Since Valley Water evicted dozens of unhoused residents of Gilroy from the water district’s properties along local creeks in November, many have relocated to a growing encampment on Sixth Street near Camino Arroyo Drive.
On Feb. 9, the Gilroy City Council voted 4-2 to give those residents 90 days to clean up and move out before they are lawfully evicted.
The temporary encampment—known by its residents as “Camp Hope”—located on city-owned property behind Costco exists in violation of an ordinance the city passed in 2023 that prohibits camping on public rights-of-way. There are currently about 20 people living in the temporary camp, according to city staff.
Because the encampment is illegal, the council had the alternate option of abating it immediately, city staff said. However, the council majority opted to give the current unhoused residents 90 days before requiring them to move.
Council members Zach Hilton and Terence Fugazzi voted against the Feb. 9 motion to give the camp residents 90 days to leave. Both said they preferred an immediate abatement.
“We have a duty to protect our city infrastructure, especially critical infrastructure,” Hilton said after the meeting. “I don’t like deviating from a citywide policy subjectively.”
Gilroy Police Capt. Luke Powell explained at the Feb. 9 meeting that the city had allowed the unhoused people to temporarily take up residence at the Sixth Street site, after they had been displaced from Valley Water’s sites off Renz Lane and Tomkins Court.
In fact, the encampment is a “successive displacement across multiple jurisdictions,” Powell said. After they were evicted from the Valley Water properties, those homeless residents moved to a property owned by Santa Clara County north of Sixth Street.
The county evicted the residents from that property. They then moved to a state-owned right-of-way on the other side of the Sixth Street intersection of Highway 101. The California Highway Patrol removed the homeless people from that location, Powell explained.
They then moved to the current site on Sixth Street with limited accommodations provided by the City of Gilroy, including trash services and portable restrooms.
Powell said at the meeting that the camp has not resulted in significant damage or any calls for police or emergency services. He said the police department spends about three hours of staff time per week patrolling the Sixth Street encampment.
Complaints from neighboring businesses and residents have been “minimal,” Powell said. The camp is adjacent to a public bike and pedestrian path.
Some members of the public said at the Feb. 9 meeting that piles of trash have accumulated at the Sixth Street site since the camp appeared. Some also said they have encountered the residents in the Costco parking lot, and a portion of the store’s fence had been removed—allowing the camp residents to cut through quickly. It is unclear who removed the fence or when it was removed.
Most of the camp residents, Powell added, are enrolled in the county’s housing entry system. Six are set to move into interim housing.
City staff have worked with the county and nonprofit organizations to help the residents gain services, Powell added.
The dilemma with any eviction or abatement of the homeless camp, according to discussion at the meeting, is that these long-term unhoused Gilroyans have no permanent shelter or housing options to retreat to. If and when they are evicted, they will still be unhoused somewhere else, likely still in Gilroy.
“Obviously, they need a place to go and they don’t have a place right now, so they’re going to distribute throughout town,” Powell said, in response to a question from Council member Dion Bracco. “So we’re going to have 20 people at 20 different locations throughout the community.”
Some residents at the meeting noted that having unhoused people scattered around the city makes it even more difficult to offer services and manage their impact than if they are consolidated at a single site.
Bracco added, “There are less tents on the sidewalks and fields, and it just feels better in the area—and you’re not seeing as much” in terms of a visual impact. Bracco made the motion to give the camp a 90-day extension.
Before the council voted on the 90-day reprieve, Powell listed the pros and cons of either of the available options. An immediate abatement of the site would have reduced city costs and liability, and keep enforcement consistent.
A temporary suspension of the ordinance for 90 days allows the residents more time to find housing and services, but results in continued city costs, city staff said. Either way, there is no guarantee that the homeless residents will find permanent housing.
