connections to housing navigation and supportive services do not work out for the vehicle dweller, can they ask for another permit?

Strategy 2.4: Increase access to supportive services

Activity 2: Expand and sustain street outreach and mobile hygiene services to connect people experiencing unsheltered homelessness with basic needs, housing assistance, and supportive services.

Target: At least 15% of program participants will exit to shelter, interim housing, transitional housing, or permanent housing.

What is the baseline number? How will we know when/if we reach 15% and how and how often will the City report out on this target?

Focus Area 3: Coordinated Homelessness Response and Community Engagement

Strategy 3.2: Strengthen community awareness, engagement, and involvement regarding homelessness, housing challenges, and the City’s homeless response efforts.

When and how often will Staff present an update to Counsel?

Attachment 7

Appendix B

Table B - 1. Existing Funding Sources & Uses

The chart identifies; funding name, source, purpose, current use and annual expenditures.

This chart does not provide actual dollars in the annual expenditures column. There is a key below the chart associating the number of dollar signs with a corresponding monetary range. If a dollar sign can be shown representing a range of dollars, the actual dollar amount must be known and should be shown. Citing this will give the community a better understanding of the amount of money the City, State and Federal government is spending and for what programs.

Lastly, it will be helpful to include a column citing the dates the state and federal funding has been allocated for.

Appendix C

Table C - 2: City of Sunnyvale Mitigation Expenses
It is curious the City included actual mitigation expenses but not the actual annual expenditures in Appendix B, Table B-1 as cited above. The skeptic in me responds to this with, the City wants to show the public that in response to complaints about encampments and the unhoused, what the City is spending on their concerns but will not afford the same information to the public who wants to know how much money the City, State and Federal governments contribute to this counsel priority. Why hasn't the City shown transparency with these dollar amounts as it has with the mitigation expenditures?
Appendix E

Appendix E provides additional information on the City’s current affordable housing development pipeline, including anticipated affordable and permanent supportive housing units and City investments.

Developments listed in this chart have been discussed for many years. Is this because our permitting process needs to be further streamlined or are there other issues causing what appears to be a very lengthy process from initial discussion to expected completion? Attachment 7

From:

To: HousingHumanServices AP
Subject: City of Sunnyvale Homelessness Response Plan
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 3:02:49 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Chair and Members of the Housing and Human Services Commission:

I am writing in my role as Executive Director of the Moffett Park Business Group (MPBG) to provide comments on the City of Sunnyvale’s proposed Homelessness Response Plan and to highlight issues of particular interest to the Moffett Park business community.

Homelessness is a complex regional issue that requires coordination among the City, County, service providers, businesses, residents, and other community partners. The Plan lays out important goals to reduce unsheltered homelessness, create more pathways to stable housing, and maintain safe, clean, and accessible public spaces. While these overall goals are important, recognition of them should not be interpreted as an endorsement of every proposed program.

As the City moves from planning to implementation, the proposed Safe Parking and RV Parking Permit programs are of particular concern to Moffett Park. If these programs move forward, potential sites should be evaluated individually, with consideration given to surrounding land uses, business operations, public safety, sanitation, transportation, program management, and impacts on neighboring properties. The Moffett Park Specific Plan seeks to manage and reduce parking supply while creating safe, accessible streets and a more multimodal district. Any proposed Safe Parking or RV Parking Permit location in Moffett Park should therefore be evaluated for how it aligns with the area’s transportation, development, public-space, and long-term land-use plans. MPBG and affected Moffett Park stakeholders should be included early in discussions regarding any potential sites within or affecting the area.

Strong accountability and measurable outcomes will also be important as the Plan is implemented. I encourage the City to provide annual public reporting that clearly demonstrates progress toward the Plan’s goals and includes information on program utilization, transitions to stable housing, homelessness-related calls for service, recurring encampments, program costs, and other meaningful performance measures. Regular reporting will help the community understand what is working and where adjustments may be necessary.

I appreciate the City’s efforts to develop a coordinated response to homelessness and look forward to continuing to participate in the discussion as programs are considered and implementation moves forward, particularly when proposed programs or locations may directly affect Moffett Park.

Sincerely,
Kerry Haywood
Executive Director
Moffett Park Business Group

Attachment 7

From: Mike Serrone
To: HousingHumanServices AP
Subject: Sunnyvale Homelessness Response Plan
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 3:40:23 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

TO: Housing and Human Services Commission
FROM: Mike Serrone (speaking on my own behalf)
City Staff has done an excellent job putting this Plan together. All of the tools available to address homelessness are identified and quantified.

After reviewing the Plan I have the following comments:

1. The target for implementing most of the new programs is 2031. While this may be realistic in terms of the stated goals, we cannot simply ignore our current homeless population for a few years, while we get tiny homes and other solutions into place. At the very least, our unhoused residents, living in dire circumstances, should not be constantly harassed and told to go elsewhere. Everyone deserves a safe place to live, even if they cannot afford rent.

2. There are a number of places in the document that identify funding levels, such as Table 3 and the Plan Activities Costing Chart. It would helpful if those funding levels could have a column showing the number of individuals or households intended to be served by the expenditures. This may be a range if exact numbers are not available. It is hard to look at the dollar values and relate that to individuals getting help.

3. Safe Parking. Our neighbor, Mountain View has been successfully operating Safe Parking sites for many years. They are currently expanding the number of vehicles at their Shoreline sites. The relatively large number of cars results in a low cost per vehicle at the site. At the Spring Safe Parking presentation to Council, Councilmember Chang suggested that we reach out to the Mountain View facility to see if they can support Sunnyvale vehicle dwellers. Her suggestion was dismissed by Staff. But I have talked to the folks running the Mountain View sites and they are more than happy to discuss this with Sunnyvale.

4. Prevention. The focus on prevention is excellent. Prevention is by far the lowest cost and most effective approach.

Respectfully,
Mike Serrone
Attachment 7

From: Himanshu Sethi
To: HousingHumanServices AP; Linda Sell; Richard Mehlinger; Murali Srinivasan; Eileen Le; Charlsie Chang; Larry Klein; Alysa Cisneros
Cc: Alka Sethi; Rose Gregorio; Alpana Agarwal; Pratima Gupta Subject: Homelessness Response Plan
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2026 7:16:02 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Housing Chair, Commissioners, Mayor, and Councilmembers, As you review the City’s proposed Homelessness Response Plan, I hope you will ask staff to address several issues before making your recommendation:
1) What exactly are we approving? Several major programs are still conceptual. Please clarify what adoption of this Plan commits the City to now, what details will be developed later, and which major expenditures, contracts and program designs will return for public and Council review.
2) Where are the underlying cost assumptions? If safe parking is estimated at $6 million in capital costs plus $700,000 annually, the Plan should explain what those numbers assume: site, number of spaces, improvements, staffing, security, sanitation and services. 3) Consider a lower cost safe parking model. Not everyone living in a vehicle needs intensive wraparound services. Some are working and primarily need a safe, legal place to park. Existing City/community lots, restroom access, periodic Dignity on Wheels visits and services based on individual need could potentially help more people with the same resources. 4) Show where the money actually goes. The Plan estimates roughly $40 million over five years, but residents should be able to see spending by program and provider, what services are being purchased, and what outcomes those investments produce. 5) Show results from what we already fund. Before substantially expanding spending, where are the Sunnyvale specific results from existing programs and providers? How many unique people were served, how many reached permanent housing, how long did it take, how many remained housed, and what did successful outcomes cost? 6) Measure homelessness, not complaints. A 25% reduction in MySunnyvale requests and calls for service should not be a primary measure of success. Fewer complaints do not demonstrate that fewer people are experiencing homelessness. 7) Use MySunnyvale for transparency instead. The City highlighted at the State of the City its ability to provide residents real time visibility into City projects. Apply that same approach here with a public homelessness dashboard.
8) Track meaningful outcomes. The dashboard should include unique people served, entries into homelessness, shelter and permanent housing placements, time to housing, housing retention, returns to homelessness, and outcomes from outreach, safe parking and interim housing.
9) Use established County/HUD measures. Sunnyvale is part of a regional homelessness system. Wherever possible, use the same measures already used by the County and HUD, including entries into homelessness, length of time homeless, permanent housing exits and returns to homelessness, rather than creating City specific measures based primarily on complaints.
10) Do not lose employment from the strategy. People with lived experience specifically identified employment and income opportunities as a need, yet the Plan contains no meaningful employment strategy or measurable target.

Attachment 7

11) Give the Homelessness Advisory Committee a meaningful role. Include people with lived experience and community organizations working directly with unhoused residents, and have the committee regularly review the public dashboard, provider outcomes, emerging needs and proposed program changes rather than serving only as an advisory forum. 12) Require annual accountability to Council.

Bring the dashboard and program outcomes
back publicly at least annually, including spending versus budget, provider performance, housing outcomes and recommended changes when programs are not meeting their targets.

I strongly support investing in meaningful solutions for our unhoused neighbors. But increased spending alone is not progress. A five year strategy of this scale should clearly show what we are funding, the outcomes we expect, and whether those investments are actually reducing homelessness. As the City emphasizes transparency and greater visibility into its work, we should apply that same standard here.

Thank you,
Himanshu
Attachment 7

From: Erika Laguna
To: HousingHumanServices AP; Janelle Resuello
Cc: Marie Bernard; ; ; David Hernandez
Subject: Comments on Sunnyvale Homelessness Response Plan from SCS and Helping Hands of Silicon Valley Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2026 12:40:00 PM
Attachments: Response to Homelessness letter 9-2326.pdf WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Good afternoon members of the Housing and Human Services Commission, Sunnyvale Community Services and Helping Hands of Silicon Valley would like to jointly submit the attached comments in response to the Sunnyvale Homelessness Response Plan.

Thank you for your time and consideration, if you have any questions please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,
Erika Laguna | Director of Programs
Sunnyvale Community Services
1160 Kern Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94085
Direct  (408) 470-3021
Preventing homelessness and hunger in our local community since 1970 Follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram
Attachment 7

To: Housing & Human Services Commission, City of Sunnyvale From: Sunnyvale Community Services and Helping Hands Silicon Valley Re: Comments on Sunnyvale Homelessness Response Plan
Date: September 23 ,2026

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Sunnyvale’s Homelessness Response Plan. We appreciate the city’s focus on measurable goals, attention to lived experience, and commitment to balancing compassion, public health, and community safety.

We encourage the city to address the full continuum of homelessness, prevention and housing instability through stabilization, outreach, interim shelter, and permanent housing.

To achieve the City’s primary goal to reduce homelessness by 25%, we recommend that the City:
• Strengthen direct homelessness prevention assistance
• Strengthen funding for outreach and stabilization services • Formalize coordination with the County and nonprofit partners • Plan for sustaining prevention services amid funding reductions • Expand TBRA and the Temporary Motel Shelter Program
• Use multiple measures to evaluate progress across the continuum • Strengthen outcomes for outreach, safe parking, and RV programs • Form the lived-experience advisory committee early to help guide implementation

A significant gap in the plan is the absence of comprehensive and adequately resourced prevention and rapid rehousing strategies that include working with regional partners to reduce homelessness in Sunnyvale.

Tenant education and outreach are important, but information alone will not stabilize households in crisis. Prevention requires flexible assistance for rent, utilities, deposits, and other urgent needs, supported by landlord mediation, benefits navigation, legal services, and case management.

We recognize that many stabilization and homelessness-prevention programs are funded by the County, regional foundations and philanthropy, and are implemented locally through nonprofit partners. When the City is not the primary funder, it still has an important role in convening and supporting partners, identifying gaps, coordinating investments, and ensuring Sunnyvale residents can access assistance before losing their housing.

Last year, over $5M in outside funding was distributed through local partners for homelessness prevention in Sunnyvale. As reductions to healthcare, food assistance, housing, and other safety-net programs increase local need, the plan should also address how essential prevention services will be sustained when County or other outside funding is reduced or unavailable.

The City can also scale City-funded programs already producing results in addressing homelessness, including Tenant-Based Rental Assistance and the Temporary Motel Shelter Program, and connect them more intentionally with prevention, outreach, benefits, shelter, and permanent housing.

We would like to see more clarity in the City’s metrics. The Point-in-Time Count is useful but limited.

In collaboration with the County and local nonprofits, the city can also measure entries into homelessness; households prevented from becoming homeless, housing and shelter placements, housing retention, and returns to homelessness.

Attachment 7

Reducing homelessness-related calls and MySunnyvale reports by 25% is only one indicator of the level of homelessness in Sunnyvale. Fewer calls do not necessarily mean fewer people are experiencing homelessness. Reports may reflect residents trying to connect their unhoused neighbors with assistance. The city can measure response times, service connections, resolutions, and housing outcomes—not only call volume.

The proposed 15% exit target for street outreach can be evaluated against the resources invested. To reach the goal of 25%, the City can further define meaningful outreach, how engagement is measured, and how people are supported when they do not initially enter housing or shelter.

Safe parking and RV programs are a good approach that has been done regionally with successful outcomes. The number of proposed allocated safe RV parking permits and safe parking interventions do not reflect the level of need in the PIT count.

To achieve the 25% goal to reduce homelessness, the City can explore regional partnerships and utilize clear eligibility, prioritization, length-of-stay requirements, services, and outcomes. Measures should include utilization, unique households served, service connections, and exits to stable housing.

In summary, the plan represents meaningful forward momentum. Stronger prevention, partnership, and accountability will help ensure that City investments reduce homelessness rather than primarily manage its consequences.

Respectfully,

David Hernandez, Chief Programs Officer Alpana Agarwal, CEO Erika Laguna, Director of Programs Pratima Gupta, Treasurer Marie Bernard, Executive Director
Sunnyvale Community Services Helping Hands Silicon Valley

Attachment 7

From: Chuck Fraleigh
To: HousingHumanServices AP
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Homelessness Response Plan
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2026 12:48:42 PM
Attachments: letter-hhs.pdf
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Dear Housing and Human Services Commission Members,
Please see the attached letter with comments from the Livable Sunnyvale Board on the Homelessness Response Plan on tonight's agenda.

Chuck Fraleigh
Secretary, Livable Sunnyvale
Attachment 7

P.O. Box 2647 • Sunnyvale, CA 9407 • [email protected] • https://livablesunnyvale.org

September 23, 2026

Dear Chair Riviere and Members of the Housing and Human Services Commission, We are writing in support of the proposed Homelessness Response Plan. It is a major step forward for Sunnyvale. The Plan sets a clear, measurable goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness by 25% by 2031 and backs it with concrete commitments including a 50-person low-barrier interim shelter, safe parking for 40 vehicles, and expanded street outreach and mobile hygiene services. We are also pleased that the new Homelessness Advisory Committee will keep the community involved as the Plan is carried out. Staff clearly put substantial work into this Plan, and we are grateful for it.

We would appreciate clarification on two points:
• Interim shelter and the current temporary hotel program. Is the 50-person interim shelter intended to replace the City's current temporary hotel program? That would be perfectly reasonable, but we would like to confirm if the current program will continue until the new shelter is operational.
• TBRA funding. Table 3 shows the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program funded at $1.35 million per year for all five years of the Plan. However, the FY 2026-27 Budget projects HOME project funding dropping below $500,000 starting in FY 2028-29 (Budget Vol. 1, p. 399). The Plan suggests that Housing Mitigation Fund and former Redevelopment Agency Fund dollars may be used alongside HOME funds. We greatly appreciate staff's efforts to find supplemental funding. We simply want to confirm that the Plan intends to keep TBRA funded at $1.35 million per year for the full five-year period.

Although the Plan contains many strong elements, we believe a few areas could be improved.

We respectfully ask the Commission to consider recommending the following changes:

Homelessness Prevention
While tenant protection programs and home repair assistance are important, the major reason people fall into homelessness is they simply can’t afford rent. The Plan appears to rely primarily on County programs to provide direct financial aid for homelessness prevention.

Santa Clara County's Homelessness Prevention System has been very successful. Last year it helped over 300 Sunnyvale households stay housed. However, County funding for the program did not receive its usual annual increase this year, and the County faces significant budget challenges. If County funding falls, the number of Sunnyvale residents falling into homelessness will rise, and every other strategy in the Plan will be working against a growing tide.

Attachment 7

P.O. Box 2647 • Sunnyvale, CA 9407 • [email protected] • https://livablesunnyvale.org Prevention is the most cost-effective tool available. County prevention costs about $15,500 per household. By comparison, the Plan's own figures put interim shelter at about $32,000 per person per year to operate ($1.6 million a year for 50 people), plus $12 million in capital costs.

We ask that the Plan add a prevention strategy that sets a target number of Sunnyvale households to be helped each year, at least equal to the number the County supported last year, 365. The County program may be able to meet this target on its own, but the City should be prepared to supplement it if County funding is cut.

Outreach Metrics
The only target for Strategy 2.4, Activity 2 ("Expand and sustain street outreach and mobile hygiene services") is that "at least 15% of program participants will exit to shelter, interim housing, transitional housing, or permanent housing." Without knowing how many people participate, the public cannot tell how many people this program is expected to help. The target also doesn't say whether the 15% is measured each year or over the full five-year Plan. We recommend replacing it with more specific goals:
• The total number of unhoused residents receiving active case management (at least weekly contact) each year, and how that number is expected to grow over time • The percentage of those residents who exit to shelter, interim housing, or permanent housing
• A clear commitment that both are measured and reported publicly every year.

More Ambitious Safe Parking Goals
We appreciate the City's commitment to develop and operate a safe parking site, but we encourage expanding the goal beyond 10 spaces. Ten spaces may be a sensible number for launching the program quickly, but we would like the Plan to include goals for adding spaces or sites over time as need warrants.

Thank you for your work on this Plan and for considering these recommendations. With a stronger prevention strategy and clearer performance measures, Sunnyvale can reduce homelessness in a real and lasting way.

Sincerely,

The Board of Livable Sunnyvale

Attachment 7