|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Following hours of debate over whether Redwood City’s proposed anti-camping ordinance would criminalize people experiencing homelessness or serve as a tool to connect them with shelter and services, City Council members voted Monday night to introduce the ordinance, the first step toward adding it to the city’s municipal code.
Chris Sturken, the lone dissenting voice, said that the ordinance could overpromise and underdeliver.
“This isn’t going to solve homelessness,” he said. “We’re not going to see a drop in the number of encampments overnight.”
While he acknowledged the county’s efforts, he questioned the long-term outcomes and pointed to the lack of guaranteed permanent housing.
“For some it works. For others, it doesn’t, and it’s a revolving door,” he added. Sturken urged his colleagues to amend the ordinance to include more frequent review and reporting by the Housing and Human Concerns Committee.
What the ordinance does
Redwood City’s proposed anti-camping law, based on a similar one passed by San Mateo County, would ban homeless encampments on public property, but only if the person is offered a shelter bed and turns it down. Before any action is taken, the city must issue two written warnings over a period of 48 hours. People who refuse shelter and stay may face misdemeanor charges, which could mean a fine of up to $100 or up to six months in jail, though the city said it will focus on offering services and diversion programs instead of punishment.
City officials say the ordinance mostly puts into writing what they’re already doing—offering services first, then taking action if needed. But because the law includes the possibility of criminal charges, some residents and advocacy groups are worried it could punish people just for being homeless.
On Monday, the ordinance passed with an amendment to include the area around the Navigation Center as a “sensitive area.” The Navigation Center is a housing space that provides 240 temporary units for those experiencing homelessness. According to Diane Howard, “a lot of the encampments do settle into” that space.
When asked how much the city would spend to implement the ordinance, Assistant City Manager Patrick Heisinger didn’t offer a specific estimate. Instead, he described a range of potential costs depending on the size of encampments — from $800 to more than $20,000 for cleanup — and said the bulk of expenses would come from coordination and staffing.
“It’s pretty much the cost of coordinating,” he said, noting that enforcement responsibilities currently handled by police could shift to the City Manager’s Office and be supported by the county. He suggested that, with help from Redwood City’s $2.85 million Encampment Resolution Fund grant, the city’s costs may decrease over the next two years. But, Heisinger acknowledged that beyond the grant’s expiration, “it would be a different conversation, potentially.”
Council backs ordinance despite concerns
Redwood City council members voiced support for the anti-camping ordinance, describing it as a compassionate approach that aims to connect unhoused residents with shelter and services.
Council member Diane Howard expressed support for the ordinance and said the ongoing challenge is reaching the roughly 25% of unhoused individuals who regularly refuse services.
“We’ve offered services up and down, and we’ll keep doing that,” she said. “But I’m talking about the 25% that refuse any help whatsoever … they’re not capable of saying, ‘I can trust you. I’m going to accept the help.’”
Council member Marcella Padilla called it a “proactive step towards helping those experiencing homelessness get the support they truly need.”
“Living in an encampment is not safe, healthy or sustainable,” she said.
Council member Jeff Gee echoed Howard’s sentiment and said he supported the ordinance after “deliberation and intent.” He said the city “can’t keep doing the same old thing and expecting different results.”
Residents describe safety concerns, repeated fires
Supporters of the ordinance who spoke up in person and through written comments, many from the Bair Island and One Marina neighborhoods, described ongoing safety concerns, fire risks and growing frustration over encampments that return even after repeated cleanups.
Brian Irvine, a resident of Bair Island for more than 20 years, expressed concern about the long-standing encampments in his neighborhood.
In a written comment, he said, “Most of the camps remain in the same location for extended periods of time,” leading to “a local dump for their waste,” which creates both a “health hazard” and “an eyesore.”
Irvine also described increased package theft, unhoused individuals using a community pool to bathe, and one instance where someone came onto his front deck and looked through his windows.
Planning Commissioner Maggie Cornejo, who also ran for county supervisor, supported the ordinance but emphasized the need for structure, clarity and services.
“We’re not simply removing people from one location and leaving them on their own. We’re connecting them to real resources. We’re creating pathways out of homelessness, not just pushing people around,” she wrote. “(This ordinance) protects public safety, respects the dignity of unhoused residents, and gives our city staff the tools they need to act responsibly and consistently.”
Tony Crapo, speaking on behalf of Bair Island residents, said the neighborhood had experienced a growing threat from encampment-related fires. “There have been 13 fires caused by homeless encampments in the past three and a half years… Four of those fires happened within the last two months,” he told the council on July 21. In an earlier comment submitted the week prior, Crapo cited six fires in the past three years.
“We live on a literal island with only one way in and out,” he said, urging the city to designate the area as sensitive. “Please don’t wait for another tragedy on Bair Island to force your response.”
Critics warn of harm, criminalization
But others argued the ordinance would do more harm than good.
Former Vice Mayor Lissette Espinoza-Garnica submitted a comment opposing the ordinance.
“It is a shame to see our city seeking new ways to criminalize our unhoused residents despite all evidence that proves carceral approaches to homelessness do not work,” they wrote. “Your proposed diversion programs do not make up for the incredible harm and trauma that the council is inflicting on our unhoused residents if it chooses to create new criminal penalties for homelessness.”
Sara Matlin, a Redwood City resident and ACLU volunteer, wrote that “criminalizing and displacing unsheltered people wastes limited public funds citing, and arresting people.”
“It traumatizes people who are already experiencing trauma; fosters mistrust of law enforcement and service providers; creates a cycle of fines, fees, and jail time; promotes unnecessary police encounters, which disparately lead to violent use of force; and makes it harder to gain access to stable housing,” Matlin said.
Tito Alvarez, founder of Redwood City grassroots group ChaseLove, said the ordinance “will push (unsheltered residents) further into the margins, deepening trauma, breaking trust and making it even harder for them to access the services they need.” He said ChaseLove works closely with unhoused residents, many of whom are “grandparents, veterans and disabled community members simply trying to survive in a city where housing has become out of reach for far too many.”
Redwood City’s unsheltered population by the numbers
As of June 2025, Redwood City has 141 unsheltered individuals—a 42% decrease from the 245 counted in 2022. According to city data, about 83% of those unhoused are men, 80% have a disability, and roughly 70% identify as Hispanic. More than half are 45 or older, 35% have a serious mental illness, and about 23% struggle with substance use, Heisinger said.
There are currently 29 encampments in Redwood City: 12 on city property, 14 on Caltrans land, and three on private property. A total of 88 people live in encampments, with an average of three individuals per site. Encampments remain active for an average of 90 days before cleanup, he added.
Since 2018, Redwood City has invested more than $16 million in city and external funding to address homelessness, conducted 316 encampment cleanups, and responded to nearly 19,400 related calls for service. The city reports that 460 housing units have been created, 233 households have been supported through subsidies, and more than 10,600 cubic yards of debris have been cleared.
Grants Pass ruling shaped local laws
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson gave cities the authority to enforce anti-camping laws even when no shelter is available, ruling 6–3 that such enforcement does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That ruling has influenced both San Mateo County’s Hopeful Horizons ordinance and Redwood City’s proposed version.
San Mateo County passed its law earlier in 2024, also called the Hopeful Horizons Initiative. It bans encampments on public land if shelter is available and focuses on outreach and support. But the county’s version only applies to unincorporated areas, is enforced by county staff and requires at least 72 hours’ notice before a cleanup unless there’s an immediate safety concern.
To date, there have been zero citations or incarcerations since the policy went into effect, San Mateo County Executive Mike Callagy said, who presented the county’s version of its anti-camping policy.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that the City Council voted to adopt the anti-camping ordinance into the municipal code on July 21. The council only introduced the ordinance at that meeting, the first step in the process. The ordinance required a second reading and additional votes before it could be formally adopted.
I was quoted in this article and just want to clarify the dates. In the time between my initial written comments to City Council and last night’s meeting, I checked in with the residents of our community and got a full history of the fires (which I had drastically underestimated). In addition, an additional fire started in an encampment on Bair Island last week. In total, it’s 13 fires in 3.5 years. Here are the dates of the fires and their locations.
10/8/2022
Fire under the Highway 101 overpass, with large encampment.
4/8/2023
Homeless man starting a brush fire next to Docktown, single tent.
6/20/2023
Fire at Whipple on ramp and service road, single tent.
11/11/2023
Fire across creek next to Docktown.
5/22/24
Fire behind old movie theater and Alan Steel, large encampment,
9/10/2024
Fire at encampment next to Docktown, multiple tents.
9/15/2024
Fire Next to Marriott, single tent.
11/16/2024
Another fire under the Highway 101 overpass from multiple tents.
2/24/2025
Fire on Whipple Ave Off Ramp Across from Alan Steel, from single tent
5/23/2025
Large fire under Highway 101 overpass.
5/30/2025
Fire next to Marriott from 2 propane canisters in single large tent. Caught large tree on fire next to roundabout. (Cut down by Caltrans on 6/4/2025)
6/20/2025
Brush fire across the creek next to Docktown from encampment.
7/15/2025 (approximate date)
Additional brush fire Across the creek next to Docktown from encampment.
Thank you,
-Tony
Are you referring to fires in general or fires that got out of control and became a hazard?
All of these were fires where land and vegetation were burning.