ABSTRACT: The City’s COMBINED REPLY BRIEF AND OPPOSITION TO THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION’S CROSS-APPEAL, THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff and Respondent vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Defendants and Appellants, Court of Appeal No. H035818, filed with the Sixth Appellate District 19 May 2011, is embedded and SYNOPSIS HIGHLIGHTS are presented. Plaintiff’s and Appellant’s (The Flanders Foundation) reply brief is due 8 June 2011 and will be posted when available.
COMBINED REPLY BRIEF AND OPPOSTION TO THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION’S CROSS-APPEAL
COMBINED REPLY BRIEF AND OPPOSITION TO THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION’S CROSS-APPEAL
SYNOPSIS HIGHLIGHTS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff and Respondent,
vs.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Defendants and Appellants
Court of Appeal No. H035818
Monterey County Superior Court No. M99437
COMBINED REPLY BRIEF AND OPPOSITION TO THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION’S CROSS-APPEAL
Jon R. Giffen (SBN 142158)
David W. Balch (SNB 226519)
Kennedy, Archer & Harray
24591 Silver Cloud Court, Suite 200
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 373-7500 Telephone
(831) 373-7555 Fax
jgiffen@kahlaw.net
dbalch@kahlaw.net
Attorneys for Defendants and Appellants
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
REPLY TO THE FOUNDATION’S OPPOSITION
The City’s Discussion of the Surplus Land Act in the EIR was Adequate
The Surplus Land Act Question is Speculative at this Juncture
Sufficient Environmental Safeguards Are In Place
Substantial Caselaw Supports the City’s Position
The Response to Comments Is Adequate as the Sale of Less Land Was Adequately Considered and Discarded
Conclusion Regarding Reply on Appeal
The Foundation has provided no factual or legal analysis in support of its argument. The City respectfully requests that the appeal be granted, the judgment of the trial court and the writ of mandate overturned, and the City’s certification of the 2009 EIR and all of its approvals and actions relating to the proposed sale of the Flanders Mansion reinstated.
OPPOSITION TO CROSS-APPEAL
An Analysis of Economic Feasibility Is Not Required to Be in the 2009 EIR
The CBRE Report is Facially Adequate
Lease of the Flanders Mansion Is Infeasible
The Statement of Overriding Considerations Is Supported by Substantial Evidence
Conclusion Regarding Opposition to Cross-appeal
The City respectfully requests that the Foundation’s cross-appeal be denied.
Dated: May 18, 2011
3 comments:
Original documents are much more valuable than the local newspapers selective reporting and spin.
Original documents are much more valuable than the local newspapers selective reporting and spin.
The City has lost two lawsuits and now the appeal and over $1 million of taxpayer monies expended. This council and past councils have shown no concern for saving taxpayers monies. We have not had one council member in all these years stand up to the mayor's poor choice to sell off a part of Carmel's heritage, not one. They have gone along. Where is the leadership? Who is really looking after Carmel, Carmelites and people who respect and honor the traditions of Carmel? You know the mayor and council are way off base when the National Trust supports the position of the Flanders Foundation and not the City's postion to sell the mansion out of the public domain and out of Mission Trails Park.
Post a Comment