The General Plan Revisions Project COMMUNITY SURVEY: CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Carmel-by-the-Sea
COMMUNITY SURVEY
General Plan Revisions Project
June 2008
RBF CONSULTING

The General Plan Revisions Project
Community Survey

CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

The Urban Forest
The predominant trees in Carmel’s urban forest are Monterey Pines and Coast Live Oaks, but there are also several other species present. The forested character of Carmel can change over time depending how many trees are planted and what species are planted. By answering the following questions, you can help make choices about the future character of Carmel’s urban forest.

CS-1: More trees should be planted:
CS-1a In residential neighborhoods on public property
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-1b In residential neighborhoods on private property
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-1c Near the beach along the pedestrian pathway
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-1d In City parks
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-1e In the commercial district
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-1f Only when an existing tree dies or is removed
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-1g: Other. (Please specify):______________________

CS-1h Nowhere. We don’t need more trees. (Mark an X in the last box)

CS-2: When new trees are planted they should be:
CS-2a Mostly tall (upper canopy) trees like Monterey Pines
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-2b Mostly short (low canopy) trees like Coast Live Oaks
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-2c An equal mix of both upper and lower canopy trees
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-2d Only trees that are native to the Central Coast
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-2e A mix of both native and non-native trees
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-2f Only drought-tolerant trees
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-2g The City needs trees but the height and species don’t matter to me
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-2h None of the above. The City shouldn’t plant new trees. (Mark an X in the last box)

Water Supply
The amount of water currently used on the Monterey Peninsula exceeds environmental limits set by the State. New water supply projects are now in the planning stages to restore the balance between the total water supply, existing uses and the environment. These projects also may provide water for new development. Your answers to the question on the following page will help the City make decisions on how to allocate any additional water.

CS-3: Setting Priorities: If water becomes available for development, the City should allocate it for:
CS-3a: New homes on existing vacant lots
Highest Priority to Lowest Priority (1 to 8)

CS-3b: Upgrading existing homes (more bathrooms, guest houses, etc)
Highest Priority to Lowest Priority (1 to 8)

CS-3c: Subdividing existing lots into more lots
Highest Priority to Lowest Priority (1 to 8)

CS-3d: New affordable and/or workforce housing
Highest Priority to Lowest Priority (1 to 8)

CS-3e: New apartments in the commercial district
Highest Priority to Lowest Priority (1 to 8)

CS-3f: New condominiums in the commercial district
Highest Priority to Lowest Priority (1 to 8)

CS-3g: New commercial development
Highest Priority to Lowest Priority (1 to 8)

CS-3h: Environmental uses (open space, etc)
Highest Priority to Lowest Priority (1 to 8)

Environmental Sustainability:
Environmental sustainability programs replace exhaustible resources like oil, gas and minerals with renewable resources like solar energy and organic materials that can be replenished. These programs usually include a “green building” ordinance to promote using the sun to hear and light buildings, recycled materials, solar panels and lumber from sustainably-managed forests. Environmental sustainability programs also reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases associated with global warming and climate change.

CS-4: Carmel-by-the-Sea should:
CS-4a Not be involved in this issue.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-4b Be a leader in environmental sustainability.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-4c Adopt an environmental sustainability program for its own municipal operations.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-4d Adopt an environmental sustainability program involving residents.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-4e Adopt an environmental sustainability program involving businesses.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-4f Set long-term, citywide goals to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-5: The City should promote green building design and sustainable materials by taking the following actions:
CS-5a Adopt local standards that require green building practices and sustainable materials when permits are issued to construct new buildings.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-5b Adopt local standards that require green building practices and sustainable materials when permits for remodeling existing structures.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-5c Adopt local standards that require green building practices and sustainable materials when the City’s municipal buildings are constructed or remodeled.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-5d Provide education materials only. Do not adopt green building requirements for building permits.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-5e Do nothing. The City should not be involved in this issue beyond what is required by State and Federal regulations.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

CS-5f Other: ____________________

CS-6: Does your home or business in Carmel-by-the-Sea use any of the following energy-saving features?
CS-6a: Energy-efficient lighting (compact fluorescents or LEDs)
Yes, No or Don’t Know

CS-6b: Increased insulation (beyond State standards)
Yes, No or Don’t Know

CS-6c: Double-pane or triple-pane windows
Yes, No or Don’t Know

CS-6d: Tankless water heater
Yes, No or Don’t Know

CS-6e: Solar improvements-solar electricity and/or solar hot water
Yes, No or Don’t Know

CS-6f: Recycled construction materials
Yes, No or Don’t Know

CS-6g: Other: _________________
Yes, No or Don’t Know

This question is for business owners.

CS-7: Do your customers ask if you are a “green business” or if you carry “green products?”
CS-7a: No, I don’t get questions about this.

CS-7b: Yes, a few customers ask about this.

CS-7c: Yes, I frequently get questions about this (or an increasing number of customers are asking about this).

CS-7d: I would like to know more about this topic.

CS-7e: I am familiar with this topic and would participate in a program to help Carmel businesses become more green.

CS-8: What is the single most important issue related to trees, water, or environmental sustainability that you would like to see addressed first? __________________________________

CS-9: Additional Comments: In the space below, you may provide additional comments related to conservation, trees, water allocations and environmental sustainability.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The General Plan Revisions Project COMMUNITY SURVEY: PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Carmel-by-the-Sea
COMMUNITY SURVEY
General Plan Revisions Project
June 2008
RBF CONSULTING

The General Plan Revisions Project
Community Survey

PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES

PS-1: Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of these City parks, open spaces and amenities.
PS-1a Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-1b Carmel Beach
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-1c Forest Hill Park
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-1d Devendorf Park
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-1e First Murphy Park
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-1f Piccadilly Park
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-1g Landscaping along the public right of way.
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-1h Bicycle trails.
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-1i Pedestrian trails/hiking trails
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2: Please indicate your satisfaction with the following services provided by the City or by other entities.
PS-2a Library
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2b Cultural programs
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2c Recreational programs and events
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-d Police
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2e Fire
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2f Ambulance
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2g Forestry and parks
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2h Public Works (streets, sidewalks, storm drains)
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2i Planning permit process
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2k Building permit process
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2k Code enforcement
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2l Recycling
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2m Garbage pick-up
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2n Cable Television
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2o Cell phone coverage
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

PS-2p Wi-Fi internet coverage
Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied

Infrastructure
Setting Priorities: In the next question you will be asked to rank your responses so we will know what is most important to you. Your answers will help the city in setting priorities to better serve your needs.

PS-3: Which of the following actions would have the greatest impact on improving the City?
PS-3a Improving/maintaining City streets
Most Important to Least Important (1-8)

PS-3b Improving/maintaining City buildings
Most Important to Least Important (1-8)

PS-3c Improving/maintaining park facilities
Most Important to Least Important (1-8)

PS-3d Improving/maintaining drainage and storm water facilities
Most Important to Least Important (1-8)

PS-3e Planting/maintaining City trees
Most Important to Least Important (1-8)

PS-3f Putting overhead utility wires underground
Most Important to Least Important (1-8)

PS-3g Improving/maintaining sidewalks in the commercial district
Most Important to Least Important (1-8)

PS-3h Providing more parking for the commercial district
Most Important to Least Important (1-8)

PS-4: Are there other infrastructure needs that must be addressed but are not included in the list above?
Yes (Please specify): ________________ No _____

PS-5: The City should raise funds to pay for improvements to services, facilities and buildings, by:
PS-5a Increasing the sales tax rate
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

PS-5b Increasing the property tax by adopting a special assessment
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

PS-5c Increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax (motels)
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

PS-5d Charging fees for the impacts of new construction
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

PS-5e Selling City property
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

PS-5f Charging fees for services provided by the City
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

PS-5g Other: __________________________
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

PS-h None of the above. The City shouldn’t raise more funds. (Mark an X in the last box)

PS-6: The City owns vacant property known as the Rio Park property. It is located between the Carmel Mission’s Larson Field and the Mission Ranch tennis courts. This property fronts on the Carmel River and is within a flood plain. I think this property should be:
PS-6a Restored to provide habitat for native plants and animals and then preserved as open space
PS-6b Developed into an active recreational park (trails, sports field, activities)
PS-6c Both of the above (part restored to habitat and part developed for active use).
PS-6d Developed as housing
PS-6e Sold
PS-6f Other. Please specify: _____________________
PS-6g Don’t know

PS-7: What is the single most important concern about City services, parks, infrastructure or property that you would like to see addressed first? ____________________________________

PS-8: Additional Comments: In the space below, you may provide additional comments related to City services, parks, infrastructure and property.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The General Plan Revisions Project COMMUNITY SURVEY: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS & TRAFFIC SAFETY, CIRCULATION AND PARKING

ABSTRACT: For public service purposes, the Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan Revisions Project COMMUNITY SURVEY is reproduced over five days. Each day will feature a Section of the COMMUNITY SURVEY, namely TRAFFIC SAFETY, CIRCULATION AND PARKING; PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES; CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; NOISE; and ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY.

Carmel-by-the-Sea
COMMUNITY SURVEY
General Plan Revisions Project
June 2008
RBF CONSULTING

The General Plan Revisions Project
Community Survey

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
The following questions will help us learn a little about you so your survey responses can be compared to other groups. Answering these questions will help us understand your responses to the survey.

D-1: Are you Male of Female?
D-1a Male
D-1b Female

D-2: Please indicate your family status.
D-2a Single living alone
D-2b Single living with one or more other adults
D-2c Married no children
D-2d Married with children
D-2e Single parent

D-3: Where is your primary residence?
Your primary residence is where you call “home.” You usually live there most of the year. It is where you are probably registered to vote and receive bills and important papers by mail. It is not property that you rent out to others and not property that you use as a part-time residence or vacation home. This question also asks whether you own a business.
D-3a My primary residence is in Carmel-by-the-Sea and I won this residence.
D-3b My primary residence is in Carmel-by-the-Sea and I rent or lease this residence.
D-3c My primary residence is not in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
D-3d I own commercial property in Carmel-by-the-Sea’s commercial district.
D-3e I own a business in Carmel-by-the-Sea’s commercial district.

D-4: Please indicate your employment status.
D-4a Employed Full Time
D-4b Employed Part-Time
D-4c Unemployed/Retired

D-5: Please mark an X in the box corresponding to your age group.
D-5a 11 and younger
D-5b 12 to 17
D-5c 18 to 24
D-5d 25 to 334
D-5e 35 to 44
D-5f 44 to 54
D-5g 55 to 64
D-5h 65 to 74
D-5i 75 to 84
D-5j 85 or older

The following question is for persons owning a business in Carmel-by-the-Sea.

D-6: Please mark an X next to the category that best describes your business.
D-6a Retail sales
D-6b Restaurant
D-6c Motel or hotel
D-6d Offices, services and all other uses


TRAFFIC SAFETY, CIRCULATION AND PARKING
Traffic Congestion and Safety

TC-1: Carmel does not have excessive traffic congestion in the commercial district most of the time. I can usually drive to businesses and other destinations without too much delay or frustration.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree
If you don’t drive please mark an X here______.

TC-2: Generally, pedestrians are safe in:
TC-2a Most residential neighborhoods.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-2b Neighborhoods near the beach.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-2c Neighborhoods near the commercial district.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-2d Carmel’s commercial district
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-2e: Is there a specific place that pedestrians are unsafe? Please specify in the space below.


Some cities use “Traffic Calming Measures” to alter driver behavior. Typically, these are physical changes to a roadway that are intended to slow traffic, divert traffic, reduce congestion or improve pedestrian safety.

TC-3: The following traffic calming measures would be appropriate for Carmel-by-the-Sea at some intersections or along some roads:
TC-3a Add trees/landscaping along the edges of roads
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-3b Add tree islands in the middle of some roads
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-3c Remove trees and/or scrubs along road edges
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-3d Use textured pavement at crosswalks in the commercial district.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-3e Other
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-3f None of the above. (Please mark an X in the last box)

TC-4: What is the single most important concern about traffic circulation or safety that you would like to see addressed first?________________

Parking
TC-5: Regarding parking in Carmel:
TC-5a I can usually find a parking space reasonably close to the destinations I visit in the commercial district.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-5b Parking time limits downtown should be longer.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-5c Parking time limits downtown should be shorter.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-5d There should not be any time limits for parking.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-5e The City should install parking meters or kiosks.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-5f The City needs more parking serving the commercial district.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-5g The City should build a parking structure.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-5h I drive a car, truck or other vehicle.
Yes or No

TC-6: If a parking structure is built at the Sunset Cultural Center (south side of Eight Avenue between San Carlos and Mission Streets) will you use it?
TC-6a I will use it.
TC-6b One or more of my employees will use it.
TC-6c I think shoppers and other visitors to Carmel’s commercial district are likely to use it.
TC-6d I currently use the parking lot at this location when I shop or work in the commercial district.

TC-7: If a parking structure is built at the Vista Lobos property (east side of Junipero Avenue south of Third Avenue) will you use it?
TC-7a I will use it.
TC-7b One or more of my employees will use it.
TC-7c Shoppers and other visitors to Carmel’s commercial district are likely to use it.
TC-7d I currently use the parking lot at this location when I shop or work in the commercial district.

TC-8: If a parking structure is built, the following groups should be allowed to park free.
TC-8a No one. All those who park should pay.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-8b Residents
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-8c Employees
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-8d Visitors
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-8e Parking should be free for all
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-9: I use public transportation serving Carmel-by-the-Sea:
TC-9a Daily or almost daily.
TC-9b At least once each week.
TC-9c At least once each month.
TC-9d I don’t use public transportation services.

TC-10: Please mark an X next to each of the following statements that you agree with.
TC-10a I don’t use public transportation.
TC-10b I will use a bus (or use them more often) if they provide service to more destinations.
TC-10c I will use a bus (or use them more often) if they provide more frequent service.
TC-10d I will use a bus (or use them more often) if they stop closer to my home or business.
TC-10e I will use a bus (or use them more often) if they use smaller buses or vans.
TC-10f I will use a bus (or use them more often) if they will pick me up and drop me off where I want.
TC-10g I will never use a bus.
TC-10h I will use public transportation for some trips if the cost of gasoline rises to more than $________per gallon.
TC-10i I would use public transportation if. _____________.

Some cities have a shuttle connecting local destinations. A local shuttle would be limited to Carmel-by-the-Sea City limits. Destinations might include the library, post office, markets, local motels, the beach and local parks.

TC-11: Please respond to the following statement about starting a Carmel-by-the-Sea shuttle.
TC-11a I think there should be a local shuttle in Carmel.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-11b A shuttle would not be appropriate for Carmel.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-11c I think there should be a local shuttle for visitors.
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral/No Opinion, Somewhat Disagree or Strongly Disagree

TC-12: How much would you be willing to pay to use a Carmel-by-the-Sea shuttle? (Assume that paying a fare would allow unlimited rides for one day.)
TC-12a I would be willing to pay $1.00 for a one-day fare.
TC-12b I would be willing to pay 50 cents for a one-day fare.
TC-12c I would only ride if it were free.
TC-12d I would not use a local shuttle.

TC-13: What is the single most important concern about parking or public transportation that you would like to see addressed first? ________________________

TC-14: Additional Comments: You may provide additional comments related to parking or public transportation.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES (VH FHSZ) IN LOCAL RESPONSIBLITY AREAS (LRA)

Map of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VH FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA)
As Recommended by CAL FIRE

ABSTRACT: Critical information about Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s website is presented, including selected Questions and Answers about Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas and a link to a Map of Carmel-by-the-Sea delineating Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. NOTES present selected relevant excerpts from Government Code Sections 51175 – 51982 pertaining to requirements for cities with Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. A Power Point Presentation on Fire Ratings for Roofs link is provided; it is important to note that fire retardant pressure-treated wood shakes result in a “stand alone” Class B roof covering, but used in conjunction with an appropriate underlying fire barrier material, such as gypsum/fiberglass panel product, a Class-A assembly will result.

Question about fire hazard severity zones
What is a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” or FHSZ?
Answer: California law requires CAL FIRE to identify areas based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail there. These areas, or “zones,” are based on factors such as fuel (material that can burn), slope and fire weather. There are three zones, based on increasing fire hazard…medium, high and very high.

Questions about designation of very high fire hazard severity zones in local responsibility areas
NOTE: The Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for Local Responsibility Area will be rolled out in 2008. An expanded question/answer sheet will be provided in this space at that time. This Q and A contains a limited amount of detail and is provided as an introduction to next year’s program.

What is “Local Responsibility Area”, or LRA?
Answer: Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the State, local government, or the federal government. Local responsibility areas include incorporated cities, cultivated agriculture lands, and portions of the desert. Local responsibility area fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government.

What is the “Bates” bill?
Answer: The “Bates” bill, Government Code Section 51175, was prompted by the devastating Oakland Hills Fire of 1991. This mid-1990s legislation calls for the CAL FIRE Director to evaluate fire hazard severity in local responsibility area and to make a recommendation to the local jurisdiction where very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones exist. The Government Code then provides direction for the local jurisdiction to take appropriate action.

How are Fire Hazard Severity Zones determined in local responsibility areas?
Answer: CAL FIRE uses an extension of the state responsibility area Fire Hazard Severity Zone model as the basis for evaluating fire hazard in local responsibility area. The local responsibility area hazard rating reflects flame and ember intrusion from adjacent wildlands and from flammable vegetation in the urban area. Scientists at the U. C. Berkeley Center for Fire Research and Outreach provided an urban fuels model that was incorporated in the hazard rating.

When will CAL FIRE recommend very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones to local agencies?
Answer: CALFIRE will prepare draft very high Fire Hazard Severity Zone recommendations for local responsibility areas during the summer of 2007. These recommendations are scheduled to reflect hazard ratings in adjacent state responsibility area zones. CAL FIRE anticipates reviewing and validating these draft local responsibility area recommendations with local agencies during the fall of 2007.

What are the requirements for landowners in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in local responsibility areas?
Answer: The exterior wildfire exposure protection codes apply to the design and construction of new buildings located in very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones in local responsibility areas. Local ordinances may require ignition resistant construction for remodel projects. Check with your local building department to determine which ignition resistant building codes apply to your project. In addition, Government Code Section 51182 calls for flammable vegetation clearance and other wildland fire safety practices for buildings. Owners are also required to make a natural hazard disclosure as part of a real estate transfer. For information regarding clearance around buildings see the Homeowners Checklist at www.fire.ca.gov.

Does the designation of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in the local responsibility area trigger the 100 foot clearance requirement?
Answer: Yes, unless exempted by local government under specified conditions, the 100 foot clearance requirements apply.

When is the effective date for Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC)?
Answer: The Building Standards Commission re-set the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) adoption date of Chapter 7A from January 1, 2008 to July 1, 2008. Contact your local agency for more detailed information on the timing of the adoption within your specific jurisdiction.
Chapter 7A became effective in State Responsibility Area (SRA) on January 1, 2008.

Will the CBC Chapter 7A effective date change to July 1, 2008, have any affect on the LRA FHSZ mapping process?
Answer: No

Can the CAL FIRE Director’s recommendation be modified by the local agency?
Answer: A local agency may increase the area designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VH FHSZ) following a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the requirements of Section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection within the area. No provision is made in the Government Code for a local agency to reduce the area recommended for designation as a VH FHSZ.

How will updates to the map occur after the VH FHSZ is adopted by a local jurisdiction?
Answer: This is a subject of a pending information bulletin being developed by the State Fire Marshal.

After CAL FIRE transmits the officially recommended LRA VH FHSZ map to the local agency, how much time does the local agency have to make this map available for public review?
Answer: Government Code Section 51178.5 states, ”...within 30 days after receiving a transmittal from the director that identifies very high fire hazard severity zones, a local agency shall make the information available for public review. The information shall be presented in a format that is understandable and accessible to the general public, including, but not limited to, maps”

What is the CAL FIRE’s responsibility for mapping fire hazards in local responsibility jurisdictions?
Answer: CAL FIRE is required to identify VH FHSZ and to transmit this information to local agencies. CAL FIRE is also required to periodically review the recommendations.

What does the Government Code say about fire hazards in local responsibility areas?
Answer: Government Code Sections 51175 – 51189 cover fire hazards in local responsibility areas.

What is the local agency’s responsibility regarding the Director’s recommendation for VH FHSZ rating in the local responsibility area?
Answer: It is the local agency’s responsibility to make the recommendation available for public review and to designate, by ordinance, VH FHSZs in its jurisdiction.

How are LRA VH FHSZ used by local agencies?
Answer: LRA VH FHSZ maps are used to identify areas where ignition resistant building standards will be required for new construction, to identify properties requiring defensible space maintenance, and by sellers to disclose natural hazards at the time of property sale. It is strongly recommended that local governments use the LRA VH FHSZ’s as they update the safety elements of their general plans.

What is CAL FIRE doing to ensure that the LRA FHSZ map recommendations are accurate?
Answer: CAL FIRE has made draft maps available to local agencies through its website http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/projects/hazard/draft_info.html. Local agencies have had the opportunity to comment on these draft maps and have requested changes, based on supporting data. CAL FIRE is reviewing the recommended changes and is updating the LRA VH FHSZ were appropriate. Local agencies will have further opportunities for input before the Director issues a formal recommendation. CA FIRE will post a “change map” indicating how local suggestions have been processed. Links to the change maps can be found on the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping web page.

What if the local entity does not have the geographic information system (GIS) capability to evaluate the draft data for FHSZ?
Answer: CAL FIRE will assist that local agency by providing GIS technical support. This support can be requested by contacting CAL FIRE’s Northern Region FHSZ Mapping Coordinator at (530) 224-2445 or Southern Region FHSZ Mapping Coordinator at (559) 222-3714.

Which law defines the roles and responsibilities of local agencies to adopt LRA VH-FHSZ?
Answer: Government Code Sections 51175 – 51182 defines the roles and responsibilities for LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone adoption.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/downloads/GovernmentCode51175.pdf

What happens if the local jurisdiction does not adopt CAL FIRE’s recommendation?
Answer: Local jurisdictions should consult their legal counsel regarding responsibilities defined in the Government Code Sections 51175 - 51982.

When will CAL FIRE transmit the officially recommend LRA VH FHSZ maps to the local agencies?
Answer: CAL FIRE will transmit the official recommendations to local agencies between April and June, 2008.

What process is being used to develop the recommended VH FHSZ ratings in local responsibility areas?
Answer: CAL FIRE has submitted draft maps to a number of counties and over 200 cities for review. The maps show suggested LRA VH FHSZ and, for background, also indicate suggested High and Moderate FHSZ. Cities and counties are in the process of reviewing suggested FHSZ ratings and submitting their input to CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE is reviewing the proposed input and posting “change maps” and other information on the web. These change maps indicate how local suggestions have been processed. Links to the change maps can be found on the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping web page.

What do the “change maps” show?
Answer: The “change maps” show information related just to LRA VH FHSZ rankings. The LRA Very High ranking is the only zone for which the law requires CAL FIRE to provide a recommendation to local government.

Can the public comment on the “change maps”?
Answer: CAL FIRE has made provisions for local agencies to comment on the maps over the web. Public questions should be directed to the local fire department or governing body.

Can local agencies obtain maps of High and Moderate FHSZ ranking?
Answer: Changes in LRA Very High ratings from the original draft map will affect the location of high and moderate rankings. At this time, CAL FIRE is not recalculating the hazard model to reflect those changes in the high and moderate hazard rankings. Local agencies can request this information. However, CAL FIRE will not be able to provide the information until after recommendations for LRA VH FHSZ are developed.

Will the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local Responsibility Area affect the cost and availability of fire insurance?
Answer: Insurance rates are determined by a variety of factors, including Fire Risk. Fire Risk is different from Fire Hazard. Fire Hazard is the focus of the FHSZ maps, not Fire Risk. Fire Hazard is based on factors such as fuel (material that can burn), slope and fire weather. Fire Risk considers the potential for damage based on factors such as the ability of a fire to ignite the structure, the flammability of the construction material, and mitigation measures that reduce the risk. These mitigation measures include defensible space, building design, ignition resistant building materials, and ignition resistant construction techniques.
Ultimately, it is not possible to state that insurers will ignore the limitations of the focus of FHSZ maps. However, to respond to such issues, the California Department of Insurance and CAL FIRE have established a partnership and joint commitment to protecting Californians from fire losses. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the Insurance Commissioner and the Director of CAL FIRE, October, 2007 to mutually promote awareness and collaboration among fire officials, the insurance industry, and the public to prevent and mitigate fire losses.
The MOU can be found at http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/0060-2007/upload/Insurance_CDI_CALFIRE_MOU_091007TC.pdf.

What difference do the Fire Hazard Severity Zones make?
Answer: In areas designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, the roofing standards change. Please see the details on roofing requirements (165K PDF).

NOTES:
Government Code
51178.5.
Within 30 days after receiving a transmittal from the director that identifies very high fire hazard severity zones, a local agency shall make the information available for public review. The information shall be presented in a format that is understandable and accessible to the general public, including, but not limited to, maps.

51179.
(a) A local agency shall designate, by ordinance, very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the director pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 51178. A local agency shall be exempt from this requirement if ordinances of the local agency, adopted on or before December 31, 1992, impose standards that are equivalent to, or more restrictive than, the standards imposed by this chapter.

The Carmel Pine Cone, New fire code bans wood roofs, siding in new homes, MARY BROWNFIELD, July 25, 2008.

Class A roof coverings
Common 'stand alone' Class A roof coverings include -
1. Asphalt composition ('3-tab') shingles
2. Clay tiles
3. Concrete tiles
4. Slate

Power Point Presentation: Fire Ratings for Roofs

Random Reportings

ABSTRACT: Random Reportings on the State Water Resources Control Board Phase 2 Hearing, Forest and Beach Commission, Pescadero Canyon and Progress Report on Cal-Am/Monterey Peninsula Engineering Water Main Replacement Work are presented.

• The State Water Resources Control Board:
On Wednesday, July 23 through Friday, July 25, 2008, The State Water Resources Control Board continued Phase 2 of the Hearing to determine whether to Adopt Draft Cease and Desist Order 2008-00XX-DWR against California American Water.

Interesting material from the Hearings Program – California American Water CDO Hearing – List of Exhibits of The State Water Resources Control Board Water Rights website, as follows:
Master Exhibit Identification Index for the Phase I & Phase II
California American Water CDO Hearing

Declaration of Sue McCloud, Mayor, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, including the following:

Carmel is an “urban forest of 40,000 trees”
(Note of Clarification: According to the City's General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space, Conservation & Scenic Highways Element, Table 7.2: Number of Public and Private Trees in Carmel’s Urban Forest, for the period 1983-1986, the most recent figures cited, there were 28,693 total Public and Private trees in Carmel-by-the-Sea. Since reforestation has not occurred in the meantime the total number of trees would be projected to be considerably less than 28,693 now.

Water Allocations to the City of Careml-by-the-Sea, as follows:
Pre-1993: 1.081 acre-feet of water from “pre-Peralta credit”
1993: 15.07 acre-feet of water allocated from Peralta Well, Seaside.
1995: 4.34 acre-feet of water allocated from MPWMD reserve.
2008: 3.151 acre-feet of water remaining
Note: 1.9 acre-feet of total 3.151 acre-feet has been allocated by the City for future projects, including the a project involving the “construction of at least fourteen affordable senior housing units.”

The City processes 50-80 building permits annually for demolition and reconstruction or substantial alteration.

STAGE I WATER CONSERVATION AND NON-ESSENTIAL WATER USE AND WATER WASTE RULES

The Hearing Officers of the State Water Resources Control Board did not make a determination at this hearing, rather they are expected to make a recommendation to the full Board in the autumn of 2008. The State Water Resources Control Board will then make a final decision on the Cease and Desist matter by the end of 2008.

• Application to Forest and Beach Commission for Removal of Monterey Cypress Tree
"Significant" Monterey Cypress, center, Approved for Removal

At the July 3, 2008, FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION Meeting, an application was considered regarding the removal of one 65” dbh Monterey Cypress tree on the residential lot located on Scenic Road, 3 S.E. 8th Av. for “safety reasons.” The applicant was Mike Iverson for property owner Mel Young. The Forest and Beach Commissioners voted to approve the removal of the Monterey Cypress with the stipulation that a Monterey Cypress tree be planted on private property and the property owner pay $500.00 towards the cost of a tree to be planted at another location in Carmel-by-the-Sea, according to a source who attended the meeting. However, some time ago, a “significant” Monterey Cypress tree was removed from a residential site on the S.E. Corner, Scenic Road and 8th Av. (two residences to the north of Mel Young’s residence) and not one replacement tree was ever planted on the site.

• Pescadero Canyon: Pebble Beach vs. Carmel-by-the-Sea
Photos of vegetation clearance/no vegetation clearance in Pescadero Canyon
View of Pescadero Canyon, North Side, Pebble Beach

View of Pescadero Canyon, South Side, Carmel-by-the-Sea

• Progress Report on Cal-Am/Monterey Peninsula Engineering Water Main Replacement Work:
PROJECT SITE PHASE 2 @ Ocean Av & Del Mar Av. COMPLETE
PROJECT SITE PHASE 6 @ Scenic Rd. between 8th Av. & 9th Av. COMPLETE
PROJECT SITE PHASE 3 @Torres St. & Ocean Av. COMPLETE
PROJECT SITE PHASE 8: Mission St. between 8th Av. & 10th Av. COMPLETE
PROJECT SITE PHASE 9: 12th Av. between Lincoln St. & Mission St. COMPLETE
PROJECT SITE PHASE 5: Junipero Av. @ Rio Rd & Ridgewood Rd. COMPLETE
PROJECT SITE PHASE 4: Forest Rd. between Ocean Av. & 7th Av. COMPLETE
7th Av. between Forest Rd. & Hatton Rd. COMPLETE

Pending PROJECT SITE PHASES, as follows:
PROJECT SITE PHASE 7: Hatton Rd. between Mountain View Av. and Martin Rd. Note: According to a notice from Monterey Peninusla Engineering Company, on approximately July 23, 2008, water main replacement work was to begin on Hatton Rd. between Mountain View Av. and Martin Rd. The work will take approximately 2-3 weeks.

PROJECT SITE PHASE 1: 3rd Av. between Carpenter St. & Hatton Rd.

PART II: Proposed Villas de Carmelo Project EIR

ABSTRACT: PART II presents HIGHLIGHTS of the EIR Scoping Meeting, including Associate Planner Elizabeth Gonzales’ Power Point Presentation and further explanatory COMMENTS.

Proposed Villas de Carmelo Revised Site Plan
November 2007

Public Scoping Meeting for the Villas De Carmelo EIR

July 23, 2008

Welcome to the Public Scoping Meeting for the Villas De Carmelo Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
5:00 to 7:00 pm

o Please take a moment to sign in. Be sure to indicate on the sign-in sheet if you would like to be added to the distribution list for the EIR Notice of Availability (NOA). Copies of the draft EIR will be made available for review at public locations as well as having copies available for purchase.

o Please pick up a Comment form at our Comment Station to submit written comments and to sign up for speaking at this scoping meeting. You may also mail or email comments to the address provided on the Comment form.

o NOP comment period (July 11, 08-August 11, 08).

Clearinghouse number 2008071058

Introduction
Lead Agency: County of Monterey Planning Department
Elizabeth Gonzales, Associate Planner

CEQA consultant: Denise Duffy & Associates
Denise Duffy, Principal
Bryce Ternet, Planner

Project Applicants:
Widewaters (Edward Shagen)
Leidig & Associates

Applicant Representative:
Derinda Messenger & Associates (Miriam Schikat)

Purpose of Scoping Meeting
o Present the EIR process-scoping meeting on the EIR and not on the Project itself.
o Help guide the focus of the EIR.
o Discuss environmental issues that you would like to see addressed in the EIR.
o Provide opportunity for submitting comments to Lead Agency and EIR consultants.

Meeting Overview
o Project Overview
o Environmental Review Process (CEQA)
o Project EIR Outline
o Public Participation Process
o Comments
o Close

Site Description
o 3.68 acre site in the unincorporated Coastal Zone of Monterey County
o Adjacent to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
o Former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site.
o Existing Land Use MDR/2

Project Summary
o LUP Amendment from MDR/2 to HDR/12.5

o Create a residential village
-46 condominium units
• Convert and Reuse 10,350 square feet of the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital into 9 condominium units
-Existing hospital structure as the focal point
• Construct 37 additional condominium units in 10 new buildings.
• New housing would include 23 market rate condominiums, 9 affordable housing units, and 4 workforce housing units.
-Total parking located on the Project site would be 100 spaces, with 90 covered spaces and 10 uncovered spaces.
• Underground and surface parking
-Recreation Room/Gym

o Existing entrance from Highway 1 would be abandoned.

o Existing entrance on Valley Way would be relocated 180 feet south on Valley Way.

CEQA
o The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a public disclosure law that applies to projects that require a discretionary approval by a state or local government.

o The Monterey County Planning Department (Lead Agency) has concluded there is a reasonable possibility that aspects of the Project could have significant effects on the environment and is therefore requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
o Consultation/Notice of Preparation (NOP)
-Other Agencies
-Public and /or experts
• Scoping meeting

o General Contents of an EIR
-Project Description
-Environmental Setting/Baseline
-Technical Sections (Issues)
-Cumulative Impacts
-Mitigation Measures
-Alternatives

Technical Sections (Issues)
o Aesthetics
o Air Quality
o Biology
o Cultural/Historical
o Geology/Solis
o Hydrology/Drainage
o Land Use/Planning
o Noise
o Population/Housing
o Public Services and Utilities
o Transportation/Traffic

Cumulative Impacts
o The EIR will include an analysis of reasonably foreseeable projects within a defined study area, developed in consultation with the City of Carmel and the County of Monterey, that may result in cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project.

o Cumulative effects will be discussed for each technical subject.

Alternative Analysis
o EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project – must feasibly attain basic objectives but avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the Project, and evaluate comparative merits of alternatives.

o The selected alternatives will be analyzed in detail for comparison against the impacts identified for the proposed Project.

Required Agency Approvals
o Lead Agency:
-Certify the EIR
-Approve or deny the Project
-File a Notice of Determination (NOD) indicating EIR adoption

o Other Public Agencies

Public Involvement Opportunities During EIR Process
o Notice of the Preparation (NOP) of the EIR and Scoping Meeting

o Review and Comment on the Draft EIR
- Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR will be announced via newspaper and direct mailing of the NOA to interested parties.
- -Minimum 45-day comment period will commence when NOA is filed with the State Clearinghouse.
- -Draft EIR will be available for review at the Harrison Memorial Library in Carmel, and on the County website at http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/
- Public Hearings
• Subdivision Committee
• Planning Commission
• Board of Supervisors

Public Comments Welcome
o We encourage those who wish to comment on the EIR to submit their comments in written format.

o For additional information regarding the Project, or to submit a written comment concerning the scope/content of the Draft EIR, contact:

Elizabeth Gonzales
Associated Planner
GonzalesL@co.monterey.ca.us

COMMENTS:
• In attendance at the meeting, as follows:
Carl Holm, Assistant Planning Director
Liz Gonzales, Associate Planner
Bryce Ternet, Planner for Denise Duffy & Associates
Miriam Schikat, Leidig representative and attorney
Derinda Messenger, Leidig representative and attorney
Members of the public, approximately 8 individuals.
Note: There were no representatives from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea at the scoping meeting.

• After repeated questions from the public regarding a tentative timetable for the proposed project, Carl Holm and Bryce Ternet communicated a sequence of events, as follows:
45-60 days for Draft EIR (approximately September 6-21, 2008)
45 days public comment period (late October 2008)
45 days for Final EIR (mid-December 2008)

• The next public hearing is anticipated to be the Subdivision Committee; this meeting will be scheduled after the completion of the Draft EIR and during the 45 day public comment period.

• The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will consider the Final EIR. The Board of Supervisors ultimately certifies the EIR, approves or denies the Project and files a Notice of Determination (NOD) indicating EIR adoption.

PART I: Proposed Villas de Carmelo Project EIR

ABSTRACT: Yesterday, the County of Monterey, Planning Department held a public scoping meeting to receive input on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed VILLAS DE CARMELO/RIGOULETTE Project. PART I is a transcription of the Notice of Preparation (NOP); as stated in the NOP, “The purpose of the NOP is to provide responsible agencies and interested persons with sufficient information describing the proposed project and its potential environmental effects to enable them to make a meaningful response as to the scope and content of the information to be included in the EIR.” NOP response period is from July 11, 2008 to August 11, 2008. PART II will present HIGHLIGHTS of the EIR Scoping Meeting, including Associate Planner Elizabeth Gonzales’ Power Point Presentation, et cetera.

VILLAS DE CARMELO/RIGOULETTE
Notice of Preparation
County of Monterey

To: Responsible Agencies/Interested Parties

From: County of Monterey (Lead Agency)
County of Monterey Planning Department
168 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, California 93901
831-755-5025

Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Villas de Carmelo (Rigoulette) Project

Project Applicant: Rigoulette LLC

Public Review Period: NOP response period is from July 11, 2008 to August 11, 2008.

NOP Scoping Meeting: A public scoping meeting is scheduled to receive input on the EIR:
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008
5:00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M.
MONTEREY ROOM
168 WEST ALISAL STREET, 2ND FLOOT
SALINAS CA 93901

The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are discussed below.

The County of Monterey Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare as Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Villas de Carmelo Project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15082, states that once a decision is made to prepare an EIR, the lead agency must prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to inform all responsible agencies of that decision. The purpose of the NOP is to provide responsible agencies and interested persons with sufficient information describing the proposed project and its potential environmental effects to enable them to make a meaningful response as to the scope and content of the information to be included in the EIR.

This NOP is being released to request comments on the scope of the EIR for the proposed project. The responses to this NOP will help the County of Monterey Planning Department determine the scope of the EIR and ensure an appropriate level of environmental review.

Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send you response to Elizabeth A. Gonzales at the address above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency.

Date__________Signature__________________

I. INTRODUCTION

PROJECT LOCATION:

The project is located in an unincorporated area of Monterey County, approximately 65 miles southwest of the San Francisco Bay Area, in Monterey County. The project site is located on a 3.68-acre property that is bordered to the north, west, and south by the boundary of the City of Carmel and to the east by Highway 1.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project consists of the redevelopment of the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, which is located on the west side of Highway 1 in the unincorporated Coastal Zone of Monterey County, between Highway 1 and Valley Way in Carmel, California. The project proposes the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the existing 11,500 square-foot hospital structure on-site and demolition of two existing ancillary structures. The proposal also involves a subdivision, rezoning and coastal development permit to all the development of a residential village on the 3.68 acre site. The total number of residences will be forty-six with a mix of market rate and affordable residences. The plan calls for the existing hospital structure to be the focal point with new structures of two and three-stories also on the site. The three-story structures are placed in locations where they can take advantage of the sloping topography to minimize building height. The existing entrance from Highway 1 is proposed to be abandoned. The existing entrance on Valley Way will be relocated further to the south. It is expected that improvement to Valley Way, as well as safety improvements at the intersection of Highway 1 and Valley Way, will be required.

The project entitlements will include, but not be limited to, General Plan Amendment (Coastal Implementation Plan Amendment), Rezoning, Tentative Subdivision Mp, Coastal Development Entitlements, etc. to allow for the proposed development.

II. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Issues and Probable Effects

The environmental review of the project will focus on the following issues and probable environmental effects, as identified to date. The environmental analysis will address short-term (construction) and long term (life of project) impacts.

Aesthetics: The EIR will evaluate the visual effects of the project, based on existing visual characteristics, impacts to scenic views, proposed site layout/design, and density of development. Analysis will focus on visual impacts to Highway 1, lighting and nighttime glare, and consistency with visual resource policies/regulations contained in the Monterey County General Plan, Carmel land Use Plan and Title 21 Zoning Ordinance.

Air Quality: The EIR will describe the air quality of the area and provide an assessment of the potential air quality impacts of the project in compliance with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution control District guidelines. Short-term air quality impacts associated with construction related activities will also be addressed.

Biological Resources: A biological assessment will be performed as part of the EIR to determine site conditions, the presence/absence of sensitive species and habitats, and potential impacts of the project on these resources.

Cultural Resources: The EIR will include a cultural resources investigation to determine the potential impacts from the project on any historic, architectural, or archaeological resources.

Geology and Soils: The EIR will address potential soil, geologic, and geotechnical hazards on the site, based on a preliminary geotechnical/geologic report. Such hazards may include seismicity, problematic soil conditions, grading, and erosion.

Hazardous Materials/Health and Safety: The EIR will address potential hazards associated with development of the project site and the presence of any hazardous materials associated with past hospital or current uses.

Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality: The EIR will address drainage, flooding, and water quality conditions on the site. Potential impacts from development could include increases in runoff and flooding potential, as well as degradation of water quality from increased erosion and sedimentation. The EIR will address the provision of adequate drainage facilities to carry site runoff to proper discharge areas and the potential for drainage from development on the site to alter natural drainage patterns or introduce pollutants to the natural surface drainage system.

Land Use and Planning: The EIR will address land use compatibility and project compliance with applicable land use policies, including Coastal Act policies, zoning and General Plan consistency. Existing land uses on and surrounding the project site will be described and potential land use impacts assessed (i.e., compatibility with surrounding uses, consistency with plans and policies, effects on the community).

Noise: The EIR will describe the existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity, which are dominated by vehicular traffic and aircraft. The EIR will assess the short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) noise impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding land uses, as will as noise impacts on proposed residential uses that may be affected by existing and future noise levels.

Population and Housing: A direct increase in population would occur due to proposed housing components of the proposed project. The population and housing analysis in the EIR will consider the trends in population statistics for the local area and region.

Public Services/Utilities: The EIR will evaluate the existing public service systems serving the project area and evaluate the public service impacts of the project, including increased demands for sanitary sewer, storm drain, park, emergency, and school services.

Traffic and Circulation: The EIR will describe the existing and proposed roadway system, and evaluate traffic impacts. Traffic impacts, including degradation of levels of service on affected roadways and freeways, adequacy of site access, and provision of parking will be evaluated in a technical traffic study.

Water Supply: The EIR will describe the available water supply resources and projected demand for all phases of project implementation. This assessment will also address the proposed water system infrastructure to assess compliance with relevant standards (i.e., health and fire safety).

Growth Inducement: The EIR will evaluate the potential growth-inducing effects of the proposed development, including increases in jobs and housing, and improvements that may remove impediments to growth.

Cumulative Impacts: The EIR will evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of the project when combined with past, present and reasonably anticipated projects in the region. This evaluation will address (at a minimum) traffic, air quality, public services, and land use.

Alternatives: The EIR will consider a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.

EIR SCOPING MEETING TODAY: Proposed Villas de Carmelo Project

ABSTRACT: A PUBLIC NOTICE from Monterey County Resource Management Agency, Planning Department, is transcribed; the Notice notifies the public of a public scoping meeting on the proposed Villas de Carmelo project on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 5:00 P.M. at the Monterey County Planning Department, 168 West Alisal Street, second floor, Monterey Room, Salinas, CA. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Report for the Villas de Carmelo project from members of the public and interested public agencies. The EIR is anticipated to address the following issues: aesthetics, air quality, alternatives, biological resources, cultural resources, cumulative impacts, geology, growth inducement, hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use, noise, population/housing, public services/utilities, traffic and water supply. A notice of preparation (NOP) has been prepared for this project; copies of the NOP are available for public review and inspection and written comments on the NOP will be accepted through the close of the public review period on August 11, 2008.

Monterey County
Resource Management Agency

Planning Department

168 West Alisal St., 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA. 93901
(831) 755-5025 Salinas Office, (831) 883-7500 Marina Office

PUBLIC NOTICE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that one public scoping meeting will be held by the County of Monterey Planning Department regarding the matter described below. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. at the Monterey County Planning Department, at 168 West Alisal Street, on the second floor, in Salinas in the Monterey Room.

The purpose of the meeting is to solicit comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Report for the Villas de Carmelo project from members of the public and interested public agencies.

SCOPE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT – LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 IN THE UNINCORPORATED COASTAL ZONE OF MONTEREY COUNTY, BETWEEN HIGHWAY 1 AND VALLEY WAY IN CARMEL, CALIFORNIA: The project (PLN0700497/Rigoulette LLC) consists of proposed development on the 3.68-acre, former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site. Proposed development would include the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the existing 11,500 square-foot hospital structure on-site and demolition of the two existing ancillary structures. The proposed project also involves amending the Local Coastal Plan to allow a subdivision to include a mix of 46 market-rate and affordable residential units (to be known as Villas de Carmelo). The plan calls for the existing hospital structure to remain with the construction of new two and three-story structures. There is an existing easement providing access to Highway 1 that would be abandoned so the project will be designed with access on Valley Way. Traffic safety improvements will be required at the intersection of Highway 1 and Valley Way. Project entitlements will include, but not be limited to, Local Coastal Plan Amendment and Rezoning to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Coastal Development Permits (e.g.; tree removals, etc). The applicant is Carmel Hospital Development LLC. The County staff has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared for the project. The EIR is anticipated to address the following issues: aesthetics, air quality, alternatives, biological resources, cultural resources, cumulative impacts, geology, growth inducement, hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use, noise, population/housing, public services/utilities, traffic and water supply.

ANY AND ALL INTERESTED PERSONS ARE HEREBY invited to attend this scoping meeting for the purpose of being heard thereon. The public will be provided an opportunity to submit oral and written testimony.

A notice of preparation (NOP) has been prepared for this project. Copies of the NOP are available for public review and inspection at the County of Monterey, Planning Department. Written comments on the NOP will be accepted through the close of the public review period on August 11, 2008. Submit written commits on the NOP c/o Liz Gonzales, County of Monterey Planning Department, 168 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor, Salinas, California, 93901.

CARL HOLM
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Random Reportings

ABSTRACT: Random Reportings on the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea COMMUNITY SURVEYS, with associates Notes, proposed fire departments consolidation and Flanders Mansion.

• COMMUNITY SURVEYS: Within the last week, Carmelites received via USPS City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Community Surveys aimed at gathering input from Carmelites on TRAFFIC SAFETY, CIRCULATION AND PARKING, PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES, CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, NOISE and ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY for the General Plan Revisions Project. The Survey was prepared by the City and RBF Consulting. The surveys are to be completed and returned to the City no later than August 1, 2008, according to an enclosed letter from Planning and Building Services Manager Sean Conroy, dated July 1, 2008. Apparently, numerous Carmelites have received multiple Community Surveys addressed to other individuals but mailed to their addresses. For example, one household received four Community Surveys-one addressed to a member of the household with the correct address and three addressed to three individuals not of the household at their Post Office Box. A concerned resident wrote to the City asking “What went wrong?”

Notes:
The Consultant Services Agreement with the firm of RBF Consulting for the General Plan Update project was unanimously approved by the City Council in an amount not to exceed $166,488 on January 9, 2007.

Even though the Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan Update website states that the website is “designed to keep Carmel’s residents, employees and business community informed about the status and activities involving the General Plan” and “will be updated regularly with new information,” the most recent information on the website is from July 2007. Furthermore, Staff Contact information is out-of-date, listing former employees Brian Roseth (Planning Services Manager), Christie Miller (Community Services Manager), Tim Meroney (Building Official) and Nathan Schmidt (Assistant Planner).

• Proposed Consolidation of Fire Departments: With regard to the payments to Citygate Associates for services related to the proposed fire services consolidation, the cost share formula mutually agreed to prior to the Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel was Monterey 66%, Pacific Grove 19% and Carmel 15%. Carmel’s share is approximately $9,500.00. Since the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea withdrew from the consolidation process in January 2008, the Cities of Monterey and Pacific Grove have continued consolidation planning, although Monterey is focusing on a “contract for services” model where Monterey would absorb the incumbent Pacific Grove firefighters and provide fire services to Pacific Grove by contract, according to Monterey Fire Chief Sam Mazza. And although Monterey is not currently in discussion with Carmel regarding fire services, Monterey is willing to discuss a “regional fire service opportunity” with Carmel, also according to Monterey Fire Chief Sam Mazza.

• Flanders Mansion: At both City Council Meetings in July 2008, the Regular Meeting on July 1, 2008 and the Special Meeting on July 15, 2008, the City Council adjourned to Closed Session to consider “Existing Litigation” involving conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents, Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M76728. After each Closed Session, no announcements were made to the public.

Why No Outrage!? Where is the public’s wrath?

Why No Outrage by Carmelites about...

• The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea agreeing to pay 15% of the total cost for the fire consolidation services provided by Citygate Associates, approximately $9,500.00, and then withdrawing from the consolidation process with the Cities of Monterey and Pacific Grove in January 2008, despite the Citygate Associates Feasibility Analysis concluding that Carmel-by-the-Sea would benefit the most from fire departments consolidation.

• The McCloud Administration not seriously considering any other “use” for the Flanders Mansion property other than “selling” the National Register of Historic Places Resource. And in the City’s attempt to sell the Flanders Mansion, violating State and Municipal laws, expending approximately $400,000 of taxpayer dollars in Environmental Impact Reports, attorney fees, et cetera.

• The City’s closure of the Scout House, a community center; and the City’s failure to budget for ADA compliance measures and reopen the Scout House to all user groups.

• The City’s continuing failures regarding open government; for example, the City Administrator not regularly informing the public about the process of hiring a Director of the Community Planning and Building Department, a crucial department in Carmel-by-the-Sea.

• Only due to the unprecedented, emergency fire season crisis this year has the City performed maintenance in Mission Trail Nature Preserve that should be done each and every year as good management practice and adherence to the City’s Local Coastal Program.

• The City Administrator not including in the City’s Draft Triennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2008/09 through 2009/10 a full-time tree care employee, as recommended by the Forest and Beach Commission. And then only after several Carmelites voiced their support for a full-time tree care employee, the City Council adopting a Budget which included two part-time tree care workers, instead of the recommended and pleaded for one full-time tree care employee.

• The City accruing more and more taxpayer dollars into reserve funds instead of expending those taxpayer dollars as investments in essential infrastructure, such as street maintenance, treatment of discharge into Carmel Bay, an Area of Special Biological Significance, and reforestation.

• Unimplemented recommendations of Studies commissioned by the City Council, such as the City’s failure to fully implement the recommendations of the Forest Studies by arborist Barrie Coate and the City’s failure to budget the recommended $660,000 annually for street projects, as recommended by Nichols Consulting Engineers.

• The City’s disregard for the due process rights of a Carmelite with regard to not expeditiously scheduling Mayor Sue McCloud’s appeal of the April 3, 2008 unanimous decision of the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a neighbor’s “unsafe” acacia tree on a City Council agenda.

• Over the last four years, the City’s policy preference of funding Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) for the management of the Sunset Center over adequate funding for essential infrastructure maintenance and improvements.

• The local media acting as uncritical, biased propaganda purveyors of Mayor Sue McCloud and her administration, rather than watchdogs for the benefit of the public at large!

Where is the Public’s Wrath?

• A Theory: Too many Carmelites are apathetic and uninformed. Of the informed, too many who fail to stand on principle, fail to demand good governance. And too many of us who enable those who habitually fail to meet the standard of good governance. Simply put, only when we care more about future generations of Carmelites and the future of the village of Carmel-by-the-Sea and less about ourselves today and going along to get along will the legacy of preserving Carmel-by-the-Sea be honored. Otherwise, future generations of Carmelites will look back and conclude that we allowed the unique essence of Carmel-by-the-Sea to vanish forever.

Fire Prevention through City’s Compliance with Local Coastal Program

ABSTRACT: A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING will be held on Tuesday, July 15, 2008, at 4:30 P.M. in Council Chambers for the purpose of receiving a Staff Report and providing “POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING FIRE PREVENTION PLAN.” The focus of the Post is on the report section, “Public Property fire safety;” the “Public Property fire safety” section is reproduced in its entirety. COMMENTS are made and REFERENCES, including links to the STAFF REPORT REGARDING FIRE PREVENTION PLAN, prepared by Public Safety Director George Rawson, EXHIBIT “A” CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA MUNICIPAL CODES FIRE RELATED REGULATIONS and selected relevant sections of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, are presented.

NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Special Meeting and Closed Session
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
4:30 pm
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Pledge of Allegiance
IV. Orders of Council
A. Receive report and provide policy direction regarding a City-wide fire prevention plan.

Meeting Date: July 15, 2008
Prepared by: George E. Rawson
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: GEORGE E. RAWSON, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR
DATE: July 9, 2008
SUBJECT: RECEIVE REPORT AND PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING FIRE PREVENTION PLAN

Public Property fire safety - In regards to public properties and parklands, city forester Mike Branson has been working with the fire department to ensure vegetation clearance efforts are completed. A contract crew is finishing the Mission Trails Nature Park project which included the mowing of dead grasses and the removal of undesirable vegetation. The sections completed include: the areas west of Flanders Mansion driveway, the upper section of Serra trail, the upper and lower Doolittle trail, the Willow trail, the Mountain View entrance, the Martin Meadow which was done by city staff, and other pedestrian trails.

The crew will also address the Pescadero Canyon area, specifically Second Ave. between Casanova & Camino Real Streets, by removing some genista. Dead grass and other vegetation will be cut on both sides of the roadway (target of 10’). The Public Safety Director and Assistant Fire Chief Dave Brown also met with CAL-FIRE administrators who confirmed they are coordinating a vegetation abatement process on the Pebble Beach side of Pescadero Canyon.

Public streets will be cleared of low limbs or other obstructions. Additional pruning will be done on the Willow trees from Rio Rd. to the city well.

View of “Cleared” Serra Trail, Mission Trail Nature Preserve

View of Vegetation Overgrowth Clogging Channel in Mission Trail Nature Preserve

View of Non-Native & Invasive Vegetation Overgrowth, East of Serra Trail, Mission Trail Nature Preserve

COMMENTS:
• Due to the unprecedented number and severity of wildfires in California during the 2008 fire season and “based on the high fire danger this year,” the City Council discussed fire prevention as an urgency topic at their meeting on July 1, 2008 and directed the preparation of a report summarizing existing municipal code authorities relating to fire safety. As it pertains to Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Public Safety Director George Rawson wrote that a contract crew is mowing dead grasses and removing undesirable vegetation. Completed areas include: “the areas west of Flanders Mansion driveway, the upper section of Serra trail, the upper and lower Doolittle trail, the Willow trail, the Mountain View entrance, the Martin Meadow which was done by city staff, and other pedestrian trails.” Moreover, City Forester Mike Branson has been working with the fire department to ensure vegetation clearance efforts are completed.

• Apparently, the impetus for “vegetation clearance efforts” in Mission Trail Nature Preserve was not normal, routine maintenance; rather it was due to the unprecedented 2008 fire season. While it is important for the City to recognize and respond to the unprecedented 2008 fire season, it is also important for the City to comply with the City’s Local Coastal Program, including the removal of invasive horticultural species and non-native plants from the Preserve, removal of inert debris and overgrowth to the extent that the vegetation prohibits water flow within the established channel, et cetera, as a proactive measure to address fire prevention and safety during normal periods and emergency periods.

• While, “Staff recommends a fire danger awareness campaign be initiated that includes a press release, media coverage, and posting information on the city website,” the City can promote fire safety by complying with the City’s Local Coastal Program and schedule regular, routine maintenance efforts year long, especially in fire prone areas, such as Mission Trail Nature Preserve.

REFERENCES:
STAFF REPORT REGARDING FIRE PREVENTION PLAN
FROM: GEORGE E. RAWSON, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR
DATE: July 9, 2008

EXHIBIT “A” CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA MUNICIPAL CODES
FIRE RELATED REGULATIONS

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management Element

P5-118 Avoid removal or pruning of native riparian vegetation except for drainage channel and road/trail clearance and/or for the purpose of new native indigenous tree/shrub establishment. (LUP)

O5-27 Reduce the introduction and population of invasive horticultural species in the Preserve. (LUP)

P5-122 Organize volunteer work groups to remove non-native plants from the Preserve. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection crews from Gabilan Camp could be used to assist in this effort. (LUP)

G5-10 To preserve the natural drainage of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and enhance wetlands. (LUP)

O5-31 Maintain natural drainage patterns except where erosion or human safety problems may be created. Maintain the existing creek bed and preclude it from becoming debris clogged. Encourage/allow the channelized ditch to revert to a more natural channel in order to enhance the Preserve’s wetlands (riparian forest, wet meadow) and natural character. (LUP)

P5-131 Remove fallen trees and limbs from the stream channels as needed. Place natural boulders and creek cobbles to prevent erosion only in situations where private property or public safety is at risk. (LUP)

P5-132 Repair stream bank deterioration as it occurs, and remove inert debris and new growth to the extent that they prohibit water flow within the established channel. Projects of this nature shall be reviewed by the Forest and Beach Commission, similar to its review of street projects. (LUP)

P5-137 Clean and grade road shoulders and maintain culverts at least twice yearly, to insure continuous drainage. The Forest and Beach Department will trim vegetation to the extent necessary to allow access by the City maintenance equipment and fire apparatus. (LUP)

G5-11 Maintain Mission Trail Nature Preserve using great care to avoid degradation of resources. (LUP)

O5-35 Implement the Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan maintenance provisions. (LUP)

P5-149 Repair stream bank deterioration as it occurs, and remove inert debris and new growth to the extent that they prohibit water flow within the established channel. (Annually: September - October.) (LUP)

P5-150 Clean and grade road shoulders and maintain culverts to ensure continuous drainage. Trim vegetation to the extent necessary to allow access of equipment (Annually: September - October.) (LUP)

P5-151 Remove fallen limbs and trees from stream channels (As needed.) (LUP)

P5-156 Conduct trail maintenance and clearance (June - August.) (LUP)

The Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden: In a State of Benign Neglect

ABSTRACT: While there has recently been a flurry of maintenance activities at the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion and along the trails of Mission Trail Nature Preserve, the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden remains in a state of benign neglect. Supporting REFERENCES from the City's General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan are reproduced. A COMMENT is made regarding the respective roles of the City and the Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society in maintaining the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden within Mission Trail Nature Preserve.

REFERENCES:
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management Element

O5-33 Maintain the Rowntree Native Plant Garden within Mission Trail Nature Preserve as an area where the general public can view and study native California plants and trees. The goal is that the knowledge gained will lead to an expanded use of California native plants in private landscapes. (LUP)

P5-144 Create and maintain a demonstration garden for native flowers in Mission Trail Nature Preserve. (LUP)

P5-145 Label native plants and areas in the garden at Mission Trail Nature Preserve with identifying and explanatory information. (LUP)

O5-34 Consider establishing a Volunteer Committee to assist the City Forester and staff in responsibility for the garden at Mission Trail Nature Preserve. (LUP)

P5-146 Maintain communication between Forest and Beach Commission and Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. (LUP)

P5-147 Recruit and train volunteers to plant, weed, water and care for the garden in Mission Trail Nature Preserve under the direction of the Forest, Parks and Beach Department staff. (LUP)

P5-148 Schedule and advertise volunteer workdays as needed to maintain the garden in Mission Trail Nature Preserve. (LUP)

Mission Trail Nature Preserve.
Mission Trail Nature Preserve lies along much of the City's eastern boundary and is the largest ESHA in the City. It contains a wide variety of habitat types. To describe this area the Preserve is divided into four planning units: Martin Road Parcel, Park Proper, Flanders Mansion/Rowntree Native Plant Garden and Outlet Meadow. The Preserve supports a vegetation mosaic consisting of Monterey pine forest on inland granitic bedrock and oldest dunes, central coast arroyo willow riparian forest, wetland drainage, wet meadow, coast live oak woodland, coastal terrace prairie and horticultural plantings.
(LUP)

Flanders Mansion/Rowntree Native Plant Garden supports Monterey pine forest on inland granitic bedrock with horticultural plantings.

COMMENT:
• While there has recently been a flurry of maintenance activities at the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion and along the trails of Mission Trail Nature Preserve, the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden remains in a state of benign neglect even though the Local Coastal Program mandates the maintenance of the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (see REFERENCE). Moreover, while city employees are often seen along the Carmel Beach Bluff Pathway and Devendorf Park, they are rarely, if ever, seen in the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden. And while the Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society has a long history of working in the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden, the City has not assumed a primary role in satisfactorily maintaining the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden within Mission Trail Nature Preserve for residents and visitors alike over many years.