Oakland City Council Adopts 2025 Encampment Abatement Policy on April 14, 2026

The Special Concurrent Meeting of the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency/City Council convened at 9:32 AM and adjourned at 12:40 PM on Tuesday, April 14, 2026. The council considered a single action item: a resolution to repeal the 2020 Encampment Management Policy and adopt a 2025 Encampment Abatement Policy (EAP). After extensive public testimony and debate, the council voted 5–1–1 (with one abstention and one excused) to adopt the resolution as amended. Seven council members were present: Noel Gallo, Zac Unger, Carroll Fife, Kevin Jenkins, Ken Houston, Rowena Brown, and Charlene Wang. Janani Ramachandran was excused.

Modifications to the Agenda

• Council President Jenkins moved, seconded by Councilmember Gallo, to reschedule Item 6.1 from the Consent Calendar to Non-Consent, allowing for public hearing and debate. The motion passed 7–0.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Supporters argued the current policy is failing, that the EAP provides needed clarity for enforcement, protects public health and safety, and helps reclaim public spaces. Speakers included representatives from BART (Henry Simons), Oakland Ballers (Laura Geist), Prescott Market (Mertz Development), neighborhood associations (David Johnson), business owners (Margarita Marin Parkin, Cindy Hart, Irena Itsexon), and the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce (Joseph Guzman). Many emphasized the urgency of addressing encampments near schools, parks, and businesses, and noted that other cities have already adopted stricter policies.
• Opponents contended the EAP criminalizes homelessness, lacks adequate shelter alternatives, will lead to costly litigation, and disproportionately impacts Black and brown communities. Speakers included members of the Homeless Advocacy Working Group (James Van), East Bay Community Law Center (Bridget Nicoletti, Carmen Hovella), St. Mary's Center (Renee Hayes, Al), Homefulness (including youth scholars), and numerous individuals with lived experience. They cited studies showing sweeps are ineffective, increase mortality, and violate constitutional rights, and urged investment in permanent housing and services. Some speakers questioned the legality of the meeting and the process, accusing the council of rushing the vote.
• Neutral/ mixed positions: Some speakers supported the policy but requested changes, such as including West Oakland retail areas as high sensitivity, ensuring disability accommodations, and pairing enforcement with robust shelter investment.

Discussion Items

• Presentation by Councilmember Houston and staff: Councilmember Houston introduced the policy as a necessary update to address public health and safety, noting that the 2020 policy is not working. Patricia Brooks (policy staff) presented slides comparing Oakland to other cities, highlighting health risks (e.g., leptospirosis outbreak in Berkeley), fire hazards near BART tracks, and the need to align with state funding requirements. She emphasized that the policy balances compassion with accountability and includes standard operating procedures (SOPs) for humane treatment.
• Expert testimony: Deputy Chief Tedesco (OPD) stated the policy provides clarity for limited resources; Director Josh Rowan (OakDOT) said it resolves confusion about whether towing inhabited vehicles is the responsibility of transportation or police; Fire Chief Covington noted RVs pose increasing fire dangers to firefighters and infrastructure; Assistant City Administrator Betsy Lake described administration-supporting amendments, including coordination with the Homelessness Strategic Action Plan.
• Councilmember debate: Councilmember Unger expressed that the policy is a small necessary step—not a comprehensive solution—and that he was heartened by the removal of criminalization for homelessness and the inclusion of shelter offers. Councilmember Wang emphasized the need to protect families with children and ensure debris removal can happen without waiting for the EMAT team. Councilmember Brown proposed amendments for an equity analysis, a report on city properties for shelter/safe parking, and disability accommodations. Councilmember Fife strongly opposed the policy, arguing it does not answer the fundamental question of where people will go, and that it will disproportionately harm Black residents; she offered amendments to delay effectiveness until a shelter report is delivered and to document migration patterns. Council President Jenkins proposed a “Priority Zone Designation” allowing the City Administrator, in consultation with district councilmembers, to reclassify areas for enforcement based on objective criteria.

Key Outcomes

• The council adopted Resolution No. 91102 C.M.S. (amending Resolution No. 88341) by a vote of 5 ayes (Unger, Jenkins, Houston, Brown, Wang), 1 no (Gallo), 1 abstention (Fife), and 1 excused (Ramachandran).
• Amendments adopted (incorporated into the policy):
  • Unger: Added language requiring SOPs for tow procedures, adequate notice, prioritization of dangerous vehicles (imminent hazards, highest priority zones), and citywide distribution of low-sensitivity areas.
  • Wang: SOPs must address families living in vehicles and avoid towing vehicles with children absent imminent risk; authorized OPW to conduct debris removal and sanitation; required EMAT to establish a method to contact displaced individuals for future shelter offers (voluntary).
  • Brown: Replaced the 90-day report requirement with an analysis of city-owned properties for interim shelter, safe parking, and vehicle storage; added an annual equity impact analysis conducted by the Department of Race and Equity and EMAT, including numbers of encampments addressed, residents served, recidivism, demographics, and resource expenditures; added disability accommodation provisions.
  • Fife: Policy effective the sooner of 90 days from adoption or the date the City Administrator presents the property report to council; added documentation requirements for closures, including findings of urgency, resources used, shelter offers, and migration tracking; disability accommodation language (similar to Brown’s).
  • Jenkins: Added Section II(C) establishing Priority Zone Designations by the City Administrator in consultation with the affected councilmember, based on objective criteria, with periodic public review.
• The council also accepted the City Administrator’s request to reconcile Fife’s and Brown’s amendments on the effective date and report content, using Fife’s effective date language and Brown’s report requirements.
• Next steps: The City Administrator, in coordination with the Office of Homelessness Solutions, must produce the property analysis within 90 days. The EAP becomes effective either 90 days from adoption or upon presentation of that report. Standard operating procedures are to be developed to guide implementation.