AgdaPkt 2020-11-09 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LSM ; Graniterock. housing." If the 1402 Maple Street site is not a good location for permanent housing, it is certainly not a good location for a homeless shelter housing individuals who are vulnerable and in need of critical support services. We would also note that the Specific Plan conducted several impact studies of baseline conditions within the Inner Harbor Specific Plan area, including noise impacts. Figure 2.11 of the Specific Plan illustrates that a portion of the 1402 Maple Street site — and exactly where the County proposes to construct a shelter and housing — lies within the 70 dBA noise contour which, the study notes, would be "[a]cceptable for residential use only with substantial mitigation in the form of construction materials/methods." This report was conducted in 2015, and noise impacts are no doubt more pronounced now with continued growth in the area. It is also worth remembering that the Specific Plan envisioned active/passive park space and recreational uses at the City's 1402 Maple Street site, over the entire parcel area and up to the waterfront, for the benefit of all community members. Open space, playing fields and aquatic uses would be compatible with industrial uses within the Inner Harbor plan area, including Graniterock's Redwood City facility. Recognizing the importance of passive/active recreational and open space, the Committee reportedly asked City staff to develop three alternative options for a County/City land exchange agreement, which are presented in the Staff Report. Unfortunately, each one of these options assumes that the County would construct a homeless shelter and housing immediately next to heavy industry; the options vary only by the amount of land that would be conveyed by the City to the County. None of these options would address the impacts of placing housing next to heavy industrial uses. There is an alternative, however, that we would ask the City to consider. As the attached diagram illustrates, the City and County could consider constructing a new homeless shelter and supportive housing on City -owned property to the northwest of the 1402 Maple Street parcel. This area is currently being underutilized as a parking lot, and, because of its location and proximity to the waterfront, would be well insulated from heavy industrial businesses and would lie outside the 70bBA noise contour mapped by the Specific Plan. The City's and County's functional zero goal would be well served and, at the same time, this alternative would preserve the Specific Plan's and the City's goal of creating a vibrant waterfront and open space/recreational uses for the community, without the negative impacts of the current alternatives being considered. Finally, we wish to point out, once again, that the proposed land exchange agreement between the County and City must undergo environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Placement of a homeless shelter adjacent to heavy industrial uses — a "reasonably foreseeable" consequence of the proposed agreement - would be incompatible with the City's General Plan, has not been studied in any prior environmental document, and must therefore be studied in a Supplemental or new EIR. Both the Committee and MIG appear to recognize these, as yet unstudied, impacts. We refer you to our August 7, 2020, letter to the City Council from counsel for further details, which is attached.