HOMELESSNESS ISSUES
STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, October 1, 2026
12:30 P.M. – 2:00 P.M.
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, California
Conference Room 1 (Hybrid in-person/virtual meeting)
Mayor Paula Perotte
Councilmember Stuart Kasdin
Robert Nisbet, City Manager
Jaime A. Valdez, Assistant City Manager
JoAnne Plummer, Neighborhood Services Director
Chuck Flacks, Homelessness Services Coordinator
Melissa Cure, Management Assistant
Public Participation
If you wish to make a general public comment or to comment on a specific agenda item, the following methods are available:
Distribution to the Homelessness Issues Standing Committee - Submit your comment via email prior to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, prior to the Homelessness Issues Standing Committee meeting. Please submit your comment to Melissa Cure at:
[email protected]. Your comment will be placed into the record and distributed appropriately.
ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION: Join Meeting Electronically at:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_4GvBqIe8Q1ajyxIzgkFkmg
Webinar ID 832 0524 9608
Passcode 544826
Or dial: For higher quality, dial a number based on your current location.
Mobile Options: US: +1 408 638 0968 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 646 876 9923 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 Mobile Webinar ID: 815 2354 8474
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
You will be connected to audio using your computer's microphone and speakers (VoIP). A headset is recommended.
AGENDA
I. Public Comment
II. Updated Data Report (August 2026) – Will include September III. Presentation on County 2026 Vehicular Homelessness A Qualitative Study
IV. Presentation on California Encampment Relief Fund (CERF) Round 3 and Safe Parking Performance
V. Discussion of Inhabiting Vehicle Ordinance Progress
Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if special assistance is needed to participate in a City Council meeting (including assisted listening devices), please contact the City Clerk's office at (805) 961-7505. Notification at least 72 hours prior to the meeting helps to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 1, 2026
TO: Homelessness Issues Standing Committee
FROM: JoAnne Plummer, Neighborhood Services Director
Chuck Flacks, Homelessness Services Coordinator
SUBJECT: October 1, 2026 Homelessness Issues Standing Committee Meeting ITEM I. Public Comment (5 Minutes)
ITEM II. Data Report (15 Minutes)
Background
Each month, staff compile homelessness data from multiple sources, including:
• The Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
• The By-Name List
• Field observations added to HMIS outreach reports
The combined data report for the previous month is typically available by the third week of the following month. The August 2026 Data Report is included as Attachment 1.
Discussion
Staff will present and discuss the current data report at the Homelessness Issues Standing Committee (HISC) meeting. Key findings include:
• Overall Trends: While the number of individuals obtaining permanent supportive housing remains modest, observed homelessness shows a decline in Goleta from a high of 122 people in October 2025 to a low of 74 people in July of 2026 a 39% decline over the last 12 months. Community outreach remains robust, with outreach workers providing up to 90 days of attempts with an individual before removing them from the active homeless count. Engagement continues to be a challenge, with some individuals
initially engaging with outreach workers before losing contact and moving on for a variety of reasons.
• Vehicle Dwellers: The number of people living in vehicles continues to rise. In the last 12 months, 111 inhabited vehicles were observed. Of these only 36 (in August) have identified themselves as homeless. The outreach and enforcement efforts conducted by the City have resulted in a more even distribution of vehicles throughout the area. Fiftyfour percent (54%) are found on private lots, with pockets of vehicles in The Plaza at Hollister and Pacific Oaks, and a portion of Ekwill behind Cottage Hospital. • Flow Dynamics: Overall, the results are mixed. Statistics from the most recent quarter (June 1 – August 31) show some improvement in the ratio of people housed to those becoming newly homeless. Eleven people were housed and 18 people were newly homeless = 1.6 people becoming homeless to housed. The annual ratio shows a sadder picture: for each (1) person housed, approximately two (3.4) new individuals entered homelessness. In general, the inflow of people experiencing homelessness is much faster than they can obtain housing. Recent months have seen more housing available (Patterson Point, vacancies at Buena Tierra) and fewer people enrolling into HMIS. • Age Demographics: Seniors (55+) are overrepresented among Goleta’s homeless population. For the overall Goleta population, 28.4% are aged 55 or older (2023 American Community Survey). However, for people experiencing homelessness, the July data show that 46% of people are aged 55 older. The average homeless person in Goleta is more likely to be a senior than would be expected. • Chronic Homelessness: Goleta continues to have a disproportionate number of people experiencing chronic homelessness. According to the 2024 Point-in-Time Count (PIT), 29% of the county-wide homeless population was identified as chronically homeless.
However, in Goleta, 59% of people experiencing homelessness meet the definition of chronic. Chronic homelessness is often associated with higher rates of substance use, mental health conditions, and mistrust of service systems. Among people experiencing chronic homelessness, 48% are over age 55.
• Veteran Homelessness Ended for Now: Goleta never had very many Veterans experiencing homelessness in recent years. The high in 2024 was four people. Currently there are no people experiencing homelessness in Goleta who are identified as Veterans. The total countywide homeless Veteran population has dropped 60% (210 in 2020 to 90 in 2024).
ITEM III. Presentation on Santa Barbara County 2026 Vehicular Homelessness a Qualitative Study
Jett Black-Maertz, Homelessness Systems Program Manager, County of Santa Barbara will provide a presentation Below is a summary of the report:
Methodology. In the Spring of 2026, the County of Santa Barbara commissioned a survey of “unsheltered households residing in vehicles” (vehicle dwellers) who have not participated in homelessness services nor Point in Time Count surveys. A research team from the University of California, Santa Barbara and Simtech Solutions developed a qualitative survey tool and operational approach to finding and contacting vehicle dwellers. The interviews were conducted by experienced and trained outreach specialists who could rapidly establish rapport.
Participants could also log in to a website and complete surveys. Flyers were posted at libraries, low-cost fitness centers and laundromats to enable participation. Across Santa Barbara County, 90 people participated in the survey.
Not Generalizable Data. Because this is not a representative study, percentages of participants cannot be generalized to the whole population of vehicle dwellers in Santa Barbara County. Because not enough surveys were collected in Goleta to generalize about any Goletaspecific factors, percentages reported are not a clear indicator of the whole population of vehicle dwellers.
However, because this population was not connected to homelessness services, the experiences of those reporting can be used as a starting point for developing policies and programs to address their needs and impact on the communities where they reside.
Key Findings. The study compiled the following observations based on 90 responses. • Economic disruption was primary catalyst for moving into vehicles. People reported experiencing rent increases, inability to find rents they could pay, job loss, or reduction as incomes as the reason they lost housing. Most stated that living in vehicles is a pragmatic choice.
• Vast majority of people in vehicle code compliance. Eighty-seven (87) people reported driving vehicles in good repair. Sixty-seven (67) people had active vehicle insurance and sixty-nine (69) had current insurance.
• People are divided on whether they want permanent housing. Thirty-one (31) people expressed a strong preference for housing. However, eighteen (18) people said they had no interest in housing.
o The primary reasons given for not wanting housing were affordability, autonomy, and no interest in current shelter models.
• Most people are employed. Of the ninety (90) people contacted, fifty (50) listed employment as their primary source of income. The median income of this group was $2,000. Another eighteen (18) listed government support as their primary source of income.
• Half are interested in further outreach. Forty-five (45) people reported that they would speak to an outreach person about parking arrangements and other specialized services.
County Recommendations. Based on the findings from this survey, county staff recommended the following proposals to the Board of Supervisors to consider:
• Create areas for vehicle inhabiting – The report suggests parking areas with utility hookups and 24/7 access. The report notes the legal, service provider, and land use challenges.
• Enable employers to designate areas of vehicle inhabiting for employees – The report suggests that localities draft ordinances that permit property owners, agricultural operations or commercial sites to host inhabited vehicles. • Support people with “shallow subsidies” to obtain housing – As many vehicle dwellers can potentially afford rent, but lack the first or last month deposits, jurisdictions could provide time-limited subsidies without referring people to the “homeless services system.”
• Rent support – The report suggests ongoing financial support to disabled or fixedincome seniors to bridge the gap between benefit payments and rents. • Vehicle Preservation/Repair Fund –Many people who lose the vehicles they inhabit end up sleeping on the ground. A way to stem the flow into unsheltered homelessness is to create a flexible funding source to keep people in their vehicles. • Offer tangible resources/incentives – This sample of people have all rejected Safe Parking; however, 50 are still open to outreach. Other forms of connecting such as gas cards, repair vouchers, or food support may help to encourage people to access services.
• Align programs with language and privacy needs – According to 18 survey respondents, language or privacy concerns were a barrier to accessing any kind of supportive services.
Full report is included as Attachment 2
Item IV. Presentation on California Encampment Relief Fund (CERF) Round 3 and Safe Parking Performance
Every recent analysis of homelessness in Goleta has acknowledged the rapidly growing phenomenon of people living in their vehicles. The leading homelessness services provider for the region is New Beginnings Counseling Center. There initiatives, including Safe Parking and
their vehicle encampment outreach program have set the standard for how to meet the needs of people living in their vehicles.
New Beginnings Counseling Center staff will present the current status of the Safe Parking program and their Encampment Relief Program (CERF) along with program innovations that may expand interest in participation.
Safe Parking. The rise of people living in their vehicles has become the top issue of concern regarding homelessness in Goleta. New Beginnings Counseling Center has provided a parking alternative for people living in vehicles that combines case management and private parking to allow people to work toward permanent housing. The Safe Parking Program has benefited the City of Goleta for its entire twenty-five-year history.
CERF. In April of 2024, the County of Santa Barbara received a $7.9 million two-year grant from the State of California as part of their California Encampment Relief Fund program to resolve twenty-one (21) clusters of people living in vehicles across the county. The City of Goleta had two identified clusters, one at Pacific Oaks and Phelps roads, and the other on the easternmost portion of Ekwill Street behind Cottage Hospital.
The goal of the grant was to find permanent housing for 150-300 people living in vehicles. The grant provided outreach, assessment, housing navigation, emergency financial assistance, and housing retention services to keep people in housing.
The grant is set to expire at the end of this calendar year, 2026.
The New Beginnings slide presentation is included as Attachment 3 Item IV. Discussion of Inhabiting Vehicle Ordinance Progress Code §10.04.040 enforcement update. As law enforcement has implemented the new guidelines established in the City’s Municipal Code regarding individuals residing or camping in vehicles within the public right-of-way, several operational challenges have begun to surface.
Neighborhood Services staff have met with representatives from both the City Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office, and there is reason to believe that an update to the City Council, along with potential changes to the Municipal Code, may be warranted.
Below is an overview of the current vehicle-habitation data for the Goleta area, the challenges observed, and the team’s initial recommendations.
Over the past twelve months, the County has identified ninety-seven (97) vehicles as inhabited in the City of Goleta. Of these, fifty-two (52) were located in private business parking lots, twenty (20) on public streets, and twenty-five (25) were identified but stable locations were not
confirmed. Of the total vehicles reported, fifteen percent (15%) were confirmed to be associated with individuals experiencing homelessness.
Encouragingly, there are now virtually no inhabited vehicles on Phelps Road or Pacific Oaks Road.
However, the current enforcement process for the inhabited vehicle ordinance is presenting operational challenges for Sheriff’s deputies. Deputies have reported several recurring issues:
• Individuals already engaged with New Beginnings Counseling Center generally respond cooperatively to law enforcement. Of the five citations our Homelessness Services Coordinator (Mr. Flacks) has received, three involved participants in the County’s CERF vehicle encampment program. One additional individual contacted Mr. Flacks independently and was referred to Safe Parking.
• According to Community Resource Deputy Worden (CRD Worden), at least a dozen attempts to issue citations were thwarted because individuals are either not present at their vehicles or decline to respond to deputies. According to CRD Worden, this represented the majority of encounters. Because these citations are administrative, deputies cannot leave a notice on the windshield. They must confirm that the person cited is the actual vehicle occupant, not simply the registered owner. • Some individuals provide their names but otherwise refuse to cooperate, occasionally responding with hostility. Mr. Flacks has received one citation involving an individual who would not engage with law enforcement at all.
On July 20, 2026, Mr. Flacks and Ms. JoAnne Plummer, Director of Neighborhood Services, met with CRD Worden and Ms. Winnie Cai from the City Attorney’s Office to review the program. The overall conclusion was that the current approach is not resulting in a meaningful increase in participation in homeless services.
Currently, the primary impact appears to be displacement rather than engagement. Most vehicles previously located near Pacific Oaks and Phelps have relocated to The Plaza and Planet Fitness parking lots, while many of the vehicles along Ekwill are already working with New Beginnings. Staff seeks additional input from the Standing Committee on other potential approaches which would allow staff to formulate a recommendation(s) to bring forward to Council for consideration.
Attachments
Attachment 1: August 2026 Data Report
Attachment 2: Santa Barbara County 2026 Vehicular Homelessness a Qualitative Study Attachment 3: Safe Parking & CERF 3 Progress in Goleta
ATTACHMENT 1
August 2026 Data Report
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES
AUGUST 2026
DATA REPORT
Source: By-Name List for City of Goleta and Fulcrum County Database, compiled by Chuck Flacks, Homelessness Services Coordinator, [email protected]
WHERE ARE IDENTIFIED HOMELESS PEOPLE LIVING
Most Recent
Quarter
Totals for the
Year
People Newly
Identified as
Homeless
18 83
Housed 11 37
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
www.CityofGoleta.org
PEOPLE NEWLY IDENTIFIED VS. HOUSED PER MONTH
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
www.CityofGoleta.org
Population Types Count Percent
Identified People 78
Seniors (55+) 36 46%
Transitional Age Youth (18-24) 1 1%
Veterans* 0 0%
WHO’S ACTIVE
*highest reported was four people
PEOPLE LIVING IN VEHICLES IN GOLETA
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
www.CityofGoleta.org
CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS IN THE CITY OF GOLETA
Definition of Chronic Homelessness: According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an individual is considered chronically homeless if they have a disability and have been living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or an emergency shelter for at least 12 months continuously or on at least four separate occasions in the past three years, where the combined occasions total at least 12 months.
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
www.CityofGoleta.org
AMOUNT OF MONTHLY INCOME FOR PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IN THE CITY OF GOLETA
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
www.CityofGoleta.org
HOMELESSNESS DATA REGARDING SENIORS
Percentage of Seniors Experiencing Chronic Homelessness = 61% Percentage of People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness Who Are Seniors 48% Overlap of People Experiencing Chronic
Homelessness who are Seniors (over 55 years old)
ATTACHMENT 2
2026 Vehicular Homelessness A Qualitative Study
Contents
Execu�ve Summary............................................................................ 1 Sec�on I: Survey Deployment and Methodology ............................... 2 Sec�on II: Demographics and Household Dynamics........................... 3 Sec�on III: Vehicle Characteris�cs...................................................... 5 Sec�on IV: Financial Dynamics and Income Correla�ons ................... 8 Sec�on V: Pathways to Vehicle Residency & Causes of Housing Loss 10 Sec�on VI: Future System Par�cipa�on ........................................... 11 Sec�on VII: Narra�ve Analysis.......................................................... 13 Sec�on VIII: Strategic Recommenda�ons......................................... 14 Appendix A: Survey Ques�ons......................................................... 17 1 UNSHELTERED VEHICULAR RESIDENCY STUDY
Execu�ve Summary
This report presents an analysis of survey data gathered from unsheltered households residing in vehicles across Santa Barbara County. The dataset comprises a sample size of 𝑁𝑁 = 90 vehicleresiding households, represen�ng approximately 10% of the 919 total vehicles iden�fied during the 2025 unsheltered Point-in-Time (PIT) count.
Context
This study explicitly targeted individuals living in vehicles who had not previously accessed or engaged with tradi�onal homelessness response services (such as Safe Parking programs, shelter services, or Coordinated Entry System intake). Households ac�vely engaged with established response programs were inten�onally excluded from this study design. Conclusions drawn in this report must not be generalized to the en�re vehicularly housed popula�on. Findings reflect the specific characteris�cs, needs, and systemic barriers of a vehicular homeless popula�on not yet engaged by street outreach providers.
Key Summary Findings
Mobility & Compliance
A substan�al propor�on of vehicles surveyed are fully opera�onal. Among respondents,
96.1% report that their vehicle can be driven, 74.1% maintain ac�ve vehicle insurance, and 76.6% possess current registra�on.
Rehousing Intentions
A�tudes toward permanent rehousing exhibit a dis�nct bimodal distribu�on on a 1-to-7 scale (where 1 indicates maximum priority and 7 indicates no desire to change). While
34.5% of respondents consider near-future permanent rehousing their highest priority (Ra�ng 1), 20.0% state a preference to remain in their current vehicular arrangement (Ra�ng 7), ci�ng autonomy, affordability, or dissa�sfac�on with exis�ng shelter models.
Economic Determinants
Employment serves as the primary source of financial support for 55.4% of households, genera�ng a median monthly income of $2,000. Government assistance supports 19.6% of households, genera�ng a median monthly income of $1,225. Age demonstrates a posi�ve correla�on (𝑟𝑟 = 0.461) with reliance on government benefits, whereas younger and middle-aged adults rely almost exclusively on earned wages. 2 Economic Displacement as the Primary Catalyst
The predominant causes of housing loss center on economic disrup�on, including rent increases, housing unaffordability, job loss, and income reduc�on. For many, vehicle residency was adopted as a pragma�c op�on to unsheltered street sleeping.
Outreach Receptivity
Exactly 50% of respondents expressed interest in being contacted by an outreach worker to learn about specialized services, signaling an opportunity to expand engagement through non-puni�ve outreach frameworks.
Sec�on I: Survey Deployment and Methodology
Ins�tu�onal Collabora�on & Purpose
To address limita�ons inherent in the tradi�onal HUD-directed Point-In-Time tally methods, County staff partnered with researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and technical consultants from Simtech Solu�ons to conduct this study focused on vehicular homelessness. Together, the partners developed and fielded a qualita�ve survey tool and an opera�onal approach.
The primary objec�ve was to establish a profile of vehicular residents opera�ng outside the homeless response system. Understanding why these households have remained unengaged is essen�al to expanding system reach.
Field Deployment Strategy
Fieldwork was executed by trained outreach personnel across iden�fied vehicle clusters and highdensity parking corridors throughout the county. The survey instrument u�lized a hybrid collec�on methodology:
In-Person Structured Interviews
Conducted by trained outreach specialists capable of providing rapport-building and trauma-informed engagement.
Self-Administered Questionnaires
Flyers were posted at loca�ons known to be frequented by people living in their vehicles, such as libraries, low-cost fitness centers, and laundromats so respondents could complete digital forms independently.
Across both collec�on channels, par�cipa�on was voluntary. Because respondents retained the right to skip individual ques�ons, item-level response counts (𝑁𝑁) vary throughout the analysis. All 3 presented figures cite the ac�ve response base (𝑁𝑁) and u�lize propor�ons, percentages, or frac�ons to ensure analy�cal accuracy.
Sec�on II: Demographics and Household Dynamics
Gender & Language Profiling
Among respondents repor�ng gender (𝑁𝑁 = 79), the popula�on is predominantly male:
Figure 1 Gender Identity
Language preferences (𝑁𝑁 = 90) indicate that 80% of respondents complete surveys in English, while 20.0% u�lize Spanish. Outreach strategies in vehicular corridors must maintain bilingual capabili�es.
Age Distribu�on
Age data (𝑁𝑁 = 58) reveals a broad distribu�on across working-age and senior cohorts. The mean age is 47.8 years, with a median of 49.5 years (ranging from 18 to 83 years).
Figure 2 Age Distribution
Male
Female
Decline to State Non-binary
Gender Identity (N=79)
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Age
(N=58)
4 Combined, adults aged 45 and older account for 55.2% of the unengaged vehicular popula�on, highligh�ng the presence of aging adults and older individuals who face heightened vulnerability to chronic medical condi�ons and other age-related factors that would be compounded by homelessness.
Household Composi�on & Co-Residents
Unengaged vehicle residents operate primarily as single-individual households:
Housemates (𝑁𝑁 = 62)
77.4% live alone in their vehicle, while 22.6% reside with one or more adult housemates.
Children (N = 21)
81.0% report no minor children present, while 19.0% reside with minor children in the vehicle.
Pets (𝑁𝑁 = 14)
42.9% maintain pets within the vehicle, while 57.1% do not.
These results indicate that overcrowding is not a primary driver of housing loss resul�ng in vehicular homelessness for the unengaged popula�on.
5 Sec�on III: Vehicle Characteris�cs
Vehicle Classifica�on
The distribu�on of vehicle types (𝑁𝑁 = 83) demonstrates a near-even split among three primary categories, with the remainder being categorized as pickup trucks or other:
Figure 3 Vehicle Type
On average, each RV houses 1.42 people, cars house 1.32, and all other types of vehicles house 1 person.
31%
30%
28%
7% 4%
VEHICLE TYPE (N=83)
Vans Passenger Cars / Sedans Recreational Vehicles (RVs) Pick-up Trucks Other 6 Mechanical Operability & Legal Compliance
Data regarding vehicle condi�on (𝑁𝑁 = 80) indicates that the unengaged vehicular cohort maintains high rates of vehicle func�onality and legal compliance:
Figure 4 Vehicle Operation and Legal Compliance
Insurance Sustainability Scale
Respondents rated their confidence in con�nuing to pay vehicle insurance over the next three months (𝑁𝑁 = 43) on a Likert scale from 1 (Completely Confident) to 7 (I Will Not Be Able to Pay):
Ra�ng 1 (Completely Confident): 46.5%
Ra�ngs 2–3 (Moderate Confidence): 14.0%
Ra�ng 4 (Neutral / Uncertainty): 7.0%
Ra�ngs 5–6 (High Risk of Lapse): 16.3%
Ra�ng 7 (Certain Default): 16.3%
Mean Score: 3.14
Nearly half of the respondents express having coverage and strong confidence in maintaining coverage, indica�ng a level of financial stability and desire to adhere to legal requirements. Nearly one-third (32.6%) face imminent risk of losing vehicle insurance without targeted financial stabiliza�on. Financial assistance for insurance could be a service engagement mechanism that may be appealing to this segment of the popula�on.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Drivable Condition Active Insurance
Coverage
Active Vehicle
Registration
Vehicle Operation and Legal Compliance (N=80)
Yes (%) No (%)
7 Vehicle Type vs. Compliance Metrics
Analyzing legal status across vehicle categories shows some notable variances:
Figure 5 Vehicle Type vs Compliance
Vans demonstrate the highest levels of regulatory compliance (over 91% insured and registered).
Conversely, RVs exhibit lower rates of insurance (60.9%) and registra�on (61.9%), presen�ng greater vulnerability to municipal code enforcement, towing, and impoundment. This would suggest that targeted supports to people living in RVs may result in the greatest posi�ve outcome in service engagement.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Vans Passenger Cars Pick-up Trucks Recreational
Vehicles (RVs)
Vehicle Type vs Compliance
Insured (%) Registered (%) Drivable (%)
8 Sec�on IV: Financial Dynamics and Income Correla�ons
Primary Income Sources
Among respondents providing financial data (𝑁𝑁 = 56), employment represents the single largest source of financial support:
Figure 6 Primary Source of Income
Earnings Analysis
A disparity exists between earnings generated through labor market par�cipa�on and public benefit transfers:
Employer Income
Mean monthly income is $2,358.04, with a median of $2,000.00 (ranging from $1.00 to $8,000.00 per month). Key industries reported include service, domes�c work, hospitality, and retail.
Government Income
Mean monthly benefit alloca�on is $1,173.60, with a median of $1,225.00 (ranging from $1.00 to $2,880.00 per month).
Working vehicular residents earn approximately 63% more per month than benefit recipients, yet both income levels remain below regional housing affordability thresholds. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Employer Wages
Government Benefits (SSI/SSDI/CalFresh)
Other Sources / Savings / Odd Jobs
Family Support
Combined Income Sources
Primary Source of Income (N=56)
9 Correla�on Analysis: Age vs. Income Source
There are some paterns between age and income genera�on methods:
Figure 7 Primary Income Source by Age
Age vs. Government Income Reliance
Demonstrates a posi�ve correla�on (𝑟𝑟 = 0.461). Older adults exhibit higher reliance on government disability and re�rement benefits. Among respondents aged 65 and older,
57.1% rely on public benefits, whereas 0.0% of respondents under age 35 report government benefits as their primary income source.
Age vs. Employer Income Reliance
Demonstrates a weak nega�ve correla�on (𝑟𝑟 = −0.068) – Meaning one could not confidently guess how much a respondent would rely on employer income simply by knowing their age. However, wage labor dominates income genera�on for younger cohorts: 100.0% of respondents aged 18–24 and 61.5% of respondents aged 35–44 rely on employment earnings.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
18–24 years 25–34 years 35–44 years 45–54 years 55–64 years 65+ years Primary Income Source by Age (N=58)
Employer Income (%) Government Benefits (%) Decline / Other (%) 10 Sec�on V: Pathways to Vehicle Residency & Causes of Housing Loss Prior Housing
Prior to entering vehicular residency, respondents (𝑁𝑁 = 69) occupied stable housing arrangements:
Figure 8 Prior Housing Situation
Over two-thirds (66.6%) of respondents transi�oned directly from tradi�onal rent-paying or homeownership arrangements into their vehicles. Among respondents repor�ng loca�on data (𝑁𝑁 = 66), 65.2% resided within Santa Barbara County immediately prior to losing housing, confirming that this unengaged popula�on consists primarily of long-term local residents.
Dura�on of Displacement
Data regarding the �me elapsed since last occupying permanent housing (𝑁𝑁 = 53) shows a mean dura�on of 4.6 years (236.6 weeks) and a median dura�on of 1.1 years (56.0 weeks). This demonstrates that while half of the unengaged popula�on experienced displacement rela�vely recently, a subset has resided in vehicles long-term without entering the formal service system.
Contribu�ng Factors to Housing Loss
Analysis of standards responses to housing loss factors (𝑁𝑁 = 70) iden�fies economic disrup�on as the primary driver of vehicular entry:
51%
19%
16%
10%
3% 1%
Prior Housing (N=69)
Renting Living with Family Owned a Home
Living with Friends Other Homeless Whole Life
11 Employment Disruption
51.4% cite job loss or income reduc�on.
Housing Market Costs
34.3% cite rent increases, inability to meet mortgage payments, non-renewal of leases, or predatory loan terms (e.g., balloon payments).
Interpersonal & Family Dissolution
22.9% atribute housing loss to family conflict, marital separa�on, domes�c violence, or bereavement.
Health & Legal Circumstances
8.6% report medical disabili�es or criminal jus�ce system involvement.
Root Causes of Housing Loss
Open-ended responses elaborate on structural barriers that triggered homelessness:
"I lived at my last residence for 22 years... The owners wanted to renovate the property, so I got evicted... And then I broke my shoulder while I was moving. And then my new place fell through.
So, I bought an RV because I couldn't afford the rent." "Landlord was able to charge new tenant 35% more each month. I am outpriced of the housing market on disability."
"Increased cost of rent and my criminal history."
Sec�on VI: Future System Par�cipa�on
Outreach Recep�vity
When asked if they were open to direct contact by an outreach worker to explore programs tailored to vehicular residents (𝑁𝑁 = 50):
• Interested in Outreach Contact (Yes): 50.0%
• Uninterested / Declined Contact (No): 50.0%
Half of the unengaged vehicular popula�on is open to service contact, demonstra�ng an opportunity to establish ini�al engagement.
Required Assistance for Rehousing Recovery
Open-ended ques�ons regarding resources required to restore permanent housing (𝑁𝑁 = 39) yielded four primary themes:
12 Income Expansion & Employment Access
The dominant request centers on higher wage opportuni�es, employment placement, and benefit increases (e.g., "cheaper rent and better paying jobs," "steady income," "SSDI payments that reflect prior earning capacity").
Deep Rental Subsidies
Direct rental support, Sec�on 8 vouchers, and move-in deposit assistance (e.g., "assistance with deposit," "rental assistance subsidized housing").
System Navigation & Administrative Support
Paperwork execu�on, applica�on assistance, and system naviga�on (e.g., "help filling out forms," "housing navigation support").
Alternative Land-Use & Employer Sponsored Parking
Requests for sanc�oned RV parking with u�lity hookups or property caretaking arrangements (e.g., "A residence where I could be a caretaker and park and plug my RV on the property").
13 Sec�on VII: Narra�ve Analysis
Analysis of open-ended reflec�ons on vehicular residency, the 1-to-7 rehousing priority scale, and reported rehousing u�lity needs provided deeper insight not typically captured in common assessments.
The Dual Profile: System-Avoidant Workers vs. Contented Autonomous Residents The quan�ta�ve rehousing scale (𝑁𝑁 = 55) reveals a bimodal split in how unengaged vehicular residents perceive their current living situa�on:
Figure 9 Rehousing Importance Rating
Those Actively Seeking Housing (Ratings 1–3: 49.1%)
Nearly half of respondents view permanent rehousing as an urgent priority (with 34.5% selec�ng Ra�ng 1). Narra�ve responses indicate that these households consider vehicular living a temporary, stressful coping mechanism forced upon them by job loss, sudden rent hikes, or domes�c breakup.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 Highest
Priority
2 3 4
Neutral
5 6 7
Happy/No
Plan to
Change
Rehousing Importance Rating, 1–7 Scale (N=55)
14 The Contented / Autonomous Cohort (Ratings 6–7: 27.3%) Over a quarter of respondents express litle to no desire to transi�on into tradi�onal housing (with 20.0% selec�ng Ra�ng 7). Open-ended entries explicitly highlight this stance: "like living in van," "it's affordable," "by choice right now," "cheaper to live in RV.
We are not homeless, we have our RV," and "staying in my car during the week is purely a choice to not spend money."
Jurisdic�ons must recognize that standard homeless response messaging, which framed vehicular living strictly as an acute crisis requiring immediate shelter placement, will alienate the 27.3% who view their vehicle as a viable, autonomous housing choice.
Economic Disloca�on as the Overwhelming Root Cause
Narra�ves responses establish that unengaged vehicular homelessness is overwhelmingly driven by structural housing market pressure rather than behavioral health crises. The recurring theme across open-ended responses is financial strain: "cost of living," "low income," "rent too damn high," and "outpriced of the housing market on disability." Pragma�c, Financial Needs Over Tradi�onal Social Services When asked what would be most useful to restore access to permanent housing (𝑁𝑁 = 39), respondents overwhelmingly cited direct economic stabiliza�on rather than clinical support:
Wage & Income Enhancement
Repeated calls for "increasing income," "trabajo," "better paying jobs," and "SSDI payments that are at least half of my previous income." Affordable Housing & Direct Subsidies
Frequent requests for "rental assistance subsidized housing," "securing Section 8 voucher," and "assistance with deposit."
Low-Barrier System Navigation
Simple administra�ve support, such as "help filling out forms" and "housing navigation support."
Alternative Land-Use Arrangements
Crea�ve housing models, such as "A residence where I could be a caretaker and park and plug my decent registered RV on the property."
Sec�on VIII: Strategic Recommenda�ons
To effec�vely engage and support this unsheltered popula�on, local jurisdic�ons should align policy frameworks with the specific economic and qualita�ve reali�es documented in this study. 15 Recommenda�on 1: Diversify Safe Parking Infrastructure & Flexible Land-Use Tradi�onal Safe Parking models designed strictly as overnight shelters do not fully accommodate working or autonomous vehicular residents. Jurisdic�ons might consider:
Develop 24/7 Permit Parking Zones
Provide safe, legal parking op�ons with basic u�lity hookups (power, water, sanita�on) for individuals who choose to remain in their vehicles long-term or who work non-tradi�onal hours. This op�on would require significant legal, service provider, and interdepartmental considera�ons to prevent percep�ons of legal residency rights.
Support Employee Parking Programs
Dra� municipal ordinances that permit property owners, agricultural opera�ons, or commercial sites to host registered RVs/vans for workers employed at local businesses.
Recommenda�on 2: Deploy Targeted Economic & Rapid Rehousing Interven�ons Because nearly half of unengaged vehicular residents earn ac�ve employment wages ($2,358.04 mean monthly employer income), tradi�onal long-term suppor�ve housing is unnecessary for a large por�on of this group. Jurisdic�ons should priori�ze:
Shallow Rent Subsidies & Deposit Assistance
Provide targeted, �me-limited financial subsidies to cover first/last month deposit barriers for working households without the s�gma of entering the “homeless services system.” Flexible Income Supplementation
Create direct financial supports to help disabled or fixed-income seniors (earning a median of $1,225.00/month) bridge the gap between benefit payments and local market rents.
Recommenda�on 3: Establish a Low-Barrier Vehicle Preserva�on Fund An opera�onal vehicle is the primary asset keeping these households employed and mobile (96.1% drivable, 74.1% insured). Losing a vehicle due to mechanical failure or legal impoundment frequently causes individuals to transi�on into unsheltered sleeping. Jurisdic�ons should establish micro-grants to cover:
• Emergency mechanical repairs and �re replacements.
• Insurance premium shor�alls and back-registra�on fee relief.
Recommenda�on 4: Reframe Outreach Messaging & Service Thresholds With 50.0% of respondents indica�ng interest in outreach contact (and 50.0% declining), service engagement must adapt to avoid driving system-avoidant popula�ons further into hiding:
16 Lead with Tangible Resources
Outreach workers should first offer flexible, prac�cal resources (gas cards, repair vouchers, assistance with administra�ve forms) rather than immediate enrollment in safe parking shelter systems.
Language & Cultural Alignment
Ensure field teams include bilingual (English/Spanish) personnel and offer selfadministered digital op�ons to accommodate Spanish-speaking households (20.0% of respondents) and privacy-focused residents.
17 Appendix A: Survey Ques�ons
Are you living out of your vehicle?
Yes/No
Are you currently living with any housemates?
Yes/No
Including yourself, how many people live with you in your vehicle? Open-entry numbers
Do you have children living in the vehicle with you?
Yes/No
Open-entry numbers
Do you have pets living in the vehicle with you?
Yes/No
Open-entry numbers
Please take a moment to consider the status of your vehicle. As a reminder, this data will not be used for any documentation purposes, and what you report will not be used against you in any way.
Check all that apply for the vehicle which you depend on for day-to-day use:
Insured
Registered
Drivable
[Logic Yes] How confident are you that you can continue to pay for your vehicle’s insurance for the next three months?
Selec�on of op�ons: 1-7
1 Not Confident at All
2 3
4 5
6 18
7 Very Confident
[Logic No] Approximately how many weeks has it been since your vehicle was last insured? Open-entry numbers
[Logic No] Approximately how many weeks has it been since your vehicle was last registered? Open-entry numbers
What type of vehicle do you reside in?
Selec�on of choices: Car
Truck
RV/Mobile-home
Van
Open-ended ‘Other’
What is your age?
Open-entry [surveyors instructed to es�mate range if necessary] What is your sex?
Selec�on of choices:
Man
Woman
Non-binary
Decline to offer
What is your gender?
Woman
Man
Culturally Specific Iden�ty (e.g.; Two-Spirit)
Transgender
Non-Binary
Ques�oning
Other
Client Doesn’t Know
Client Prefers not to answer
This section is about forms of income. Please indicate any of the following are forms of income which you rely on.
19 Selec�on of choices:
Government
Employer
Family
Logic (if selected ‘Government’): Please estimate the total whole dollar amount which you expect to receive each month from government sources.
Open-ended number entry
Logic (if selected ‘Employer’): Please estimate the total whole dollar amount which you expect to receive each month from employment sources.
Open-ended number entry
Logic (if selected ‘Employer’): What industry do you work in? Selec�on of choices:
Hospitality
Service
Tech
Domes�c (cleaning services, yardwork, repairs, unlicensed work) Retail
Healthcare
Open-ended ‘Other’
In weeks, when was the last time you had a permanent residence? Open-ended number entry
What was the nature of your prior housing?
Selec�on of choices: Owned a home
Leasing/ren�ng
Living with family
Living with friends
Relying upon some form of subsidized housing
Other: (open-ended)
Where in (or outside) Santa Barbara County was that residence? Selec�on of choices:
Santa Maria
Lompoc
20 Santa Ynez Valley
Goleta
Isla Vista
Santa Barbara
Carpinteria
Somewhere else in the County
Open ended: Somewhere else in California (please specify) Open ended: Out of state (please specify)
Open ended: Other (please describe)
Could you tell us what factors contributed to your current living situation.
Select all that apply:
Couldn’t afford rent/mortgage increase
Job loss or reduc�on in income
Evic�on for other reasons (nonpayment, lease viola�on, landlord decision) Family conflict, breakup, domes�c violence
Health issues or disability
Criminal jus�ce involvement
Open-ended ‘Other:’
Could you tell us, in your opinion, what some of the biggest contributors are at this moment to you currently living out of your vehicle? (open-ended)
How important is near-future rehousing to you?
Selec�on of op�ons: 1-7
1 Very important
2 3
4 5
6 7 I am perfectly happy in my current situa�on and do not plan to change What would be most useful to you, in order to restore access to permanent housing in the near future? (open-ended)
Would you like to be contacted by an outreach worker to follow up to connect you to resources or support?
Yes/No
21 Is there anything else you would like institutional forces to know about your situation? (openended)
ATTACHMENT 3
Safe Parking & CERF 3 Progress in Goleta
Safe Parking & CERF 3
Progress in Goleta
September, 2026
New Beginnings
Safe Parking Program & CERF
Community safety net organization with four core programs:
● Safe Parking Shelter and Rapid Rehousing Program®
○ California Encampment Resolution Fund (CERF) Project
● Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program
● Life Skills Parenting and Education Program● Community Mental Health Center What is Safe Parking?
○ Safe place to park/sleep while in transition to
housing
○ Not an encampment, not an alternative lifestyle
(e.g. “Van life”)
○ Resource and benefit connection○ Housing navigation and case management Currently – over 51% of unsheltered homeless in county are living in their vehicles ○ 24 confidential lots with a combined 169 spaces –
sheltering 150+ individuals each night
○ Distribute impact in scattered sites/lots, 1-15
spaces used in each
○ Lots are located in Santa Barbara, Goleta, Isla
Vista, County Unincorporated areas, Lompoc, and Carpinteria ○ For-profit, non-profit, city, county, faith-based
lots
Providing safe, overnight parking to individuals and families living in their vehicles Program Structure
● Enter after 7pm, leave by 7am – no curfew● Driver’s License, Registration & Insurance required
● Each lot has different population● Assign people to lots based on lot & vehicle type, needs
● Parking only, no gathering in lots
● Porta-potties and self-contained vehicles
● No trash dumping, pet waste, loud music, cooking
outside
● Lots monitored by client liaisons/outreach workers
throughout night & in morning
● Renew permit, review housing plan once per month
● No direct communication with lot owner● Can’t park within 3 blocks of lot during day Program Success
July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026
● Clients served in total: 953● Clients receiving Rapid Rehousing case management: 845● Clients housed: 187● Clients obtaining/retaining employment: 106 ● Clients obtaining/retaining other income: 147 Goleta Safe Parking Lots
● 5 lots in total● 36 spaces in total ● Spaces in use put the program at nearly 70% capacity ● Two lots are at full capacity Goleta Safe Parking Data
07/01/2025 - 06/30/2026
Clients Served 81 individualsClients Housed 16 individualsSeniors aged 62+ served 21 individualsChronically homeless 27 individualsindividuals served Goleta SPP Clients Housed
Individuals Housed: 16Households Housed: 13
07/01/2025-06/30/2026
Goleta Safe Parking Contract
01/01/2026 - 08/31/2026 (program to date)
Clients Served 81 individualsVehicles Sheltered 47 vehiclesClients Housed 12 individualsTotal Individuals Made Aware of the Program 154 individuals(outreach)Chronically homeless individuals served 27 individualsTotal Instances of Service to Enrolled Clients 675 Barriers faced by Goleta Clients
● Limited income: majority of clients with income is less than $2,000/mo● Average rent $2,549 some studios as low as $1,382 (apartments.com) ● Significant disabilities● Chronic homelessness ● Long term Goleta residents and natives tend to be most reluctant to relocate
● Limited RV spaces
Goleta SPP Clients Income
Over 91% Goleta clients below 30% AMI – less than $3,192/mo No Income
6 $1-$500 10$501-$2,000 13$2,000-$3,092
3 $3,092-$5,150
2 $5152+
1 Total Adults w/income 35
HUD Area Median Income Limits
Extremely low income: <$3,192/moVery low income: $3,193-$5,313/moLow Income: $5,314-$8,500/mo 07/01/2025 - 06/30/2026
What is CERF 3?
California Encampment Resolution Funding
● Application submitted late January 2024● $7.9 million awarded April 2024● Grant began staffing June 2024 and ramped up August 2024● Created 3 teams to serve the county: Mid/North County, City of Santa Barbara, South County (including the City of Goleta)
Task for the teams: resolve 21 vehicle encampments throughout Santa Barbara County and relocate the individuals to permanent housing Baseline Data
Outcomes Goals
◦South County baseline: 224 vehicles identified, 14 encampment areas ◦Mid-County baseline: 31 vehicles identified, 3 encampment areas◦North County baseline: 53 vehicles identified, 4 encampment areas Countywide goal: Serve 300 persons (from those vehicles identified) ◦100 persons enter to interim sheltering or Safe Parking◦150 persons transition to permanent housing Enrollments by Region
06/01/2024-8/10/2026
Individuals Vehicles
North County 28 16
Mid County 53 36
South County 97 78
SB City 123 84
Total 301 214
Enrollments by City
06/01/2024-8/10/2026
Individuals Vehicles
Santa Maria 28 16
Lompoc 53 36
Goleta (*1 client with 2 vehicles) 41 36*
SB City 123 84
Carpinteria 33 19
County Unincorp. (incl. 7 clients in I.V.) 22 23
Total 301 214
Enrollment Demographics
06/01/2024 to 08/10/2026
TOTAL
INDIVIDUALS
Seniors (62 or Children Families Employed Disabled
older)
6 14 28
2 2
6 Santa Maria
Lompoc
7 13
6 8 33 53
South County 21 11
5 43 61 97
SB City 25
9 7 52 44 123
Total 55 35 24 109 152
CERF Goleta Clusters
Enrolled
Individuals as
of 9/11/26
Enrolled
Vehicles as of
9/11/26
Identified
Vehicles
01/2024
36 29 34 Girsh Park
14 7
7 Ekwill
Goleta Enrollments
06/01/24-08/10/26
Individuals Vehicles
Goleta (*1 client with 2 vehicles) 41 36*
County Unincorporated (includes 7 22 23
clients in IV)
CERF Goleta Demographics
74% over age 55 27% specifically over age 60
59% employed
upon entry
Over 91% below
30% AMI
49% chronically
homeless
68% have a
disability
Goleta CERF Clients Housed
Individuals Housed: 21Households Housed: 12Housed 51% of enrolled clients through 9/11/2026 06/01/2024 - 09/11/2026
New Beginnings Safe Parking Program
● 530 E. Montecito St. Suite 101● [email protected]● (805)963-7777 ext. 103● www.sbnbcc.org Contact Information