City staff presented a multi-step encampment servicing process to the Housing and Homeless Solutions Committee on Nov. 4 that routes 311 requests through field assessment, outreach engagement, escalation, placarded closure notices and cleanup with post-clean monitoring.

Kevin Oden, director of Emergency Management and Crisis Response, described the model: "Every 3-1-1 request related to encampments is routed through our structured process," he said, and staff then match response type to site conditions, offering outreach and services before escalation. Oden emphasized that "enforcement is a last resort and only used if safety demands it."

Why it matters: council members said many residents do not feel encampments are addressed in a timely way. The chair noted state law — identified in the hearing as House Bill 1925 and related to penal-code section 48.05 — makes camping on public property illegal, which council members said raises the stakes for clarifying enforcement and available shelter capacity.

Key details: Oden said staff are tracking new site-level metrics for each 311 request, including first contact time, outreach attempts, estimated persons on site, hazards present and material removed. He said the team's service goals include an initial assessment target (five days in policy but 24 hours for high-priority sites) and a target of 21 days to final closure, with placarding generally starting a 72-hour clock for allowable cleanup windows.

Responses and debate: Council members and Housing Forward representatives questioned whether the current approach can produce lasting closure without more shelter beds and stronger exit pathways. John Hill of Housing Forward said HMIS is used to track people across the system and asserted that more than "92 percent" of people moved through their pipeline do not return to homelessness, a figure council members asked staff to substantiate through follow-up reports.

Operational constraints and next steps: staff said they perform 10 to 15 encampment cleanups a week and that placarding and frequent post-clean monitoring are needed to prevent re-encampment. The chair requested follow-ups including an unduplicated encampment count, a briefing comparing city code and state statute language, and additional data on shelter acceptance and capacity.

Ending: Committee directed staff to return with clarified metrics, the requested counts and a codes briefing at a future meeting; no new enforcement policy was adopted at the Nov. 4 session.