Lynn M. Sedway, CRE
SEDWAY CONSULTING
January 3, 2013
Showing posts with label Flanders Mansion Property Economic Analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Flanders Mansion Property Economic Analysis. Show all posts
Friday, January 04, 2013
Flanders Mansion Property – Market Value Impact of Reduced Parcel Size EIR Alternatives (2013) & Flanders Mansion Property – Economic Feasibility Analysis (2009)
ABSTRACT: The Flanders Mansion Property – Economic Feasibility Analysis “Update” - Market Value Impact of Reduced Parcel Size EIR Alternatives (2013) letter and Flanders Mansion Property – Economic Feasibility Analysis (2009) document are embedded. Significantly, the 2013 “Update” states: “The accompanying projections and analyses are based on estimates and assumptions developed in connection with the study. In turn, these assumptions, and their relation to the projections, were developed using currently available economic data and other relevant information. It is the nature of forecasting, however, that some assumptions may not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual results achieved during the projection period will likely vary from the projections, and some of the variations may be material to the conclusions of the analysis.”
Flanders Mansion Property - Re: Market Value Impact of Reduced
Parcel Size EIR Alternatives, Flanders
Mansion Flanders
Mansion
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
The Flanders Foundation CROSS-APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF: H035818
ABSTRACT: The Flanders Foundation CROSS-APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF, 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 8 June 2011, is embedded. SYNOPSIS HIGHLIGHTS, including the Conclusion, are presented. Note: Date: June 30, 2011: Case on conference list, July 7, 2011 Conference List
Automatic E-mail Notification for this case, 6th Appellate District
CROSS-APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF H035818
CROSS-APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF H035818
SYNOPSIS HIGHLIGHTS:
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Defendants and Appellants
Monterey County Superior Court
Case No. M99437
On appeal from the Superior Court of Monterey County
Honorable Kay T. Kingsley
CROSS-APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
Susan Brandt-Hawley / 75907
P.O. Box 1659
13760 Arnold Drive
Glen Ellen, Ca 95442
(707) 938-3900, fax (707) 938-3200
susanbh@preservationlawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent
The Flanders Foundation
A. Analysis of Economic Feasibility
1. Feasibility Analysis must be in the EIR
2. The CBRE Report was Inadequate
B. Lease of Flanders Mansion is Feasible
C. There are no Overriding Considerations
Conclusion
“It is terribly difficult to manage public-access property when inholdings occur. In fact, it usually a goal to buy out inholdings and retire development rights in order to enhance our parks and recreation areas…Lease if you must, but do not shortchange the citizens of the future and create an even greater problem of an inholding within a public park…”
(Comments of Brie Tripp)
“Selling off such a valuable current and future community asset for a short term financial gain compromises the original intentions for the property’s purchase…the park [was to] be for Carmel what Golden Gate Park has become to San Francisco. It was a commitment to the future quality of life for Carmel’s citizens and everyone who has the pleasure of sharing our unique heritage.”
(Comments of Barbara Reeves)
The City of Carmel’s approval of the sale of Flanders Mansion was both shortsighted and insupportable. Agency discretion is not unlimited, and requires strict compliance with state law protecting the natural and built environment. The City failed to proceed in the manner required by law because the Flanders EIR failed to assess potentially significant environmental impacts related to compliance with the Surplus Land Act, Failed to adequately respond to comments, and failed to adequately analyze the economic feasibility of a lease alternative. It did not provide adequate information on which the city Council could exercise its discretion. The City Council’s findings then violated the substantive mandate of CEQA because no substantial evidence supports the infeasibility of a leas alternative or the statement of overriding considerations.
The Court’s enforcement of CEQA is respectfully requested to provide great and longstanding public benefit to the citizens of Carmel.
June 8, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Brandt-Hawley
Attorney for the Flanders Foundation
Automatic E-mail Notification for this case, 6th Appellate District
CROSS-APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF H035818
CROSS-APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF H035818
SYNOPSIS HIGHLIGHTS:
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Defendants and Appellants
Monterey County Superior Court
Case No. M99437
On appeal from the Superior Court of Monterey County
Honorable Kay T. Kingsley
CROSS-APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
Susan Brandt-Hawley / 75907
P.O. Box 1659
13760 Arnold Drive
Glen Ellen, Ca 95442
(707) 938-3900, fax (707) 938-3200
susanbh@preservationlawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent
The Flanders Foundation
A. Analysis of Economic Feasibility
1. Feasibility Analysis must be in the EIR
2. The CBRE Report was Inadequate
B. Lease of Flanders Mansion is Feasible
C. There are no Overriding Considerations
Conclusion
“It is terribly difficult to manage public-access property when inholdings occur. In fact, it usually a goal to buy out inholdings and retire development rights in order to enhance our parks and recreation areas…Lease if you must, but do not shortchange the citizens of the future and create an even greater problem of an inholding within a public park…”
(Comments of Brie Tripp)
“Selling off such a valuable current and future community asset for a short term financial gain compromises the original intentions for the property’s purchase…the park [was to] be for Carmel what Golden Gate Park has become to San Francisco. It was a commitment to the future quality of life for Carmel’s citizens and everyone who has the pleasure of sharing our unique heritage.”
(Comments of Barbara Reeves)
The City of Carmel’s approval of the sale of Flanders Mansion was both shortsighted and insupportable. Agency discretion is not unlimited, and requires strict compliance with state law protecting the natural and built environment. The City failed to proceed in the manner required by law because the Flanders EIR failed to assess potentially significant environmental impacts related to compliance with the Surplus Land Act, Failed to adequately respond to comments, and failed to adequately analyze the economic feasibility of a lease alternative. It did not provide adequate information on which the city Council could exercise its discretion. The City Council’s findings then violated the substantive mandate of CEQA because no substantial evidence supports the infeasibility of a leas alternative or the statement of overriding considerations.
The Court’s enforcement of CEQA is respectfully requested to provide great and longstanding public benefit to the citizens of Carmel.
June 8, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Brandt-Hawley
Attorney for the Flanders Foundation
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)