FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY: Recirculated Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the SALE OF FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY REVISED ALTERNATIVES SECTION & Notice of Availability for the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property

ABSTRACT:  The Recirculated Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the SALE OF FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY REVISED ALTERNATIVES SECTION, June 2012 and Notice of Availability for the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property are embedded.  The Proposed Project consists of the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property, a 1.252-acre parcel together with all improvements. The project site is considered parkland and is zoned P-2 (Improved Parkland). Refer to Figure 1-1 for depiction of the Proposed Project and existing parcel boundary. The grounds of the Flanders Mansion Property have historically been used by the public for passive recreational activities and the property provides a number of park benefits. Surrounding the property is an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) zoned P-1. This area plus the project site are all part of the City’s largest park, the Mission Trail Nature Preserve. The building on the property (the Flanders Mansion) is recognized as a historic resource and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Project proposes the sale of the Flanders Mansion parcel zoned P-2. The Mission Trail Nature Preserve area zoned P-1 is to be retained as public parkland, including the Lester Rowntree Arboretum. And The Proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts in the following categories, as described in this RDEIR: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, and transportation/traffic3. All impacts associated with the Proposed Project can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigations identified in this RDEIR, with the exception of impacts related to (1) land use and planning and (2) parks and recreation. The following significant, unavoidable impacts were identified for the sale of Flanders Mansion:

 Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would conflict with certain goals, objectives, and policies identified in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan related to parkland, including G5-6, O5-21, P5-46, and P5-107,4 and

 Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in the loss [of] locally significant parkland that is considered an integral component of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve.  This would represent a permanent loss of publicly owned parkland. Since this loss of parkland is locally significant, this is considered a significant unavoidable impact that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

 “The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea requests that reviewers limit their comments to only those portion that are being recirculated, consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(f)(2).  Written comments on the 2012 RDEIR will be accepted from Thursday, 14 June 2012 through Monday, 30 July 2012.”

Submit Written Comments to: 

Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

P.O. Drawer G

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.  93921

e-mail: sconroy@ci.carmel.ca.us

Rdeir Revised Alternatives Section 6 12 2012

Recirculated Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the SALE OF FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY

REVISED ALTERNATIVES SECTION

SCH #: 2005011108

June 2012

RDEIR Sale of Flanders Mansion OCR Document 2012

Notice of Availability for the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property, 14 June 2012

ADDENDUM:

The California Environmental Quality Act

Title 14. California Code of Regulations

Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the

California Environmental Quality Act

Article7. EIR Process

15088.5. Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification

(f) The lead agency shall evaluate and respond to comments as provided in Section 15088.Recirculating an EIR can result in the lead agency receiving more than one set of comments from reviewers. The following are two ways in which the lead agency may identify the set of comments to which it will respond. This dual approach avoids confusion over whether the lead agency must respond to comments which are duplicates or which are no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. In no case shall the lead agency fail to respond to pertinent comments on significant environmental issues.

(2) When the EIR is revised only in part and the lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions of the recirculated EIR. The lead agency need only respond to (i) comments received during the initial circulation period that relate to chapters or portions of the document that were not revised and recirculated, and (ii) comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the chapters or portions of the earlier EIR that were revised and recirculated. The lead agency's request that reviewers limit the scope of their comments shall be included either within the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR.