Laserfiche WebLink
<br />50 California Street, Suite 2800 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 <br />Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com <br />Chelsea Maclean <br />(415) 743-6979 <br />chelsea.maclean@hklaw.com <br /> <br /> <br />Anchorage | Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Charlotte | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale | Houston | Jacksonville | Lakeland <br />Los Angeles | Miami | New York | Orlando | Portland | San Francisco | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons <br />Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach <br /> <br />March 15, 2017 <br />City Council Members of Redwood City <br />City Hall <br />1017 Middlefield Road <br />Redwood City, CA 94063 <br />Re: Response to Appeal of 1409 El Camino Real Project Regarding Alleged <br />“Gentrification” Impacts <br />Dear City Council Members: <br />Our firm has been retained to represent Greystar GP II, LLC (“Applicant”) in its application to <br />build 350 apartment units (including 35 affordable, low income units) with 2,900 sq.ft. of ground <br />floor retail, and three levels of underground parking, at 1409 El Camino Real (“Project”). <br />We have been informed of the February 3, 2017 appeal submitted by Kris Johnson (“Appellant”) <br />challenging the Planning Commission’s approvals of the Project (“Appeal”). We would like to <br />take the opportunity to specifically respond to the comments regarding alleged gentrification <br />impacts stemming from the “loss of economic opportunities for its lower income citizens.” <br />(Appeal, p. 19.) As addressed throughout this letter, any notion that socioeconomic impacts such <br />as gentrification must be addressed under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. <br />Code §§ 21000 et. seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs.§15000 et. seq.) (“CEQA”) has been routinely <br />rejected by the Legislature and the courts as outside the statutory requirements of CEQA. <br />First, we note that the neither statutory law nor the CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of <br />socioeconomic issues such as displacement, gentrification, environmental justice or effects on <br />“community character.” The CEQA Guidelines state that “[e]conomic or social effects of a <br />project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines <br />§15131(a)) CEQA defines the “[e]nvironment” as “physical conditions,” (Pub. Res. Code <br />§21060.5 (emphasis added); Guidelines §15360.) Rather, impacts analyzed under CEQA must <br />be “related to a physical change.” (Guidelines §15358(b).) <br />Case law has historically and recently reaffirmed the fact that CEQA is not intended to address <br />socioeconomic impacts. In Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (“Poway”), residents of Poway <br />sued under CEQA to stop a new housing development that would have replaced an equestrian <br />center. The opponents argued that replacing equestrian facilities with housing would harm <br />Poway’s “community character” and “country” feel, but the Court of Appeal re-affirmed that <br />8.A. - Page 128