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.