Overview

SB-748, signed into Law in October 2025 (Chapter 524, Statutes of 2025), introduces significant amendments to the Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) program.  These changes are designed to effectively address the growing challenge of homelessness among individuals living in vehicles and recreational vehicles (RVs).  The bill’s introduction of safe parking sites as a funded program purpose and the establishment of detailed reporting and compliance obligations for local jurisdictions and care continuums are promising steps towards a more structured and accountable approach to homelessness. 

Key Objectives

• Expand the ERF program scope to include safe parking sites for vehicle dwellers.
• Require detailed application plans for jurisdictions seeking ERF grants.
• Mandate quarterly and annual reporting to ensure transparency and accountability.
• Promote data-driven evaluation of program outcomes and best practices to inform effective decision-making.

Technical Provisions

1.  Program Expansion

SB-748 adds the following as eligible ERF purposes:

• Safe Parking Site Operations:
• Acquisition of property for safe parking
• Site operation and staffing
• Provision of services (sanitation, security, case management)
• Increasing safe parking site hours
• Vehicle Management:
• Removal and storage of abandoned or unsafe vehicles in accordance with due process protocols.   

2.  Application Requirements

Local jurisdictions and continuums of care applying for ERF grants must include:

• Safe Parking Plan Details:
• Site location and capacity
• Hours of operation
• Services offered (housing navigation, health referrals)
• Security and sanitation protocols
• Housing Transition Strategy:
• Clear pathways from safe parking to interim or permanent housing
• Budget Allocation:
• Itemized costs for acquisition, operations, services, and extended hours
• Data Management Plan:
• Integration with Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) for outcome tracking. 

3.  Reporting & Compliance

• Quarterly Reports (Starting 1 April 2026):
• Funding distribution by program purpose
• Outcomes and best practices for encampment resolution
• Submitted to the chairs of Senate and Assembly committees on Housing, Budget, and Human Services.
• Final Reports:
• Required for recipients of FY 2024–25 and FY 2025–26 funds
• Due 1 April, following the expiration of the encumbrance period expiration
• Annual Summary:
• The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) must include ERF program data in its annual report to the Governor and the Legislature.

4.  Evaluation & Oversight

• HCD evaluates reported data to:
• Assess program efficacy
• Identify scalable best practices for statewide replication
• Legislative Analyst’s Office may review outcomes for policy recommendations. 

Impact on Local Jurisdictions

• Operational Complexity:
• Requires coordination among housing, public works, Law enforcement, and social services.
• Funding Accountability:
• Strict reporting timelines and HMIS integration.
• Community Engagement:
• Jurisdictions must address neighborhood concerns about safe parking sites through transparent communication plans. 

Compliance Risks

• Failure to provide detailed safe parking plans or meet reporting deadlines may:
• Delay grant approval
• Trigger corrective action or funding restrictions
• Non-compliance with HMIS reporting can affect statewide program evaluation and future funding eligibility.

Implementation Timeline

• 21 February 2025: Bill introduced
• 28 May 2025: Passed Senate (38–0)
• 8 September 2025: Passed Assembly (76–1)
• 10 October 2025: Signed into Law
• 1 April 2026: Quarterly reporting begins. 

Technical Challenges

• Data Integration: HMIS compliance requires robust IT systems and staff training.
• Site Standards: Jurisdictions must design safe parking sites that comply with ADA standards, ensure sanitation, and provide adequate security.
• Funding Gaps: ERF allocations depend on legislative appropriations; no guaranteed funding for retrofits or enforcement costs.

Case Study 1 — Santa Barbara County (New Beginnings Safe Parking®)

Operator & footprint.  New Beginnings has operated as the country’s first Safe Parking model since 2004, now managing ~200 spaces across 31 lots in Santa Barbara, Goleta, Carpinteria, Lompoc, and unincorporated areas, under written site agreements that indemnify host lots.  The City of Santa Barbara directly supports and designates 25 city-owned spaces.  The program reports no major incidents or lot damage since its inception.

Recent scale & outcomes.  Amid rising vehicular homelessness pressures (inflation/rent), New Beginnings reported a 60% YoY increase in family enrollments and housed 90+ people in the prior year under an $8 million ERF/SURF award, with 31 lots active.  (Note: SB‑748 codifies safe parking as an explicit ERF use.)

Program boundaries.  The program generally excludes RVs from its standard lots due to maintenance and cost issues—essential considerations for jurisdictions designing mixed fleets (cars vs. RVs) under SB 748. 

What worked.

• Distributed lot network (public, faith, private) + single operator with standardized rules and indemnification—minimizes neighborhood friction and legal exposure. 
• Rapid rehousing & case management embedded in nightly operations (food assistance, benefits navigation, small grants). 

What to watch.

• Fleet mix: car-only networks avoid some cost/operational burdens seen at RV-heavy sites (see San Francisco case). 

SB‑748 compliance mapping.

• Application narrative: site network, capacity by vehicle class, indemnification language, and services (rehousing, job help) meet the bill’s safe‑parking plan elements. 
• Budget lines: acquisition/leases, operations, services, and extended hours where applicable—each a funded purpose under SB‑748. 
• Reporting: enrollments/exits to HMIS and ERF final‑report data flow into HCD’s annual roll-up. 

Case Study 2 — San Diego (Jewish Family Service of San Diego, JFS)

Operator & sites.  JFS operates seven secure lots (two are 24/7), including a large new H Barracks/Point Loma site with 190 spaces, 120 of which are designated for oversized vehicles, as well as additional lots in Encinitas and Vista. 

Outcomes (independent evaluation).  A three-year mixed-methods study at UC San Diego found a 40% positive exit rate to housing, with families, women, younger clients, and veterans being more likely to secure housing, one of the most robust outcomes datasets available on safe parking. 

Operations & utilization.  JFS highlights the near-constant demand, the rising share of older adults on fixed incomes, and the value of expanded hours in reducing fuel costs and improving service access—key design choices that SB 748 allows jurisdictions to fund (e.g., extended hours). 

What worked.

• 24/7 access at some sites increased case Manager contact, service uptake, and reduced churn (as supported by the UCSD report’s recommendations).
• Oversized-vehicle accommodation (Mission Valley & H Barracks) offers a sanctioned alternative for RVs, complemented by on-site services. 

What to watch.

• Equity: UCSD researchers documented structural barriers for BILPOC clients, recommending anti-bias training and targeted supports—plan for this in your scope of work.

SB‑748 compliance mapping.

• Application narrative: site hours, oversized‑vehicle capacity, services, rehousing plan, and security/sanitation protocols—the exact details SB‑748 now requires when safe parking is proposed. 
• Quarterly reporting: JFS’s outcomes/evaluations make it easier for HCD to compile quarterly distribution/use data, beginning 1 April 2026. 

Case Study 3 — Mountain View (MOVE Mountain View + City/County Partnership)

Scale & model.  Mountain View operates the most extensive safe parking program in Santa Clara County, with ~114 spaces across five City/faith sites (operator: MOVE MV).  Lots include Shoreline Lot B (46 oversized vehicle spaces + commuter stalls) and Evelyn (former VTA) Lot (30 OV spaces), with 24-hour use on key sites.  The average stay reported is ~287 days; monthly participants typically number between 150 and 180.   

Growth & sitting.  The Shoreline lot added 17 RV spaces in June 2023; the City prioritizes families with local students, local workers, seniors (55+), and people with disabilities—criteria embedded in intake and transparent public materials. 

What worked.

• 24-hour lots and clear eligibility preferences reduced churn and improved stability while affordable housing projects were queued on some sites. 
• The County Partnership's (Office of Supportive Housing) aligned services and health connectors; MOVE MV operates seven lots with standardized rules and monthly case-management renewals.

What to watch.

• Waitlist & documentation: MOVE MV requires insurance/registration/driver’s license; programs should budget document‑readiness aid to avoid exclusion.

SB‑748 compliance mapping.

• Application narrative: multiple sites; 24-hour operations, sanitation, ADA considerations, security, and case‑management cadence; include a transition plan to interim/permanent housing. 
• Quarterly reporting & HMIS: setting up project types and outcome fields to feed HCD’s quarterly and annual reporting. 

Case Study 4 — Long Beach (City-run Safe Parking Program)

Program posture.  The City scaled and relocated its program in late 2023 to a larger, Port-owned site near the Multi-Service Center, increasing capacity to ~50 nightly spaces, with restrooms/handwashing facilities, security, 5 p.m.–8 a.m. operations, and direct case management linkages.  Earlier, the City ran 15 spaces at the MSC and 30–50 near Queensway. 

What worked.

• Co-location near the MSC tightened referrals to shelters, EHV screenings, and RRH—an SB‑748‑aligned approach to “connect all individuals to services and housing.”

What to watch.

• Night-only operations reduce site friction but increase travel/fuel costs for participants relative to 24/7 operations—budget extended hours if possible (authorized under SB-748). 

SB‑748 compliance mapping.

• Application narrative: document hours, services, and proximity to a services hub; show a funding split by purpose: operations, services, extended hours, and (if applicable) site acquisition/lease. 

Cautionary Case — San Francisco (Bayview Vehicle Triage Center, Candlestick Point)

What happened.  The RV-focused Vehicle Triage Center, announced in 2021 for ~150 spaces, opened in 2022 but struggled with underutilization (~35 vehicles versus ~120 designed), delayed permanent power, diesel generator controversies, rodent infestations, and a very high cost (~$140k per vehicle/year in 2023).  The City announced an early closure (Dec 2024) and cleared the site in March 2025, towing the remaining RVs while offering shelter/housing options. 

Lessons for SB‑748 implementers.

• Right-size capacity to realistic demand and staffing; avoid overbuilding without grid power/utilities in place. 
• Secure utilities upfront in site budget; avoid long generator runs that inflate costs and invite regulatory risk. 
• Plan RV triage protocols (repair funds, towing standards, storage/retrieval due process) explicitly in the application—SB‑748 allows ERF uses for removal/storage with notice rules. 

Bonus Snapshot — Los Angeles & Oakland (systems context)

• Los Angeles: LAHSA documents a vehicle-dwelling population of over 23,000 (2024 count) and maintains a countywide safe parking network with varying RV acceptance and height limits by site—helpful in forecasting regional demand and setting vehicle fit constraints in applications. 
• Oakland (faith-based): The Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC) operates a rotating church‑lot safe car park with showers/laundry and minor auto support, backed by Measure Q funds ($450k expansion to three sites) and city accountability metrics—an SB‑748‑compatible, lower‑cost distributed model. 

Cross‑Case Design Patterns You Can Lift into an SB‑748 Application

·       Hours of Operation → Fuel & Access Trade‑offs. 24/7 lots (San Diego, Mountain View) save participants fuel and time, allowing for more case Manager contact, while night-only (Long Beach) can reduce neighborhood conflicts.  Budget extended hours where feasible (SB‑748 purpose). 

·       Fleet Strategy.  Car-only networks (such as those in Santa Barbara) operate efficiently with low incident rates.  RV-dominant sites, on the other hand, require additional resources for power, waste management, repair triage, and higher staffing; plan costs accordingly. 

·       Siting & Indemnification.  Written lot agreements and indemnity language (New Beginnings) and service hub proximity (Long Beach) reduce risk and improve throughput to housing.   

·       Outcomes & Equity.  Build HMIS data elements to track positive exits and equity gaps; UCSD’s 40% positive exit benchmark for San Diego provides a realistic KPI floor for proposals. 

·       Quarterly Reporting Readiness.  Pre‑define purpose-coded budgets (safety/wellness, encampment resolution grants, data-informed coordination, safe parking) so you can deliver HCD’s 1 April quarterly distributions cleanly. 

Conclusion

SB-748 represents a technical and operational shift in California’s homelessness strategy.  By formalizing safe parking sites within the ERF program and imposing rigorous reporting standards, the Law aims to create structured, humane solutions for individuals living in vehicles while ensuring accountability and measurable outcomes.