Unlike neighboring cities, Berkeley lacks a formal definition of “encampment.” Local officials have said that the city will need $750 million over the next ten years to ensure that the number of unhoused residents does not increase.
The majority of Berkeley's unhoused residents are long-rooted in the region. 60.7% of people have lived in Alameda County for over a decade, and 57% were last housed within the county before losing their homes, according to the 2024 PIT Count. Additionally, Black residents make up just under 8% of Berkeley's general population yet account for nearly 44% of those experiencing homelessness.
BERKELEY’S
GENERAL POPULATION:
GENERAL POPULATION:
8% Black
BERKELEY’S
UNHOUSED POPULATION:
UNHOUSED POPULATION:
44% Black
The City of Berkeley funds homelessness services through a mix of municipal, county, state, and federal sources. Since 2022, the city has received $45 million in State Homekey and Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) grants. The $15 million in ERF funds has supported noncongregate motel shelters for the former residents of specific encampments, while Homekey dollars created 87 rooms of permanent supportive housing. Local funding comes primarily from Measure O which supports affordable housing and Measure P, which contributed $7.8 million for homelessness in Fiscal Year 2025. These investments were supplemented by $3.9 million from the city’s General Fund.
Across all funding sources, Berkeley spent about $25.4 million on homelessness in 2025 from various sources, directed toward emergency shelter operations ($13.3M), permanent supportive housing ($7.4M), street conditions and hygiene ($4.3M), and homelessness prevention ($401K).
There are about 391 shelter beds in Berkeley: 47 beds in transitional housing programs, 236 year-round emergency shelter beds in both congregate and non-congregate settings, and 108 beds in seasonal shelters, which are only open during the winter months. However, available beds reach only a fraction of Berkeley's homeless population. The city’s 134 non-congregate shelter beds are almost exclusively dedicated to specific populations, whether its people displaced from specific encampments, or families, or SSI recipients. When it comes to housing, there are about 620 units of permanent housing, and 61 rapid rehousing vouchers available to unhoused residents of Berkeley.
On paper, these investments have had an impact in Berkeley: The reported population of unsheltered individuals living in the city decreased by 45% between 2022 and 2024, according to the PIT Count. This downward trend aligned with increased funding from local tax measures and state grants directed at expanding shelter beds and housing programs.
However, the decline in the city’s unsheltered population has not translated to fewer community concerns in Berkeley. In 2024, a group of business owners filed a lawsuit against the city about the continued existence of homeless encampments that they said affected their business. “This neighborhood has so much potential. It could be so great if we could just clean this up,” Emily Winston, the owner of Boichik Bagels, told the San Francisco Chronicle. Additionally, the number of homelessness-related calls to 311 increased from at least 880 cases in 2022 to 1,090 in 2024.
These calls are typically assigned to the city’s Homeless Response Team, the team of city staff that is tasked with managing unsheltered homelessness.
WHO’S IN CHARGE?
CITY OF BERKELEY
Berkeley's encampment management is led by the "Homeless Response Team," with input from the Homeless Services Panel of Experts and the City Council and Mayor.
The team coordinates closely with multiple city departments including Public Works; Health, Housing and Community Services; Parks, Recreation and Waterfront; the City Attorney’s Office; and the Berkeley Police Department. They have an annual operating budget of over $1 million from Measure P funds. Recently, the HRT reinstated the Homeless Services Panel of Experts weekly coordination meetings among local service providers, after a year-and-a-half-long pause. These meetings include LifeLong Medical Care, Dorothy Day House, Bay Area Community Services (BACS), Insight Housing, Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (BOSS), the Homeless Action Center (HAC), Options Recovery Services, the Women’s Daytime Drop-In Center, and others.
While broader responsibilities such as homelessness prevention, affordable housing development, and long-term housing programs fall under other city departments and the Alameda County Continuum of Care, the HRT was created to function as the City of Berkeley’s operational arm for “resolving unsheltered homelessness” through both outreach and enforcement interventions.
The City of Berkeley contracts with nonprofits like Dorothy Day House and Insight Housing to operate shelter and housing programs. However, most encampment outreach is done by the Homeless Response Team. Outreach involves referring individuals to local shelters (like Insight Housing, the Campus Motel, or the Berkeley Inn), and conducting housing assessments through the County’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).
“Enrollment occurs when an individual engages with HRT staff and expresses interest in connection to services such as shelter, housing navigation, crisis assessment, or other supports (e.g., benefits assistance, employment services, storage),” says Homeless Services Coordinator Josh Jacobs. “A basic intake is completed based on information gathered through engagement. Services are voluntary and may occur over multiple contacts as rapport is established.”
Of those who enrolled in the HRT’s Street Outreach program since 2021, 63% have exited to indoor placements, 25% have exited back into outdoor settings, and 11% have had other outcomes, including unknown destinations or death, according to a 2025 report to the city council. The stated goal of the group’s outreach efforts is to reduce the impact of unsheltered homelessness by offering available resources, maintaining “health and safety” when resources—like dumpsters or shelter placements—are available.
The HRT is also responsible for conducting enforcement. Enforcement actions conducted by the HRT fall into three main categories: Public Noticing, Deep Cleaning, and Closure. Public noticing involves issuing Berkeley Municipal Code notices and encouraging individuals to voluntarily relocate or comply with local regulations. Deep cleanings include removing items that officials designate as excess debris, trash, and hazardous materials; providing pest control treatments; conducting street sweeping, and sidewalk pressure-washing. Closures involve removing tents, debris, and other items and requiring individuals to relocate along with their possessions.
In their work, the HRT balances competing public interests with the internal tension between outreach and enforcement. It is tasked with deciding which encampments are prioritized for enforcement using information from its outreach staff, Homeless Services Panel of Experts, referrals from other city departments, and public 311 reports.
Making internal decisions about how to prioritize their limited resources and making case-by-case judgements about how to enforce the law is a challenge for the HRT. According to the Draft Encampment Policy Report to the City Council in September 2023, the “City staff do not have the resources to enforce every Municipal Code everywhere and all at once. Staff already make internal decisions about how to prioritize limited resources.” Underlying these decisions is the city’s Encampment Management Policy Resolution of 2024 and the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), which—though not consistently enforced—shape the conditions of life for people living outside.
GUIDING POLICY
The 2024 Encampment Management Policy Resolution (No. 71,513-N.S) explicitly authorizes enforcement actions, including encampment closures, citation, and arrest, even when shelter offers are not available. It defines six specific circumstances where enforcement will be prioritized: when encampments pose a fire hazard, health hazard, public nuisance, or threat of property encroachment or interference with utility operations, or are located on a street median/roadway, or in dangerous proximity to traffic.
When it comes to providing notice and storage for personal property, the HRT aims to post written notices at encampments at least 72 hours prior to an encampment closure, except in “very rare circumstances where imminent hazards need immediate abatement.” When it comes to property storage, the team is obligated by Administrative Regulation 10.1, a local rule that dictates the city’s policy on the Temporary Storage of Unattended Property. This regulation requires the city to store property for at least 14 days at the city’s Corporation Yard for potential retrieval unless the items are deemed “refused” or “garbage,” such as soiled bedding, perishable food, or furniture, and then they can be immediately disposed of.
Much of Berkeley’s policy on homelessness comes through the Municipal Code. The codes most commonly used on the HRT’s encampment closure notices are the city’s Shared Sidewalk Policies, Park Rules, Obstructions of Medians, and Notice of Imminent Health Hazard and Emergency Abatements. The two Shared Sidewalk Policies (BMC 14.48.020 and BMC 14.48.120) establish the conditions under which personal belongings may be present in public areas. BMC 14.48.020 prohibits “obstructions on streets and sidewalks,” making it unlawful for any person to place or cause to be placed any object that obstructs, restricts, or prevents the use of a sidewalk, parklet, or roadway, except as authorized by the City Manager. Meanwhile, BMC 14.48.120, which defines Temporary Noncommercial Objects (TNC Objects), further specifies what kinds of personal property are permitted in public space. It limits allowable items to those that remain in the owner’s immediate custody, are easily movable, and are not considered furniture. The section grants the city manager authority to determine where and under what conditions such objects may be placed. The city’s 2024 Encampment Management Policy Resolution significantly expanded the authority of the city manager to update and adjust the administrative regulation that governs objects placed on sidewalks.
A series of parking laws set the rules for those who live in vehicles. It is generally illegal to park in one place for longer than 72 hours, and there are additional restrictions on larger vehicles like RVs, including overnight parking bans in certain parts of the city. However, Berkeley officials have stressed that there are no state or local laws making it illegal to dwell in a vehicle, which can make enforcement of these laws difficult.
THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE
As a whole, the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) is the collection of the city's laws and ordinances that define the way people must inhabit the city. The BMC informs the boundaries of the public places that Berkeley residents can sit, sleep, store belongings, and park vehicles—all part and parcel of daily life for homeless people. Ultimately, they help describe the conditions under which an encampment can be deemed unlawful or subject to removal.
While there are many local laws that effectively regulate homelessness in Berkeley, these laws are not always enforced, and local leaders say there have been no citations or infractions of these laws since the HRT was created in 2021. Still, breaking these rules has a variety of potential consequences. Violations of the municipal code are generally treated as infractions, with escalating fines: up to $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second, and $500 for subsequent violations within a year. After repeated offenses, the city attorney may elevate the charge to a misdemeanor, which carries potential penalties of up to $1,000 in fines, six months in jail, or both.
We have come to understand the 45 BMC laws that manage homelessness in two general sections: Behavioral Laws and Sanitation Laws.
The 32 laws that govern public space behavior can be organized into four broad categories:
- Laws governing where vehicles may be parked and for how long (10)
- Laws regulating the location and quantity of personal property in public spaces (7)
-
Laws regulating standing, sitting, resting, sleeping, and lodging in public places (9)
- Laws restricting or prescribing specific activities within public spaces (6)
The 13 laws concerning sanitation, environmental hazards, and waste disposal can be organized into three broad categories:
- Laws regulating rodent control (4)
- Laws regulating health and safety (4)
- Laws regulating dumping (5)
HISTORY OF
POLICYMAKING
- In 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Los Angeles ordinance prohibiting people from sleeping in their cars was constitutionally vague. Following this decision, the Berkeley city attorney concluded that the city could no longer ticket individuals for sleeping in their vehicles and instructed police to stop enforcing such actions.
- In December 2015 , the city council enacted new street-behavior regulations restricting sidewalk space, prohibiting lying in planters, banning public urination and defecation, and mandating a new storage facility with lockers for personal belongings.
- In May 2017, the city adopted Administrative Regulation 10.1: Temporary Storage of Unattended Property to revise its procedures for handling personal belongings removed from public spaces.
- In September 2018, the Martin v. Boise decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily constrained local governments’ ability to clear encampments without first offering adequate shelter, framing such actions as potential violations of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
- In October 2018, the City adopted Administrative Regulation 10.2 Regulating Temporary Non-Commercial Objects on Sidewalks and in Parklets, Pursuant to BMC 14.48.120 that lays out rules for placing temporary non-commercial personal items (like backpacks, bags, bedding, small belongings) on sidewalks and parklets.
- In 2018, Berkeley voters approved Measure P, an increase to the real estate transfer tax on the top third of property sales to generate funding for homeless services including navigation centers, mental health support, and rehousing programs.
- In 2019, in Sullivan v. City of Berkeley, unhoused residents challenged the City’s encampment removal policies, arguing that seizing and storing personal belongings violated their Fourth, Fourteenth, and First Amendment rights. The court found the City’s procedures in practice and as written in Administrative Regulation 10.1 were generally constitutional.
- In March 2019, the Berkeley City Council voted to ban overnight RV parking, but only after creating a permit system and committing to support “priority populations” in finding permanent housing. However, this was never enforced because the citywide overnight RV parking permit process was never established.
- In 2020, Alameda County voters passed Measure W, a ten year, half-cent sales tax which created a new stream of funding for homeless services in Berkeley.
- In 2021, the City Council adopted the All Home Regional Action Plan to outline their efforts to reduce unsheltered homelessness.
-
In 2021, the City began enforcing parking restrictions against vehicle dwellers, including the Berkeley Friends on Wheels community at 8th and Harrison Streets, issuing 72-hour move notices and conducting "deep clean" operations. The city offered alternative parking at the SPARK safe parking site on Grayson Street, but many residents found the program inaccessible due to restrictions on non-operational vehicles, pets, and families with children. Community members filed for a temporary restraining order and civil rights lawsuit to resist displacement.
- In 2022, the city repealed the BMC Chapter 12.76 Housing Cars Ordinance, a 1970 ordinance that had made it unlawful to use or occupy a “house car” or camper for human habitation within city limits for more than three days in a 90-day period. It also amended BMC 14.40.120, the 2019 ordinance that had restricted parking between two a.m. and five a.m. The new law got rid of language that prohibited RVs and other residential vehicles in the city overnight.
- In 2023, Prado v. City of Berkeley, residents at the 8th and Harrison encampment sued the City of Berkeley to prevent the eviction of unhoused residents at the 8th and Harrison Street encampment until there are sufficient provisions of shelter, housing, or alternative accommodations that take into consideration their disability-related needs.
- In 2024, Berkeley voters passed a local Measure W (not to be confused with Alameda County's Measure W, passed in 2020). Berkeley Measure W extended Measure P funding for homelessness services in Berkeley.
- In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson overturned the protections established by Martin v. Boise, reauthorizing cities to enforce anti-camping and related ordinances regardless of shelter availability.
-
In September 2024, a coalition of Berkeley businesses filed a lawsuit against the City of Berkeley, claiming that a long-standing encampment along Harrison Street constituted a public and private nuisance. The complaint argues that the city must comply with nuisance laws just like any private property owner—namely, to keep public streets and sidewalks safe, clear, and accessible.
- In September 2024, the City of Berkeley issued an executive order and adopted a new Encampment Management Policy Resolution No. 71,513-N.S, which significantly expanded the authority of the city manager in the management of encampments and explicitly authorizes enforcement actions, including encampment closures, even when shelter offers are not practicable, under emergency circumstances.
- In 2025, the Berkeley Homeless Union, Homeless Action Center, East Bay Community Law Center, and other local legal aid groups have contested the constitutionality of the City of Berkeley’s management strategy in a series of continuing lawsuits including Berkeley Homeless Union v. City of Berkeley (Harrison Corridor) and Berkeley Homeless Union v. City of Berkeley (Ohlone Park). Plaintiffs raise constitutional and ADA claims regarding the city’s encampment closure practices and the rights of unhoused residents.
DISCUSSION
According to Homeless Services Coordinator Josh Jacobs, the city’s Homeless Response Team (HRT) “conducts ongoing, relationship-based street outreach citywide, independent of encampment closures or abatements.” In practice, however, the HRT operates under a mandate to resolve encampments regardless of whether shelter or housing is available—and with only a handful of staff and a roughly $1 million budget, advocates say that outreach and enforcement frequently happen in tandem.
The same gap between stated policy and lived experience also appears in how the city maintains encampments it hasn't yet closed. Berkeley describes sanitation services as a priority, but residents and advocates describe those services as inconsistent, and say that their absence has directly shaped the negative conditions on the ground.
In January 2026, the city reported a leptospirosis outbreak that happened at one of its biggest encampments—the one at the center of all its federal lawsuits. The deadly bacteria had been confirmed in two dogs at the encampment and detected in rats for the first time in Alameda County in five years. The city cited the outbreak as grounds to clear the encampment entirely.
However, advocates voiced concern that the city’s own management of waste contributed to these conditions. Advocates say the city removed a dumpster from the 8th and Harrison encampment during its June 2025 enforcement actions and never replaced it, and has decreased their regular trash pick ups. “The city has only exacerbated health and safety issues by refusing to put the dumpster back, which has continued to attract rats,” attorney Anthony Prince told the San Francisco Chronicle. “The city itself has created this health crisis.”
Similar complaints surround property storage. Judge Chen, the judge ruling over the various lawsuits in Berkeley found that:
“The city has a pattern of destroying plaintiffs and class members’ property during abatements and closures, even when faced with individuals making legitimate claims of possessory interest in the property and protesting its seizure and destruction. On some occasions, the items being destroyed are mobility devices like wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, and medication.”
The city's practice, Judge Chen wrote, was to arrive with heavy machinery before identifying who was there, whether they had shelter to go to, or where their belongings would be stored.