8.4 23-842 City Initiatives Roadmap: Recreational Vehicles Communities Support Parking and Emergency Interim Housing. - TO BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY WITH ITEM 8.5
I strongly oppose this proposal as it advocates for permanent residency in RVs, with tax-paying citizens bearing the burden of providing essential utilities and basic needs. This would result in a significant waste of tax money. Furthermore, establishing an RV park would likely attract more individuals experiencing homelessness to the area, exacerbating the negative impacts on our community.
Other districts must do their share and have EIHC's. District 2 has done its' share. Where would people at the 85/101/Bernal South location park? At the current EIHC on Monterey cars have crept up to under Hwy 85 and use the bike lane under the Bernal overpass. Vehicle access for the site would be quite dangerous. The north site has nice mature trees. Both sites should be filled with trees or even solar panels if feasible to help reduce the city's carbon footprint.
This is such a bad idea. Its an industrial site that is pretty polluted. Wait till these residents get cancer, this will end up costing the city a lot more than a Creek clean up.
No where in the text does it actually describe specifically how this is supposed to help "houseless" people become "houseful", with only vague reference to "vital services". A 10yr lease for a glorified parking lot with toilets is going to cost over 48MIL in tax payer money?? And there's no mention of a time limit (minus the actual leasing time) so what stops the RV community filling up day 1 and then newer "houseless" but "RV-ful" owners are SOL? A housing crisis needs more houses, not this!
Strongly oppose! The neighborhood is already not safe. This parking and housing will make it even worse and it’s not fair to people who live nearby. Plus it’s too close to our school and will be a huge concern to kids safety.
Oppose!
As a homeowner in the area, I strongly object to additional interim Housing. Our neighborhood has already seen a marked increase in mail, theft, property, crimes, and unsanitary conditions. Please consider a more even distribution of interim housing across the span of San Jose. Thank you.
This area is already handling increased congestion due to the BART station and it’s associated development and this will further exasperate this. I strongly oppose this
As a homeowner near Bernal and Monterey Highway I object to additional Emergency Interim Housing. Our neighborhood already has a disproportionate share of this housing. Overall I think it is a good program, but the housing needs to be distributed more evenly throughout the City. Thank you.
This is a waste of city services and funds that we pay hard-working tax dollars for. We do not want to see more garbage, crime, and drug use in our neighborhood. Creating this RV park will attract more homelessness to the area thus increasing the negative impacts to our community. I strongly urge the city to find alternatives perhaps in a less densely populated area. There have been many incidents involving encampments around the area over the past few years and do not want to see this continue.
Emergency Interim Housing should not continue to be located in District 2. District 2 has over 500 units already constructed/planned. These sites need to be located throughout the entire City, not as staff has recommended at Bernal/Hwy 101. This is not a good location.
Do the other districts (including Almaden Valley) have any sites? Certainly the mayor sees the value in having these sites located in his neighborhood too. Other districts need to have a fair share of these facilities.
Oppose the 1300 Berryessa RV proposal. I can be swayed with the proper promises. There is a very important issue that this very small neighborhood around 1300 Berryessa Rd is being asked to shoulder a very disproportional load of the unhoused support (the area is already supporting the Tiny Homes at the Berryessa BART). If the city can provide and enforce a NO CAMPING ordinance along Coyote Creek and/or a NO CAMPING within 3 miles of the RV parking site the city can change a lot of minds.
I oppose this because this roadmap does not seem to be a temporary housing plan, it likely will be a long-term strategy which is just a part of plan to reduce homeless issue that we currently have and consolidated in a permanent & legal location. I am very concerned about the environmental impact on the propose site and the increase in traffic that would be adding to the existing congestion we already have. RV park is just not a good contrast to the current modern/healthy development there now
I strongly oppose this proposal as it advocates for permanent residency in RVs, with tax-paying citizens bearing the burden of providing essential utilities and basic needs. This would result in a significant waste of tax money. Furthermore, establishing an RV park would likely attract more individuals experiencing homelessness to the area, exacerbating the negative impacts on our community.
Other districts must do their share and have EIHC's. District 2 has done its' share. Where would people at the 85/101/Bernal South location park? At the current EIHC on Monterey cars have crept up to under Hwy 85 and use the bike lane under the Bernal overpass. Vehicle access for the site would be quite dangerous. The north site has nice mature trees. Both sites should be filled with trees or even solar panels if feasible to help reduce the city's carbon footprint.
Same reasons as what others have mentioned. Not fair for the residents living nearby
This is such a bad idea. Its an industrial site that is pretty polluted. Wait till these residents get cancer, this will end up costing the city a lot more than a Creek clean up.
Oppose due to potential increase of crimes in surrounding areas. Health hazard will also a big issue due to potential drugs and alcohol abuse.
Very close to residential area. Not safe for the schools and kids near by.
No where in the text does it actually describe specifically how this is supposed to help "houseless" people become "houseful", with only vague reference to "vital services". A 10yr lease for a glorified parking lot with toilets is going to cost over 48MIL in tax payer money?? And there's no mention of a time limit (minus the actual leasing time) so what stops the RV community filling up day 1 and then newer "houseless" but "RV-ful" owners are SOL? A housing crisis needs more houses, not this!
Strongly oppose! The neighborhood is already not safe. This parking and housing will make it even worse and it’s not fair to people who live nearby. Plus it’s too close to our school and will be a huge concern to kids safety.
Oppose!
As a homeowner in the area, I strongly object to additional interim Housing. Our neighborhood has already seen a marked increase in mail, theft, property, crimes, and unsanitary conditions. Please consider a more even distribution of interim housing across the span of San Jose. Thank you.
How will the government solve the homelessness problem from the root instead of establishing more and more shelters in our community?
This area is already handling increased congestion due to the BART station and it’s associated development and this will further exasperate this. I strongly oppose this
As a homeowner near Bernal and Monterey Highway I object to additional Emergency Interim Housing. Our neighborhood already has a disproportionate share of this housing. Overall I think it is a good program, but the housing needs to be distributed more evenly throughout the City. Thank you.
Firmly oppose
Oppose set 1300 Berryessa rd parking lot
This is a waste of city services and funds that we pay hard-working tax dollars for. We do not want to see more garbage, crime, and drug use in our neighborhood. Creating this RV park will attract more homelessness to the area thus increasing the negative impacts to our community. I strongly urge the city to find alternatives perhaps in a less densely populated area. There have been many incidents involving encampments around the area over the past few years and do not want to see this continue.
Oppose this location close to our schools.
Strongly Oppose! It would create a huge problem. We have already seen big issues such as stolen cars and mail thieving.
Emergency Interim Housing should not continue to be located in District 2. District 2 has over 500 units already constructed/planned. These sites need to be located throughout the entire City, not as staff has recommended at Bernal/Hwy 101. This is not a good location.
Do the other districts (including Almaden Valley) have any sites? Certainly the mayor sees the value in having these sites located in his neighborhood too. Other districts need to have a fair share of these facilities.
Oppose the 1300 Berryessa RV proposal. I can be swayed with the proper promises. There is a very important issue that this very small neighborhood around 1300 Berryessa Rd is being asked to shoulder a very disproportional load of the unhoused support (the area is already supporting the Tiny Homes at the Berryessa BART). If the city can provide and enforce a NO CAMPING ordinance along Coyote Creek and/or a NO CAMPING within 3 miles of the RV parking site the city can change a lot of minds.
I oppose this because this roadmap does not seem to be a temporary housing plan, it likely will be a long-term strategy which is just a part of plan to reduce homeless issue that we currently have and consolidated in a permanent & legal location. I am very concerned about the environmental impact on the propose site and the increase in traffic that would be adding to the existing congestion we already have. RV park is just not a good contrast to the current modern/healthy development there now