Flanders Foundation Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley’s Testimony on Reasons Why the City’s Proposed Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property is ‘Unlawful’

ABSTRACT: In oral testimony at the Special City Council Meeting on April 28, 2009, Flanders Foundation Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley presented reasons why what the City is proposing is “unlawful.” Attorney Brandt-Hawley covered proper procedures for the setting of Commission meetings, California Government Code 54220 dealing with “surplus land,” the Economic Analysis, the Environmental Impact Report for the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property, the City’s General Plan and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. A COMMENT is made with regard to the successful resolution of this matter.

Susan Brandt-Hawley, Attorney for Flanders Foundation:

"...Thank you very much. I appreciate it. First of all, under the Environmental Defense Project Case recently, the Planning Commission should have been able to act before this hearing was set, this hearing before you is premature because you haven’t had the time to consider recommendations before setting this hearing, so that is premature."

"I’d also like to follow up on the comments by Jim Wright regarding the Government Code 54220. As you know the Superior Court found that this City must comply with that section of the Government Code in any future consideration of the sale of the Flanders because the Mansion must be offered for sale or lease to both park agencies, public agencies and most concerned with affordable housing. You haven’t done that, you haven’t declared a surplus and you haven’t discussed the environmental implications in your EIR of what that could mean. There’s nothing in the Government Code that says your Conditions of Sale must be honored in such a transaction, so there could be affordable housing, moderate income housing, all kinds of things could happen because you have this double whammy here where you have not only a National Register building but parkland and there’s all these special conditions. The EIR does not look at this and I would suggest that you can’t approve this today without looking at those impacts which are very real and very special things that apply."

"The Economic Report that’s prepared should have been in the EIR and should have been subjected to city review and public comment as part of that. Beyond that the economic report doesn’t do what it needs to do...but the Court told the City that you hadn’t found infeasibility of a project that would avoid the sale of Flanders And this is not a matter of profit, and I know Mr. Lloyd said a similar thing, but the economic analysis is not about whether or not the City is going to make, have a profitable way of leasing Flanders, the question is ‘Is it practical to proceed with the ownership in a financial way’ and there’s nothing in the record that indicates that the City needs revenues, that the city can’t afford to fix Flanders or most importantly that at the end of the day if the city rehabilitates Flanders that it will be left in an untenable economic position. The economic report says that the Mansion is worth a certain amount of money, I think its $2.8 million, that it may cost a little over $1 million to fully rehabilitate it. It also says that at the end of that time Flanders will be worth $4 million that in fact the value of the property, even on the market, is going to be the current value plus whatever money you put into it. It’s not a matter of you are going to put a bunch of money into a building and then it’s going to be worth less. That might be something one could argue is some kind of economic issue. Beyond that, when you have parkland, it’s a public amenity and the economic return is really not the question and your General Plan says so."

"Moving to the General Plan issues; there’s a lot more information in this record than there was the last time that this Council approved the sale of Flanders and the General Plan provisions that are substantive are being violated here. There’s no balancing...your findings say that you’re balancing the policies in the General Plan. But what you have on one side is a whole list of policies that others have spoken to today, that indicate that you want to preserve parkland, that you want to preserve open space that you want to preserve this kind of amenity. The other policies that you are claiming to balance just say that if in fact you divest yourself of Flanders certain things have to happen. Those aren’t substantive policies. That’s responding to something like maybe there’s some imperatives that would force you to sell and in that event certain things would need to happen. But those aren’t substantive policies that can be balanced and the EIR analysis was correct that in fact this sale would be inconsistent with those General Plan policies. Therefore you can’t really go ahead and do it and there’s no way to balance that away."

"The Statement of Overriding Considerations you can’t really get to because you can’t show that it’s infeasible to keep Flanders. But if you do get to the Statement of Overriding Considerations it’s not supported by substantial evidence. The factors that you’re claiming are public benefits are in fact inconsistent with the General Plan. And it’s very similar to what happened in a case, a little bit similar; Uphold our Heritage vs. Town of Woodside in which Steve Jobs of Apple Computer wants to demolish a historic resource and the City approved it, approved the demolition a few years back and said they had to find some kind of overriding public benefit and what they said was well it will increase open space because we are going to demolish a 18,000 sq. ft. building, he wants to build a 6,000 sq. ft. building, and therefore you’ll have a net increase in open space. And the court said no, that’s totally against your General Plan you don’t demolish historic buildings to create open space. That’s really not a public benefit. And you are doing pretty much the same thing here. You’re calling a public benefit something that’s divesting parkland and historic resources in a manner that your General Plan, none of your plans have contemplated. That is not a significant public benefit and you can’t justify this project by that."

"The EIR is inadequate both for failing to look at the surplus land impacts; also it failed to adequately respond to comments. There were comments made about the importance of the City looking at its revenues, looking at its needs justifying somehow this sale by showing that there are city needs that can’t be met unless this sale occurs. None of that’s in the record and the EIR is inadequate for failing to look at that."

"A little bit more then on the economic analysis; the experts here explain that there weren’t really comparables and that’s true...They talk about medical buildings and office buildings and comparing things. This is such a unique property, there aren’t comparables. There isn’t a way to say that there wouldn’t be a market for it or to talk about what the market would be for it. Ms. Sedway tonight said there was “little market” quote unquote for it and that they didn’t really have comparables. And you cannot rely on a report that admittedly doesn’t have the kind of backup that you would need to justify."

"...I really appreciate the time...Thank you very much."

(Source: Archived Videos, Special City Council Meeting, April 28, 2009, 01:41:50 – 01:49:15)

COMMENT:
• The City Council would be wise to soberly reflect on the statements made by Flanders Foundation attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley, abandon an entrenched, backward looking, antagonistic mindset as displayed by City Council Members Gerard Rose and Paula Hazdovac and direct the City Administrator to resolve this matter in a good faith, constructive and amicable manner in partnership with the Flanders Foundation.

ADDENDUM:
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54220
54220. (a) The Legislature reaffirms its declaration that housing is of vital statewide importance to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of this state and that provision of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every Californian is a priority of the highest order. The Legislature further declares that there is a shortage of sites available for housing for persons and families of low and moderate income and that surplus government land, prior to disposition, should be made available for that purpose.

(b) The Legislature reaffirms its belief that there is an identifiable deficiency in the amount of land available for recreational purposes and that surplus land, prior to disposition, should be made available for park and recreation purposes or for open-space purposes. This article shall not apply to surplus residential property as defined in Section 54236.

(c) The Legislature reaffirms its declaration of the importance of appropriate planning and development near transit stations, to encourage the clustering of housing and commercial development around such stations. Studies of transit ridership in California indicate that a higher percentage of persons who live or work within walking distance of major transit stations utilize the transit system more than those living elsewhere. The Legislature also notes that the Federal Transit Administration gives priority for funding of rail transit proposals to areas that are implementing higher-density, mixed-use development near major transit stations.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
UPHOLD OUR HERITAGE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TOWN OF WOODSIDE,
Defendant and Appellant;
STEVEN JOBS,
Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

A113376
(San Mateo County
Super. Ct. No. 444270)

IN PRAISE OF...

ABSTRACT: With regard to the Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 2009, recognition is given to members of the public who spoke in support of retaining the Flanders Mansion Property as a city-owned property in an intact Mission Trail Nature Preserve, a NOTE communicating the date of the continued Special City Council Meeting and COMMENTS are made about remarks made by City Attorney Don Freeman and Mayor Sue McCloud.

IN PRAISE OF...all members of the public who spoke at the Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 in support of the preservation, protection, enhancement of parkland and open space, honoring the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan and retaining the Flanders Mansion Property in City ownership as a public park for present and future generations, as follows:

Francis (Skip) Lloyd
Darby Worth
Karen Ferlito
Roberta Miller
Melanie Billig (President Flanders Foundation)
Virdette Brumm
Yoko Whitaker (Flanders Foundation)
Barbara Brooks
Richard Stiles
Joyce Stevens
James Wright
James Emery (Carmel Residents Association)
Shirley Humann
John Hicks
Susan Brandt-Hawley (Attorney, Flanders Foundation)
Harvey Billig
Mike Brown
Barbara Stiles
Barbara Mearns (“Carmel is Special! Do not sell our Family Jewels!!!" Sign)
Barbara Livingston

NOTE:
After all of the public comments and upon the recommendation of City Attorney Don Freeman, the City Council continued the Special Meeting to Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 4:30 P.M. Written comments on new information not previously presented for the record will be accepted by the City until 5:00 P.M. Monday, May 4, 2009.

COMMENTS:
• When the Special City Council Meeting reconvened after a 45 minute break following nearly 90 minutes of public testimony, City Attorney Don Freeman communicated his recommendation to the City Council that the meeting be continued to Thursday, May 14, 2009, because of his concerns regarding information released by the City that day, apparently comprising over one hundred pages, and giving the public adequate time to review the information and the opportunity to submit new information in the form of written comments to the City for the purpose of compiling a record for the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property. Question: If City Attorney Don Freeman is sincerely concerned about the City giving the public ample opportunity and time to review all of the materials relevant to the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property Project, then why didn’t he intervene earlier for the purpose of seeing that the Forest and Beach Commission, Historic Resources Board, Planning Commission and City Council meetings were rescheduled to allow more time between public hearings than the nine days between April 20 and April 28, 2009?

• At the end of the meeting, Mayor Sue McCloud stated, as follows:
“Your council got this stuff at the same time it was available to the public and we stayed up burning the midnight oil to get it read and prepared for today, so there’s a little bit of sour grapes there, we just had some very good grapes actually...that, you know, we got the stuff and we were able to do it and there are several people here, like the majority of Council who work full time...”

The relevant issue is not the public having access to public information at the same time as City Council Members, rather the issue is respect for her constituents to the extent that ample time is given by the City to members of the public to read and review all materials produced by the City on the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property. Furthermore, her remarks betray a disregard, even contempt, for the public and are unbecoming any public servant!

(Source: Archived Videos, Special City Council Meeting, April 28, 2009)

HIGHLIGHTS of the Special City Council Meeting Agenda Packet regarding the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property Project

ABSTRACT: Regarding the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property Project, the Special City Council Meeting Agenda of 28 April 2009 is reproduced, as are selected excerpts from the Staff Reports comprising the Agenda Packet. On the Agenda are the following: Consideration of an Economic Analysis Report of the Flanders Mansion Property; Resolution certifying the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report for the Flanders Mansion Project; a Resolution adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for environmental impacts and Conditions of Sale and Covenants to be recorded to run with the land, or Conditions of Lease; a Resolution adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; a Resolution adopting a project for implementation: Sale of Flanders Mansion Parcel with conservation easements and mitigations; and a Resolution of Notice of Proposed Discontinuance of Public Park Land and setting a date for hearing of protests against the sale of public park land. (Note: Said resolution sets the hearing on any protests against sale for regular City Council meeting on June 2, 2009 at 4:30 P.M.) Previously, on April 20, 2009, the Forest and Beach Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the RFEIR is adequate per CEQA Guidelines section 15151 with respect to issues affecting the Mission Trails Nature Preserve and the Historic Resources Board forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the RFEIR is adequate per CEQA Guidelines section 15151 with respect to issues affecting historic resources and aesthetics. On April 23, 2009, the Planning Commission made the following findings: (1) That the RFEIR is adequate per section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines; (2) That sale of the Flanders Mansion property with Conservation Easements and Mitigation for residential use or lease of the Flanders Mansion property for residential use is consistent with the General Plan; (3) That the mitigations identified in the RFEIR should be adopted; and (4) That in Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, the required Preservation Plan should be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board. As part of RESOLUTION NO. 2009-__ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS “WHEREAS, the City Council has balanced the specifically-identified benefits of the Sale of the Flanders Mansion with Conservation Easements and Mitigation, against the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report, and determined the identified benefits outweigh the environmental impacts and, as a result, those environmental impacts are acceptable.” Lastly, pursuant to Government Code section 38440 et seq., final implementation of any sale of this parkland property will require a vote of the people. The citizens of Carmel-by-the-Sea will decide directly whether the benefits of selling the property with conservation easements and mitigations, outweigh the environmental harm of losing public access to 1.252 acres of parkland. COMMENTS are made regarding the politicizing of the issue and over control of the process by Mayor Sue McCloud.
Note: The City is relying on the conclusions of CBRE Consulting, Inc. to support the City’s claim that specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible certain project alternatives or mitigation measures which substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project and therefore allow the City to approve the project in spite of one or more significant environmental effects. However, the fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project. What constitutes “sufficiently severe” is open to interpretation by others and potentially a judge.

Special City Council Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:30 pm
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

IV. Orders of Council
A. Consideration of an Economic Analysis Report of the Flanders Mansion Property prepared by CBRE Consulting, Inc.

B. Consideration of a Resolution Certifying the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report for the Flanders Mansion Project.

C. Consideration of a Resolution adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for environmental impacts and Conditions of Sale and Covenants to be recorded to run with the land, or Conditions of Lease.

D. Consideration of a Resolution adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

E. Consideration of a Resolution adopting a project for implementation: Sale of Flanders Mansion Parcel with conservation easements and mitigations.

F. Consideration of a Resolution of Notice of Proposed Discontinuance of Public Park Land and setting a date for hearing of protests against the sale of public park land.

V. Adjournment

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 28 APRIL 2009
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE RECIRCULATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY

CEQA requires the City Council to balance economic, legal, social, and technological benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks (CEQA Guidelines § 15093(a)). If specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible certain project alternatives or mitigation measures which substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project, the City may approve the project in spite of one or more significant environmental effects. However, CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant unmitigated effects on the environment, based simply on a weighing of those effects against the project's benefits, unless the measures necessary to mitigate those effects are truly infeasible. Economic viability is one of the factors that may be taken into account in addressing the feasibility of an alternative. The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project. “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. In order to approve a project or alternative that would have a significant, unmitigatible environmental impact, the City will be required to make findings identifying the specific considerations that make infeasible the environmentally superior alternatives and the specific benefits of the project which outweigh the environmental harm.

The Flanders Mansion RFEIR identifies 14 impacts. Of these, 12 can be reduced to less-than-significant levels by adopting mitigations. Of the two remaining impacts, one is significant and unavoidable (selling parkland) and the other is potentially significant and unavoidable (conflicts with General Plan policies). As discussed above, staff recommends that the Council determine that there is no conflict with the General Plan and, therefore, there is no significant-and unavoidable impact related to this issue.

The RFEIR identifies three project alternatives that would avoid this significant-and-unavoidable impact:
• Lease as a single-family residence
• Lease as a public or quasi-public use
• No Project (do not sell or lease)

If the City Council chooses to sell the Flanders Mansion property it must adopt the last of the three findings identified above in Section 15091: Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. There must be substantial evidence in the record to support such a finding and there must be a rationale to connect the evidence to the conclusion.

The Council also would need to determine that the remaining significant impact is
acceptable due to overriding considerations. This is achieved by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations that explains to the public the basis for the Council’s decision.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLANNING SERVICES MANAGER AND
BRIAN ROSETH, PLANNING CONSULTANT
DATE: 28 APRIL 2009
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES RELATED TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY.

IV. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

Carmel’s General Plan does not contain decisive policies on the issue of whether to sell Flanders Mansion, lease it, or just keep it for Municipal uses. However, the General Plan does include policies that anticipate the possible sale of the Flanders Mansion property (General Plan Policies P5-141, P5-142 and P5-143, shown below). These policies support a conclusion that selling the property would be consistent with the General Plan. (In the policies below, the Flanders Mansion is referred to by its historical name: Outlands)

P5-141 If retained by the City, preserve the Outlands property and grounds at Mission Trail Nature Preserve consistent with its status as a nationally registered historical resource.

P5-142 If retained by the City, utilize the Outlands property at Mission Trail Nature Preserve in a manner beneficial to the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea while minimizing its expense to the City.

P5-143 If retained by the City, support uses at the Outlands property that are compatible with its location in Mission Trail Nature Preserve and adjacent to the Rowntree Native Plant Garden and Hatton Road neighborhood.

In writing the RFEIR, the consultant identified four policies that are potentially inconsistent with a sale of Flanders Mansion.

“G5-6: Preserve and acquire open space and parks.”
“Potentially inconsistent..."

"O5-21: Optimize public use of City parks.”
“Potentially inconsistent..."

“P5-46: Preserve and protect areas within the City’s jurisdiction, which due to their outstanding aesthetic quality, historical value, wildlife habitats or scenic viewsheds, should be maintained in permanent open space to enhance the quality of life. Such acquired areas would be left in a natural state or restored for aesthetic and/or wildlife purposes.”
“Potentially inconsistent..."

“P5-107: Provide for public access and passive enjoyment of City parks andopen space.”
“Potentially inconsistent..."

So, three policy statements anticipate a sale, yet four policy statements conflict with a sale. Since California statutes require General Plans to be internally consistent, an analysis of General Plan consistency for a proposed project must always proceed from an assumption that if policies appear to conflict they can be harmonized. The EIR consultant identified all of these policies as “potentially inconsistent” because only the City can resolve the tension between these two policy groups.

To harmonize the policies that anticipate a sale with the policies that conflict with the loss of public parkland, staff recommends that the City Council consider the broader context of parkland within the City. Within a City-wide context the various policies in the City’s General Plan are not necessarily in conflict. The Plan can support parks, conservation and recreation in general terms while permitting a sale of parkland at a specific site. Viewed in this larger context, selling the Flanders Mansion property would not be inconsistent with the General Plan.

Ultimately, the City Council must balance the competing policy objectives to reach a determination regarding General Plan consistency. In 2005, both the Planning Commission and the City Council determined that selling the Flanders Mansion property was not inconsistent with the General Plan. The Superior Court upheld this determination and stated “The City is entitled to deference in its determination of conformity with the General Plan.”

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-__
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE RECIRCULATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY

Attachment A
General Overview of Documents Supporting Findings.

Project Decision-Making.
1. Review by Advisory Bodies.
a. Finding: On April 20, 2009, the Forest and Beach Commission held a noticed public hearing and forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the RFEIR is adequate per CEQA Guidelines section 15151 with respect to issues affecting the Mission Trails Nature Preserve.

b. Finding: On April 20, 2009, the Historic Resources Board held a noticed public hearing and forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the RFEIR is adequate per CEQA Guidelines section 15151 with respect to issues affecting historic resources and aesthetics. The Board also forwarded a recommendation that in mitigation #4.3-1, the required Preservation Plan should be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board.

c. Finding: On April 23, 2009, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing and made the following findings:

(1) That the RFEIR is adequate per section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines;

(2) That sale of the Flanders Mansion property with Conservation Easements and Mitigation for residential use or lease of the Flanders Mansion property for residential use is consistent with the General Plan;

(3) That the mitigations identified in the RFEIR should be adopted; and

(4) That in Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, the required Preservation Plan should be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board.

Finding: The Forest and Beach Commission at a duly-noticed special hearing on April 20, 2009, and the Historic Resources Board at a duly-noticed regular meeting on April 20, 2009, considered the RFEIR (SCH#2005011108) for sale of Flanders Mansion property. The role of the Forest and Beach Commission is to advise the Planning Commission on the whether the RFEIR provides adequate discussion of the project, impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures related to the Mission Trails Nature Preserve and the Flanders Mansion property. The role of the Historic Resources Board is to advise the Planning Commission on the adequacy of the RFEIR regarding historical, cultural and aesthetic issues related to the Flanders Mansion property. The Forest and Beach Commission determined and forwarded advice to the Planning Commission that the RFEIR is adequate to disclose the project’s impacts related to the Mission Trails Nature Preserve and its adjacent neighborhood. The Historic Resources Board determined and forwarded advice to the Planning Commission that the RFEIR is adequate for reviewing impacts, alternatives and mitigations regarding the project's impacts related to historic preservation, cultural resources and aesthetic resources related to public enjoyment of the Flanders Mansion as a historical resource.

Finding: The Planning Commission at a duly-noticed special hearing on April 23, 2009, determined that the RFEIR (SCH#2005011108) for sale of Flanders Mansion property has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that the Sale of the Flanders Mansion property for residential use with Conservation Easements and Mitigation project alternative and lease of the property for residential use are consistent with the General Plan. The Planning Commission further recommended certification of the EIR.

Finding: At a duly-noticed public hearing on this day, following receipt of oral public testimony and documentary evidence, and pursuant to the City Council members' deliberations, the City Council finds that the RDEIR (SCH#2005011108) for sale of Flanders Mansion property has been completed in compliance with CEQA, reflects the independent judgment of the City and by this Resolution certifies the RFEIR. The City Council further finds that the sale of the Property with Conservation Easements and Mitigation (Alternative 6.5) and lease of the Property are not inconsistent with the General Plan. The RFEIR was presented to the Forest and Beach Commission and Historic Resources Board, Planning Commission and the City Council, was independently reviewed and analyzed by the City Council, and was used to review and consider the Flanders Mansion proposed project and its environmental aspects as required by CEQA sections 21082.1 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15090 and 15091.

Evidence:
RDEIR;
RFEIR;
Minutes of Historic Resources Board meeting of April 20, 2009;
Minutes of Forest and Beach Commission meeting of April 20, 2009;
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2009;
Minutes of City Council meeting of April 28, 2009 (once prepared).

Statement of Overriding Considerations.
a. Finding: By companion action, A Resolution Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council is adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, including supporting findings and evidence set forth therein, specifically identifies the benefits of the Sale with Conservation Easements and Mitigation Alternative to be approved as the project to be implemented (by companion action, A Resolution Adopting a Project for Implementation: Sale of Flanders Mansion Parcel with Conservation Easements and Mitigation) and finds those specifically-identified benefits outweigh the significant, unavoidable environmental impacts assessed in the RFEIR and found above (in Section G). The Statement of Overriding Consideration being adopted finds, as a result, that the environmental risks of the Sale of the Flanders Mansion parcel with Conservation Easements and Mitigations acceptable.

Notice of Intent to Discontinue Parkland and Setting of Hearing on Protests.
a. Finding:
Pursuant to selection of a project for implementaion which provides for sale of the Flanders Mansion property which is considered parkland, currently owned by the City, the City Council is adopting by companion action this day a Resolution of Notice of Proposed Discontinuance of Public Park Land and Setting Date for Hearing of Protests Against Sale of Public Park Land.

Said resolution contains an accurate description of the public parklands proposed to be sold; state the common name of the park; states the disposition which the legislative body proposes to make of the park; and fixes a time, not less than thirty nor more than sixty days after adoption of the resolution, and a place, at which the public or persons particularly interested may protest.

Said resolution sets the hearing on any protests against sale for regular City Council meeting on June 2, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-__
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, CONDITIONS OF SALE, A DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS TO BE RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY, AND CONDITIONS OF LEASE

Attachment A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Attachment B
CONDITIONS OF SALE FOR THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY

Attachment C
PROVISIONS TO BE CONTAINED IN EASEMENTS AND COVENANTS FOR THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY TO BE RECORDED AND RUN WITH THE LAND

Attachment D
CONDITIONS OF LEASE FOR THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-__
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council has balanced the specifically-identified benefits of the Sale of the Flanders Mansion with Conservation Easements and Mitigation, against the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report, and determined the identified benefits outweigh the environmental impacts and, as a result, those environmental impacts are acceptable.

Attachment A
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: SALE OF FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND MITIGATION
Overview of Legal Standards for Approval of a Project or Alternative Despite Significant, Unavoidable Environmental Risks

When approving a project for implementation, the City Council shall mitigate or avoid the project's significant effects on the environment which are identified in an environmental impact report whenever it is feasible to do so. If economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of the City Council. (See Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21002, 21002.1.) The City Council should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment. (See Pub. Res. Code, §21002; CEQA Guidelines [Title 14, Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.], § 15021.) CEQA requires the City Council to balance, as applicable, specifically-identified economic, legal, social or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the significant, unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those environmental impacts may be considered acceptable. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15092, 15093.)

If specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible certain project alternatives or mitigation measures which substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project, the City may approve the project in spite of one or more significant environmental effects. (See Pub. Res. Code, § 21002.) However, CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant unmitigated effects on the environment, based simply on a weighing of those effects against the project's benefits, unless the measures necessary to mitigate those effects are truly infeasible. Economic viability is one of the factors that may be taken into account in addressing the feasibility of an alternative. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6.) The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project. “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) In order to approve a project or alternative that would have a significant, unmitigatible environmental impact, the City will be required to make findings identifying the specific considerations that make infeasible the environmentally superior alternatives and the specific benefits of the project which outweigh the environmental harm. (See Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21002, 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines, §§15092, 15093.)

Alternatives Which Would Substantially Lessen the Significant, Unavoidable Impact of the Sale of the Property Are Infeasible

13. Specific economic and other factors make infeasible the project alternatives which would substantially lessen this impact, specifically leasing the Flanders Mansion property for either single-family residential use or public or quasi-public use.

a. Lease as a single-family residence (one of the lease alternatives described in Section 6.4 of the RFEIR) was determined by the economic expert consultants, CBRE Consulting, Inc. [“CBRE”] to be infeasible in accordance with the legal standard for infeasibility under CEQA following a market study and appraisal by market and valuation experts (CBRE Valuation & Advisory Services), for the reasons described in CBRE's reports. The economic experts recognize and set forth the legal standard for infeasibility under CEQA in their report, at page 6. The CBRE analysis used two tests for infeasibility (1) it is impractical by virtue of a severely limited or nonexistent market for the alternative, and (2) it is impractical due to severe additional cost or lost profitability. The economic experts also relied for their analysis on the assessment by architectural and historic building experts, Architectural Resources Group [“ARG”], of the work needed in order to restore and rehabilitate the Flanders Mansion property, and their estimate of the cost to accomplish that rehabilitation. The economic experts found a single-family residential lease failed both tests and is, therefore, infeasible. In the vicinity of the Property, the market for comparable single-family rentals is exceedingly thin and, in fact, nonexistent where lessees are responsible for rehabilitating a property. Additionally, with the estimated income stream from this alternative, the City would not recover its restoration costs for approximately 17 years.

b. Lease for non-profit use, i.e., public or quasi-public use, (the second of the lease alternatives described in Section 6.4 of the RFEIR) was also determined by the economic expert consultants to be infeasible in accordance with the legal standard for infeasibility under CEQA following a market study and appraisal by market and valuation experts within their firm, for the reasons described in CBRE's reports. The economic experts recognize and set forth the legal standard for infeasibility under CEQA in their report, at page 6. The CBRE analysis used two tests for infeasibility (1) it is impractical by virtue of a severely limited or nonexistent market for the alternative, and (2) it is impractical due to severe additional cost or lost profitability. The Lease for Nonprofit Use alternative did not meet the tests of economic feasibility. In the Property’s immediate area, CBRE Consulting found a very limited market for comparable nonresidential rentals, and here again, a non-existent market for nonresidential rentals when the lessee is required to rehabilitate the property. Furthermore, with the estimated income stream from this alternative, the City would not recover its restoration costs for approximately nine years. The economic experts found a lease for nonprofit use infeasible if the lessee were required to undertake the effort and expense of rehabilitating the property and also infeasible if the City were to undertake the rehabilitation.

c. The economic expert consultants also found infeasible a sale of the Flanders Mansion property with the City required to undertake the rehabilitation prior to sale, for the reasons described in CBRE's reports. The economic experts recognize and set forth the legal standard for infeasibility under CEQA in their report, at page 6.

d. Continued retention of the Property as used in the past (i.e., the “No Project” alternative) fails to achieve several of the City's identified project objectives, including the primary objective and the important secondary objectives of putting the Mansion to productive use and achieving preservation and restoration of this historic building. Economic, social and other factors make a No Project alternative infeasible.

(1) Within the City finances, the City Council has determined within its legislative, budgetary discretion, that the funding required for the City's annual operations and services, the reserves for needed for periodic shortfalls in annual revenue and for other capital and debt-service priorities in the City, such as maintaining and repairing infrastructure and the assets the City intends to retain, take priority over expending the funds needed to historically rehabilitate and maintain the Flanders Mansion building and grounds.

The City Council has proposed the Project because it has determined that the expenditures necessary to maintain, repair and historically rehabilitate the property is not an appropriate priority for the use of annual and reserve funds.

When allocating funds, either from current revenue (e.g., sales tax, property tax, TOT, fees) or from reserves, the City must make choices regarding priorities. Not all capital improvements and needs can receive funding. Assessing future facility needs of the City, and the costs of providing for these needs, are not environmental issues and are not appropriately discussed in an EIR. Attempting to forecast all future needs of the City would be speculative, as would efforts to identify the location, size, costs and potential environmental impacts of such facilities. The City allocates its capital expenditures by using a five-year capital improvements program, updated annually.

The City anticipates ongoing expenses for street repairs, as documented in the 2008 Nichols Report, plus numerous storm drainage projects already appearing in the Capital Improvement Program. Each year, City Departments identify additional capital improvements that will be needed in short-term or long-term time frames. Those related to health or safety, take the highest priority. Those related to capital assets that must provide continuing service are typically next in line for funding. Funding for new facilities such as the Forest Theater upgrade or implementation of the Del Mar and North Dunes Master Plan also must compete for funds.

The Project Alternative of Sale with Conservation Easements and Mitigation Is Economically Feasible, Achieves Project Objectives and Lessens the Environmental Impacts of the Project

The Benefits of a Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property with Conversations Easements and Mitigation

i. Pursuant to Government Code section 38440 et seq., final implementation of any sale of this parkland property will require a vote of the people. The citizens of Carmel-by-the-Sea will decide directly whether the benefits of selling the property with conservation easements and mitigations, outweigh the environmental harm of losing public access to 1.252 acres of parkland in a City that has 65 acres of parkland. Using the ultimate democratic process to determine the fate of the property is a benefit that is inherent in selecting a sale alternative. A lease alternative could be implemented by the Council without the approval of the citizens.

The Specifically-Identified Benefits of the Sale with Conservation Easements and Mitigation Outweigh the Remaining Significant, Unavoidable Impact

17. These specifically-identified benefits of the project outweigh the significant, unavoidable environmental impact which may result of the Sale of the Flanders Mansion with Conservation Easements and Mitigation. As a result, those environmental impact is acceptable.

18. The City Council further finds that, in the event it is determined that the mitigation measures identified by the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report above do not reduce the significant environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the RFEIR to lessthan-significant levels, the benefits described above outweigh any and all potential unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits described below is a separate and independent ground for its findings that the benefits of the Project outweigh any and all potential significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the Project.

RESOLUTION NO. 2009-__
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROJECT FOR IMPLEMENTATION: SALE OF FLANDERS MANSION PARCEL WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND MITIGATION

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-__
A RESOLUTION OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC PARK LAND AND SETTING DATE FOR HEARING OF PROTESTS AGAINST SALE OF PUBLIC PARK LAND

COMMENTS:
• It is evident from the tone and substance of the Staff Reports prepared by City Administrator Rich Guillen, Planning Services Manager Sean Conroy and Planning Consultant Brian Roseth that the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property Project has been politicized to the extent politics has overwhelmed planning, park or historic considerations. Moreover, in politicizing this issue, Mayor Sue McCloud has compromised the integrity of city employees and members of the Forest and Beach Commission, Historic Resources Board and Planning Commission.

• To the extent Sue McCloud has had a monopoly of power for nearly nine years as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea (she has appointed Commission and Board members beholden to her and her agenda and succeeded in having two former appointees on the City Council presently), she has unfairly biased and prejudiced the process towards a predetermined outcome. Without any checks and balances, without those in city government, elected and appointed, exposing her “over control” of governmental processes, she has denied the public, advisory body members and other council members the requisite time to openly and transparently review and deliberate on the important issues in order to ensure an outcome which is in the best interests of Carmelites and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, short-term and long-term.

'Carmel Firefighters need your help!'

ABSTRACT: The Carmel Professional Firefighters placed an advertisement in The Carmel Pine Cone, April 24, 2009, entitled ‘Carmel Firefighters need your help!’ The Carmel Firefighters state that the "merger with Monterey is the best for Carmel" and ask members of the pubic to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 5, 20009 at 4:30 P.M. and speak in support of the contract with Monterey and in support of our local firefighters. The advertisement is reproduced in its entirety.

Carmel Firefighters need your help!

The Carmel Professional Firefighters would like to take this opportunity to thank the citizens of Carmel-By-The-Sea for their continued support through the years. We would also like to thank the City Council of Carmel-By-The-Sea for all of its efforts to ensure that Carmel Fire Department is a great organization—well suited to the needs of the citizens of Carmel.

Almost all of our current line staff were born and raised locally and consider Carmel home. The uniqueness of Carmel makes this a special place. Our local knowledge is invaluable when locating a person in distress or finding a fire. We truly appreciate working for the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea because this is our community and this is our home.

Carmel Fire Department is in danger though, and we need your help. The City Council is considering options for the future of Carmel Fire Department. These options could have huge consequences for your fire department and, more importantly, for you.

• The current status of Carmel Fire Department. For the past several years, Carmel has contracted with the City of Pacific Grove, and more recently the City of Monterey, for administrative oversight and Chief Officer coverage. This system has repeatedly proven itself to work well, and more importantly, it has retained the local firefighters and their knowledge.

• The city has considered other alternatives. Since the year 2000, the city has experimented with other departments and commissioned studies to look at other options. A stand alone fire department is too costly for a city of our size to sustain. The conclusion of the Carmel Professional Firefighters is that the contract with the City of Monterey provides the best level of service, for now and into the future, while minimizing costs.

We need your help. Many people are frightened that they will lose their fire department. That is not true as we, the local firefighters, will still be here responding to any emergency we are called to. Others feel that we can do it on our own. It is just too costly for a city of our size to pay for an independent and appropriate sized department. If the fire department were to revert back to a smaller stand alone model in order to save costs, both the safety of its citizens and firefighters would be at risk. Some are of the opinion that other organizations could do a better job for less money. These options have been independently studied and the Carmel Professional Firefighters feel that the merger with Monterey is the best for Carmel. No other system can guarantee that local firefighters and current levels of service remain intact.

There will be a meeting at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 5, 2009 in the Council Chambers. Please attend this meeting and speak in support of the contract with Monterey and in support of your local firefighters. Thank you for your help and support.

The Carmel Professional Firefighters

If you have any questions, please call August Beacham at (831) 238-0862. He is available at any time and would enjoy discussing this critical topic with you.

(Source: The Carmel Pine Cone, April 24, 2009, 9A)

Conserve Flanders Mansion Property as Intact Mission Trail Nature Preserve for the Public

ABSTRACT: A Special Meeting of the Planning Commission will be held today in Chambers at City Hall at 4:30 P.M. for the purpose of making recommendations to the City Council “regarding the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the sale of the Flanders Mansion.” A COMMENT is made regarding the proposed Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property and the creation of a type of “inholding.”

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 23 2009
Planning Commission April 23, 2009 @ 4:30 P.M.

Special Meeting: Special Meeting of the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the City Council regarding the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the sale of the Flanders Mansion. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located on the east side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues at 4:30 p.m.

COMMENT:
• The Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property, as proposed by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, involves the creation of a 1.252 acre island of private property within a sea of public parkland, namely Mission Trail Nature Preserve. This island of private property within public property is similar to an inholding. An inholding is defined, as follows:

inholdings Private lands within public parks, forests, or wildlife refuges.

The creation of this proposed private island within a public park, similar to an inholding, would result in the fragmentation of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve ecosystem, the degradation of the preserve/park experience by park users due to the cordoning off of an area geographically central to the park and potential conflicts between the private property owner and users of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve.

In short, the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property to a single family private property owner would be antithetical to the principles of land conservation, particularly with regard to the creation of a type of inholding within Mission Trail Nature Preserve, the City’s largest public park.

The Sale of the Flanders Mansion Project Conflicts with Goals, Objectives & Policies of City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan

ABSTRACT: The Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property conflicts with several Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, including G5-3, O5-8, P5-46, G5-4, G5-6,P5-98, O5-21, P5-105, P5-107, G5-8, O5-32, P5-139, G5-13, O5-41, G6-1, P6-8, G7-1, O7-2 and P7-3. The specific Goals, Objectives and Policies are reproduced.

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea

Goals, Objectives and Policies

Urban Forests, Parks and Open Spaces
G5-3 Protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel and its Sphere of Influence, including its biological resources, water resources, and scenic routes and corridors. (LUP)

O5-8 Protect, conserve and enhance designated open space, the urban Monterey pine forest, beach and shoreline, the sensitive habitats and the hillside areas, and acquire additional open space as deemed appropriate. (LUP)

P5-46 Preserve and protect areas within the City's jurisdiction, which due to their outstanding aesthetic quality, historical value, wildlife habitats or scenic viewsheds, should be maintained in permanent open space to enhance the quality of life. Such acquired areas would be left in a natural state or restored for aesthetic and/or wildlife purposes. (LUP)

G5-4 Preserve and enhance the City's legacy of an urbanized forest of predominantly Monterey pine, coast live oak and Monterey Cypress. (LUP)

G5-6 Preserve and acquire open space and parks. (LUP)

P5-98 Resist the transfer of open space to other uses. (LUP)

O5-21 Optimize public use of City parks. (LUP)

P5-105 Implement the recommendations of all existing Master Plans considering prioritized needs and available funding:
a. Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan

P5-107 Provide for public access and passive enjoyment of City parks and open space. (LUP)

Mission Trail Nature Preserve
G5-8 Preserve the forested tranquil atmosphere of Mission Trail Nature Preserve.
(LUP)

O5-32 Provide reasonable low-impact uses of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve for the enjoyment of its natural surroundings and plant and wildlife inhabitants. (LUP)

P5-139 Provide maximum pubic access to and within Mission Trail Nature Preserve that is easy to maintain and protects environmental resources. (LUP)

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
G5-13 Develop, preserve and enhance areas of scenic interest and determine methods to protect key scenic corridors and routes. (LUP)

O5-41 Encourage increased use of open space areas for such uses as pedestrian paths and scenic viewpoints that would provide for public enjoyment of
these areas. (LUP)

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Public Facilities and Services Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea

Goals, Objectives and Policies

G6-1 To recognize the unique social, cultural and recreational aspirations and activities which contribute to the vitality of Carmel-by-the-Sea; to provide a range of public and semi-public facilities and programs responsive to those aspirations; to provide public services to ensure each resident a safe, healthful and attractive living environment; to maintain both facilities and programs so as to exemplify the highest standards for the community.

P6-8 Maintain the City's beach, park and open space in a manner to encourage use and enjoyment by residents and visitors. (See also the Open Space Element)

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space, Conservation & Scenic Highways Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea

Goals, Objectives and Policies

G7-1 To protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel and its Sphere of Influence; to conserve Carmel's available water sources; and to protect scenic routes and corridors.

O7-2 Develop, preserve and enhance areas of scenic interest and determine methods to protect key scenic corridors and routes.

P7-3 Encourage the full utilization and opportunities within permanent open space areas for such uses as pedestrian paths and scenic viewpoints that would provide for public enjoyment of these areas.

Table 7.1: Carmel-by-the-Sea Recreation Facilities/Open Space

Facility: Mission Trail Park/Arboretum
Acreage: 35.0
Facilities/Use: Nature walks, jogging, picnicking, bicycling
Zoning Designation: P-1 = To preserve publicly owned park and beach lands for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations, and to prevent the destruction of natural open spaces.

SUMMARY: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT (Short Version)

ABSTRACT: For the proposed Villas de Carmelo Project, the POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS include, as follows, from the NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) VILLAS DE CARMELO:

“The DEIR identifies impacts in the following resource areas that are either less than significant or are significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology, traffic, water quality, land use, noise, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems.”

“The DEIR identifies significant impacts in the following resource areas that can be mitigated, but not necessarily to a less than significant level: aesthetics.”

A SUMMARY of the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT (DEIR) is presented consisting of selected excerpts from the DEIR, including the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the Reduced Density Alternative. The Reduced Density Alternative “consists of reducing development on the project site to avoid or lessen the proposed project’s significant unmitigable visual impacts. The Reduced Project Alternative consists of reducing the project to a residential multi-family development of 37 units from the original 46 condominium units.”

As stated in 6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE, “Among the alternatives aside from the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Reduced Project alternative would represent the environmentally superior alternative, since it avoids or reduces many of the project’s impacts associated with more intense development on the site. The Reduced Project alternative would allow the proposed project to meet its objectives, while insuring that adverse environmental impacts are reduced to the extent feasible. This alternative would reduce impacts in other impact areas in accordance with the decrease in development. Therefore, after the analysis of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the environmentally superior alternative is considered to be the Reduced Project Alternative.”

Note: Public Review and Comment Period: April 17, 2009 through June 5, 2009; Public Comment Instructions are provided.


DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT
CARMEL, CALIFORNIA
VOLUME I: DRAFT EIR


Lead Agency:
MONTEREY COUNTY


Prepared by:
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Monterey, CA 93940


April 2009


Public Comment Instructions

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
This Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b). The Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR has also been distributed as required by CEQA. During the 45-day public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the County of Monterey.

All written comments on the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

County of Monterey
Resource Management Agency – Planning Department
Attn: Mike Novo, Director of Planning
168 West Alisal, 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901

We welcome your comments during the 45-day public review period. You may submit your comments in hard copy to the name and address above. The Department also accepts comments via e-mail or facsimile but requests you follow these instructions to ensure that the Department has received your comments.

To submit your comments by e-mail, please send a complete document including all attachments to:

ceqacomments@co.monterey.ca.us

An e-mailed document should contain the name of the person or entity submitting the comments and contact information such as a phone number, mailing address and/or e-mail address and include any and all attachments referenced in the e-mail. To ensure a complete and accurate record, we request that you also provide a follow-up hard copy to the name and address listed above. If you do not wish to send a follow-up hard copy, then please send a second e-mail requesting confirmation of receipt of comments with enough information to confirm that the entire document was received. If you do not receive e-mail confirmation of comments, then please submit a hard copy of your comments to ensure inclusion in the environmental record or contact the Department to ensure the Department has received your comments.

Facsimile (fax) copies will be accepted with a cover page describing the extent (e.g. number of pages) being transmitted. A faxed document must contain a signature and all attachments referenced therein. Faxed documents should be sent to the contact noted above at (831) 757-9516. To ensure a complete and accurate record, we request that you also provide a follow-up hard copy to the name and address listed above. If you do not wish to send a follow-up hard copy, then please contact the Department to confirm that the entire document was received.

Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be addressed in the Final EIR. The Final EIR will be made available for review at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the final decision-making body, at which time the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. These environmental comments and their responses will be included as part of the environmental record for consideration by decision-makes for the project.

2.0 SUMMARY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This summary provides a brief description of the proposed project, project alternatives, and the significant impacts identified during the environmental analysis. Responsibility for implementation of mitigation measures is with the project applicant, unless otherwise noted. This summary is intended as an overview and should be used in conjunction with a thorough review of the DEIR. The text of this DEIR, including figures, tables, and appendices, serves as the basis for this summary.

2.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Villas de Carmelo project would be located at 24945 Valley Way on a 3.68-acre site in the unincorporated Coastal Zone of Monterey County bordered by the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea (See Figure 3-2, Vicinity Map). The project site is located roughly 90 miles south of San Francisco. The project site is bounded to the southwest by Valley Way and to the east by State Route 1 (Highway 1) and southeast by a private drive leading to a four-building apartment complex. Single-family homes are located on the northern and northwestern borders of the property.

Full implementation of the Villas de Carmelo project would introduce a new residential village community consisting of 46 condominium units with a mix of market rate and affordable housing. New housing would include 33 market rate condominiums, 9 affordable housing units, and 4 workforce housing units. The proposed project would create a residential village on the 3.68-acre project site with the existing hospital structure as the focal point of the project. Implementation of the project would involve a standard subdivision to convert 10,350 square feet of the existing hospital structure into 9 condominium units and construction of 37 additional condominium units in 10 to-be-constructed buildings, for a total of 46 condominium units. The project would include common residential village space for underground and surface parking, a recreation room, and storage facilities. The project entitlements will include, but not be limited to, Local Coastal Plan Designation Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Coastal Development Permit, Housing Element Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Development Agreement approval to allow for the proposed development. A full project description is provided in Section 3.0 of this DEIR.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THIS DEIR

CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe and evaluate a range of project alternatives that could eliminate significant adverse project impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant level. The alternatives to the proposed project that are analyzed in the Draft EIR are summarized below. The Alternatives Section in the Draft EIR fully describes the alternative and discusses whether the alternative meets the identified project objectives.

In compliance with CEQA, this Draft EIR evaluates the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the following five alternatives:

􀂃 No Project
􀂃 Alternative Land Use – Visitor Serving Development
􀂃 Existing Zoning Project Alternative
􀂃 Applicant’s Modified Design Project Alternative
􀂃 Higher Percentage Low Income Project Alternative

2.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be specified, if one is identified. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is supposed to minimize adverse impacts to the project site and surrounding environment while achieving the basic objectives of the project. The "No Project" alternative could be considered the environmentally superior alternative because all adverse impacts associated with project construction and operation would be avoided. However, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2) states: “If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the DEIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

Based on the analysis in the alternatives discussion, several design changes could reduce the environmental impacts of the project as proposed. The Alternative Land Use – Visitor Serving Development Alternative would involve the construction of a hotel facility on the project site. This Alternative would have similar impacts as the proposed project in all areas aside from its significant increase to traffic in the project site’s vicinity. This Alternative would also be inconsistent with the surrounding land use of the project site and would not meet a primary project objective of the establishment of a residential community on the project site. The Modified Design alternative would avoid the significant unavoidable impact associated with the development of buildings within the Highway 1 scenic corridor that would adversely impact this scenic resource, however would result in impacts similar to the project as proposed. The Existing Zoning Alternative consists of developing the project site with residential uses as proposed, but under the existing zoning for the site of MDR/2. This Alternative would avoid the unmitigable impact of the proposed project to a scenic resource. However, this Alternative would not be capable of meeting the majority of the project objectives, including a principal project objective of the adaptive re-use of a historic building and the establishment of a residential community on the project site. The Increased Percentage of Low and Moderate Income Units Alternative would increase the amount of low and moderate income units amongst the residential units proposed for construction on the project site; however, would otherwise result in the same impacts as the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would not only avoid the unmitigable impact upon a scenic resource by reducing construction within the Highway 1 viewshed but would also reduce impacts in most other areas by decreasing the development density and building footprint on the project site.

Therefore, the environmentally superior alternative would be the Reduced Project Alternative since this alternative would reduce impacts in most areas by decreasing the development densities and footprint on the project site. For further discussion of alternatives to the proposed project see Section 6-0 Alternatives.

Table 2.5-1
Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Impact----Mitigation-----Level of Significance After Mitigation

Includes all “Significant and Unavoidable” Level of Significance After Mitigation, i.e., not including Less than Significant Level of Significance After Mitigation

1. Environmental Impact: The project would result in the removal of existing mature vegetation adjacent to Highway 1 to accommodate buildout of the project site into a residential condominium complex. Existing vegetation, particularly mature pine and oak trees, located west of Highway 1 is considered a scenic resource that is an important component of the visual integrity of the Highway 1 corridor. Removal of vegetation and construction of two buildings of the overall complex as close as 30 feet from the highway would impact views from Highway 1 looking west towards the project site.

Mitigation: 4.1-1 See mitigation regarding potential impacts to a Scenic Vista.

4.1-2 See mitigation regarding potential impacts to a Scenic Vista.

4.1-3 In order to assure that impacts to a scenic resource, the Highway 1 corridor, are minimized, the two buildings housing Units 1-8 located adjacent to Highway 1 on the proposed project site plan shall be constructed with a maximum elevation of 28 feet. This maximum elevation shall be uniform for both of the buildings and shall be recorded on the project’s final map, subject to approval by the County of Monterey.

4.1-4 In order to assure that impacts to scenic resources as viewed from the Highway 1 corridor are minimized, the project applicant/developer shall ensure that at no time shall any development, including project signage, parking, or construction related activities, be permitted within the 10' property-line setback. All existing mature trees within the 10' setback shall be retained to the extent possible consistent with mitigation measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2. This measure shall be recorded on the project’s final map, subject to approval by the County of Monterey.

4.1 AESTHETICS
Impacts and Mitigation

Scenic Resources
Impact The project would result in the removal of existing mature vegetation adjacent to Highway 1 to accommodate buildout of the project site into a residential condominium complex. Existing vegetation, particularly mature pine and oak trees, located west of Highway 1 is considered a scenic resource that is an important component of the visual integrity of the Highway 1 corridor. Removal of vegetation and the construction of two buildings would impact views from Highway 1 looking west towards the project site. To the extent that buildout of the proposed project would be inconsistent with its surrounding area bordering a scenic highway, this represents a significant and unavoidable impact.

4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Introduction
The following section analyzes the project’s land use effects, specifically its consistency with applicable plans and zoning ordinances, including the Monterey County General Plan, Carmel Area Land Use Plan (LUP), Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, and other relevant planning documents.

Setting
The project’s implementation would include approval of a Carmel Area Land Use Designation Amendment and a Coastal Implementation Plan Zoning Amendment, as highlighted below:

Carmel Area Land Use Plan Amendment: Change of land use designation from existing Medium Density Residential to proposed new designation for the area, High Density Residential.

Coastal Implementation Plan (Zoning Code) Amendment: Rezoning of existing of MDR/2 (Medium Density Residential/2 units per acre to a proposed HDR/12.5 (High Density Residential/12.5 units per acre) zoning designation in the Coastal Zone.

Impacts and Mitigation
Physically Divide an Established Community
Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an existing established community.

Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation
Consistency with Carmel Area Land Use Plan /Local Coastal Program
Consistency with County of Monterey Housing Element
Consistency with County of Monterey Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

Conclusion

Project development proposes amendments to the Local Coastal Plan (Carmel Area Land Use Plan), Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (Part 4), and Part 1 of the Coastal Implementation Plan (Title 20 Zoning Ordinance), as discussed above. With the amendments, the project would be generally consistent with applicable land use policies and regulations pertaining to the development of the project site. If approved as it has been proposed, the project does not have the potential to result in conflicts with adopted land uses policies and regulations that are intended to avoid and/or mitigate an adverse environmental impact.

Pursuant to CEQA, a significant environmental effect must involve an adverse change in the existing physical condition of the site. As proposed, project development would result in minimal changes in the physical environmental, such that development does not have the potential to conflict with adopted policies intended to avoid and/or mitigate an environmental impact. See Table 4.9-1 for more information regarding the project’s consistency with applicable General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies and regulations pertaining to the development of the project site. As seen in this table, some project elements are inconsistent with General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies, however these inconsistencies would not be in conflict with policies intended to avoid and/or mitigate environmental effects. Therefore, as the proposed project would not conflict with policies intended to avoid and/or mitigate an environmental impact, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

Conflict with Any Applicable Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plan
The project would not adversely impact any habitat or natural community conservation plans.

Cumulative Impacts
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact upon land use planning.

Table 4.9-1
Project Consistency with Relevant County of Monterey General Plan and Carmel Area Land Use Plan (LUP) Policies
Policy Number--- Policy Summary--- Consistency (only includes “Project Inconsistent,” omits “Projects consistent” )

GENERAL PLAN / AREA PLAN (LUP) – Visual Resources
26.1.8 Development in scenic road and highway corridors shall be governed by policies located in the transportation section of this General Plan.

Project inconsistent. The proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to a scenic corridor as discussed in Section 4.1 Aesthetics. Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1 Aesthetics shall assist in reducing the project’s impacts upon the scenic highway corridor.

GENERAL PLAN / AREA PLAN (LUP)– Land Use
26.1.6 Development which preserves and enhances the County's scenic qualities shall be encouraged.

Project inconsistent. Consideration of potential significant impacts to the County’s scenic qualities from the proposed project has been included with mitigation measures in Section 4.1 Aesthetics.

27.1.3 Residential development should be concentrated in growth areas.

Project inconsistent. While the proposed project would be infill of a primarily abandoned lot located within a residential neighborhood, the Carmel area is not considered to be an area of future growth within Monterey County.

27.2.1 Residential areas shall be located with convenient access to employment, shopping, recreation, and transportation. High density residential areas should also be located with convenient access to public transit.

Project inconsistent. Although the proposed project would establish residents within convenient access to employment, shopping, recreation, and transportation, the nearest Monterey Salinas Transit bus station is located greater than 0.5 miles southwest of the project site at the intersection of 6th Avenue and Mission Street in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, which is not considered convenient access to public transit by various rating systems.

4.4.3.D.2 (LUP) Medium-density residential development shall be directed to existing residential areas where urban services -- water, sewers, roads, public transit, fire protection, etc. – are available. The density for new subdivision is two units per acre except for the Portola Corporation property in Carmel Meadows. As a condition of development, covenants must be recorded acknowledging agricultural use on the adjacent parcel and holding the owner (State) harmless for any nuisance due to the agricultural use.

Project inconsistent. The Carmel Area Land Use Plan / Local Coastal Program does not distinguish the project’s proposed rezoning to allow high density residential zoning on the project site. The project also proposes a density of 12.5 units per acre. However, the proposed project would be within an existing residential area where urban services exist and area available. Additionally, approval of the proposed project would allow for high density residential zoning in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan.

GENERAL PLAN / AREA PLAN (LUP)– Population & Housing
27.1.3 Residential growth should be concentrated in growth areas.

Project inconsistent. While the proposed project would be infill of a primarily abandoned lot located within a residential neighborhood, the Carmel area is not considered to be an area of future growth within Monterey County.

27.2.1 Residential areas shall be located with convenient access to employment, shopping, recreation, and transportation. High density residential areas should also be located with convenient access to public transport.

Project inconsistent. Although the proposed project would establish residents within convenient access to employment, shopping, recreation, and transportation, the nearest Monterey Salinas Transit bus station is located 0.62 miles southwest of the project site at the intersection of 6th Avenue and Mission Street in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, which by most standards would not be considered convenient access to public transit.

GENERAL PLAN / AREA PLAN (LUP)– Traffic & Circulation
37.2.1 Transportation demands of proposed development shall not exceed an acceptable level of service for existing transportation facilities, unless appropriate increases in capacities are provided for.

Project inconsistent. Implementation of the proposed project would exceed acceptable levels of service for surrounding existing transportation facilities. Mitigations measures are provided in Section 4.13 Traffic & Circulation.

5.0 CEQA Considerations

5.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

The proposed project would result in significant impacts in the following categories, as described in this Draft EIR: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards, hydrology, noise, public services, and traffic. All project impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation identified in this Draft EIR, with the exception of the following:

􀂃 A significant unavoidable impact due to development in the Highway 1 viewshed which would impact a scenic resource.

6.0 Alternatives

6.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

Proposed Project Characteristics

The proposed project includes a subdivision and a combined development permit to allow the construction of 46 residential units on a 3.68-acre site. The following are project components:

• a local coastal plan amendment to change land use designation from medium density residential to high density residential;

• rezoning from MDR/2 to HDR/12.5 in the coastal zone;

• a coastal development permit and standard subdivision to convert a 10,350-square foot former convalescent hospital site into nine condominium units and develop 37 additional condominium units for a total of 46 units;

• a coastal administrative permit to demolish one existing structure and construct 12 buildings for a total of 46 condominium units;

• a coast development permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater and removal of approximately 97 trees over 12” in diameter (21 Coast Live Oak, 76 Monterey Pines); and

• design approval.

Objectives

The primary objectives of the project, as described in 3.0 Project Description of this Draft EIR and as identified by the applicant, are as follows:

• Rehabilitate and preserve a historic community institution;

• Establish a high quality residential village community to house future residents within the County;

• Provide market rate, affordable, and work force housing stock to the Monterey Peninsula with 20% designated as affordable and workforce housing; and

• Reuse vacated buildings on a site with infill development.

Significant Impacts
The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts in the following categories, as described in this Draft EIR: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards, hydrology, noise, public services, population/housing, traffic, and utilities. All project impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation identified in this Draft EIR, with the exception of the following:

􀂃 A significant unavoidable project impact upon aesthetics, associated with the proposed project’s impact upon a scenic resource (Highway 1).

6.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER REVIEW

The following section discusses the alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIR and the comparative environmental effects of each. The alternatives considered in this analysis are as follows:

􀂃 No Project
􀂃 Alternative Land Use- Visitor Serving Development
􀂃 Existing Zoning Project Alternative
􀂃 Applicant’s Modified Design Project Alternative
􀂃 Reduced Density Project Alternative
􀂃 Increased Percentage of Low and Moderate Income Units Project Alternative

The alternatives chosen for this analysis, beyond those mandated by CEQA, were developed to avoid or substantially reduce the significant impacts of the project.

6.4.5 Reduced Density Project

Description
This Alternative consists of reducing the number of units on the project site in order to avoid or lessen the majority of the proposed project’s impacts. The Reduced Project Alternative consists of reducing the project to a residential multi-family development of 37 units. As a component of the Reduced Project Alternative, 26 units would be designated as market rate units, 3 units would be designated as affordable to Moderate-income units, 3 units would be designated as Low-income units, and 3 units would be designated as Very Low-income units, per Monterey County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

This Alternative: 1) reduces four of the units in the area proposed for Units 1-8 along Highway 1, 2) reconfigures the site plan in order to provide a landscape berm along Highway 1 as well as parking and landscaping in the area of the project site where proposed Units 1-8 are currently located, and 3) eliminates three units in the area of Units 24-28 in order to address neighborhood concerns regarding viewshed along Valley Way, as well as Unit 23 and Unit 32 in order to further reduce the impacts from density of development and construction on areas exceeding 30% slope.

Impacts
Aesthetics. This Alternative would avoid the project’s significant unavoidable impact to a scenic resource by lessening development within the majority of the area of the Highway l corridor viewshed. This Alternative also includes less overall development, which would in turn reduce the visual effects of the project. Implementation of this Alternative would result in retention of more trees on the project site and offer the opportunity for increased set back and landscaping on the project site’s border with Highway 1. The effects from new light and glare sources would be less than under the proposed project particularly on the east side of the project site where the existing eight units of low-income housing are currently located in project site plans (Units 1-8). The impacts of this Alternative on aesthetics would be less than those of the proposed project.

Air Quality. Based on URBEMIS modeling conducted for this Alternative, the Reduced Project Alternative would result a slight reduction of impacts from the generation of emissions from the creation of 37 residential units in comparison to the 46 units of the proposed project. Construction emissions will be reduced from those estimated for the proposed project given the reduction of 9 units and the correlated reduction of grading activities and construction. The Reduced Project Alternative would result in reduced mobile source emissions including PM10, ozone precursors, and GHGs due to the reduced vehicle trip generation. Implementation of mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project would also reduce the level of air quality impacts associated with this alternative. Under both scenarios, air quality impacts would be less-than-significant.

Biological Resources. This Alternative would reduce the proposed project’s impacts to biological resources, including trees, because of its reduced footprint. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the development footprint would be reduced to allow the construction of 37 residential units compared to the 46 units described for the proposed project. As such, the biological impacts identified under the proposed project would be reduced. Depending on design, impacts associated with tree removal and effects to sensitive species would be reduced. Mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project would also reduce the biological impacts associated with this alternative to a less-than-significant level. The impacts of the Reduced Project Alternative to biological resources would be less than those of the proposed project.

Cultural Resources. Because of its reduced grading, this Alternative could reduce potential impacts to undiscovered cultural resources. The impacts of the Reduced Project Alternative to cultural resources would be less than those of the proposed project in the area of archaeological impacts. In relation to the historical buildings on the site, the impacts under this alternative could be similar if this alternative also includes full rehabilitation of the existing historic buildings through the development of the site.

Geology/Soils. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, development would be decreased, which would decrease overall grading on the site by reducing the size of the overall development. Short-term construction impacts associated with the potential for erosion, accelerated runoff, and sedimentation are expected to be less than those anticipated for the proposed project given that the project area that would be affected by grading activities during construction would be decreased. Additionally, this project alternative would remove Unit 32 from the original site plan, which would greatly reduce the percentage of site development on areas exceeding 30% slope. Implementation of mitigation recommended for the proposed project would also reduce the levels of impacts associated with this alternative. The site would be subject to the same soil, geologic, and seismic hazards for both the proposed project and this alternative. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, impacts associated with seismicity and soil stability would likewise be similar to the proposed project. With mitigation and reduction of development on areas exceeding 30% slope, impacts related to geology and soils under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Demolition activities associated with construction of the Reduced Project Alternative would be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed project. However, there is still the possibility of potential impacts associated with undiscovered contamination, risks to underground utilities, hazardous materials involvement, asbestos and lead-based paint exposure, and the demolition of buildings. Implementation of mitigation recommended for the proposed project would also reduce the levels of impacts associated with this alternative. The impacts related to hazardous materials from the Reduced Project Alternative may be somewhat less than those of the proposed project.

Hydrology/Water Quality. This Alternative would reduce impervious surfaces compared to the proposed project. Short-term construction impacts to water quality associated with the potential for erosion and sediment discharge into the storm drainage system would be less than the proposed project. This Alternative would be required to provide onsite drainage facilities and implement BMPs to avoid significant water quality impacts. The hydrology and water quality impacts of this alternative would be somewhat less than those of the proposed project.

Land Use. This Alternative would not be consistent with County and Coastal land use planning documents and land use designations to provide medium density residential on the site at MDR/2. This Alternative is considered more consistent with specific policies in the Coastal Plan for the site, although less development is included than envisioned by the project objectives and the project would remain inconsistent with the type of development surrounding the project site. Ultimate consistency with policies would be dependent upon future residence design and layout.

Noise. Construction noise impacts from this Alternative would be reduced in accordance with the decrease in site development and traffic generated by the project and due to the increased area from residences located immediately adjacent to the northwest portion of the project site and construction activities. During project operations, traffic noise impacts along nearby streets would be reduced from the generation of fewer vehicle trips. This would reduce the cumulative noise effects of the project. This Alternative would presumably slightly reduce the construction schedule, lessening impacts to the sensitive receptors of the residential community adjacent to the site. The noise impacts of the Reduced Project Alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.

Public Services & Utilities. This Alternative would reduce the overall demand on services and utilities by decreasing the amount of development on the project site from 46 units to 37 units. The water demand of this Alternative is estimated to be 5.697 AF/Y (5.55 AFY for the 37 units + 0.147 AFY for the gym) based upon MPWMD residential water use factors. This estimated demand is 1.17 AFY/Y less than that of the proposed project. This Alternative would reduce the demand on police and fire services, parks, water, sanitary sewer, and solid waste disposal services, as well as energy. The public services and utilities impacts of the Reduced Project Alternative would therefore be less than those of the proposed project.

Traffic. The Reduced Project Alternative is expected to reduce the 269 total daily trips estimated for the proposed project by up to twenty percent. This would reduce traffic impacts at some of the studied intersections and roadway sections, but will not avoid traffic impacts reported for the proposed project on the intersections and roadway segments analyzed. This is also true for the regional cumulative impacts. For both the proposed project and this Alternative, local traffic impacts would be mitigable to less-thansignificant levels. The traffic impacts of the Reduced Project Alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.

Summary
The Reduced Project Alternative would lessen the overall impacts of the development by reducing the area of development and reducing the residential units from 46 units to 37 units. This Alternative would still require a land use plan amendment. The Reduced Density Alternative would avoid the project’s significant unavoidable impact on a scenic resource as project development within the Highway 1 corridor viewshed would be reduced. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, some but not all of the project objectives of the proposed project would be met. This Alternative would conflict with the Applicant’s project objectives to develop a larger residential community on the site. This Alternative would be consistent with the Applicant’s objectives to rehabilitate and preserve a historic building, establish the residential community and provide market rate, affordable, and work force housing stock, as well as meet the objective of reuse of vacated buildings on a site with infill development.

6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be specified, if one is identified. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is supposed to minimize adverse impacts to the project site and surrounding environment while achieving the basic objectives of the project. The No Project/No Development alternative could be considered the environmentally superior alternative because all adverse impacts associated with project construction and operation would be avoided. However, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2) states: “If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives."

Based on the analysis in the alternatives discussion, several design changes could reduce the environmental impacts of the project as proposed.

The Alternative Land Use – Visitor Serving Development Alternative would involve the construction of a hotel facility on the project site. This Alternative would have similar impacts as the proposed project in all areas aside from its significant increase to traffic in the project site’s vicinity. This Alternative would also be inconsistent with the surrounding land use of the project site and would not meet a primary project objective of the establishment of a residential community on the project site.

The Existing Zoning Alternative consists of developing the project site with residential uses as proposed, but under the existing zoning for the site of MDR/2. This Alternative would avoid the unmitigable impact of the proposed project to a scenic resource. However, this Alternative would not be capable of meeting the majority of the project objectives, including a principal project
objective of the adaptive re-use of a historic building and the establishment of a residential community on the project site.

The Modified Design alternative would avoid the significant unavoidable impact associated with the development of buildings within the Highway 1 scenic corridor that would adversely impact this scenic resource. This design alternative would otherwise result in impacts similar to the project as proposed and would meet the applicant’s project objectives of the adaptive re-use of a historic building and to develop a residential community on the project site.

The Reduced Project Alternative would not only avoid the unmitigable impact upon a scenic resource by reducing construction within the Highway 1 viewshed but would also reduce impacts in most other areas by decreasing the development density and building footprint on the project site.

The Increased Percentage of Low and Moderate Income Units Alternative would increase the amount of low and moderate income units amongst the residential units proposed for construction on the project site; however, would otherwise result in the same impacts as the proposed project.

A comparison of the impacts of each alternative relative to the proposed project is presented in Table 6.4-1. Among the alternatives aside from the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Reduced Project alternative would represent the environmentally superior alternative, since it avoids or reduces many of the project’s impacts associated with more intense development on the site. The Reduced Project alternative would allow the proposed project to meet its objectives, while insuring that adverse environmental impacts are reduced to the extent feasible. This alternative would reduce impacts in other impact areas in accordance with the decrease in development. Therefore, after the analysis of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the environmentally superior alternative is considered to be the Reduced Project Alternative.

ADDENDUM:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT
CARMEL, CALIFORNIA
VOLUME I: DRAFT EIR

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT
CARMEL, CALIFORNIA
VOLUME II: APPENDICES

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR)
VILLAS DE CARMELO

CARMEL AREA LAND USE PLAN
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
CERTIFIED APRIL 14, 1983
MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA