Friday, January 16, 2009

RDIER: SUMMARY (2.0)

ABSTRACT: Herewith is the RDEIR's Summary (2.0) in its entirety, including INTRODUCTION (2.1), SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION (2.2), ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THIS RDEIR (2.3), ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE (2.4) and SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS (2.5). An excerpt of the two "significant and unavoidable" environmental impacts from TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION is presented.

2.0 Summary

2.1 INTRODUCTION

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

2.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project consists of the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property, a 1.252 acre parcel located in the Mission Trails Nature Preserve. No specific land use has been identified as part of the project. The project site is considered parkland and is zoned P-2 (Improved Parkland). 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 Trails 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. A full project description is provided in Section 3.0 of this RDEIR.

An EIR was prepared in August 2005 for the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property project. The EIR was adopted and certified by the City Council on September 22, 2005. This action was successfully challenged in Superior Court by the Flanders Foundation (Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (Mont. Co. Super. Ct. Case No. M76728)). The City was ordered to de-certify the EIR and rescind all associated resolutions related to the EIR. In response to the Court’s decision, this RDEIR has been prepared to include updates and revisions to the 2005 DEIR, as modified in the 2005 FEIR. This RDEIR has also been updated to provide an expanded impact analysis under CEQA, identify revised mitigation measures specific to project-related impacts, and provide additional information for clarification. A summary of the revisions is provided in each of the respective topical section as part of the introduction.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUTED IN THIS RDEIR

In compliance with CEQA, this RDEIR evaluates the comparative advantages and disadvantages of a range of project alternatives. The alternatives considered in the RDEIR are summarized below:

No Project: The No Project Alternative consists of retaining the site in its present condition. This would avoid all of the environmental impacts of the proposed project but would fail to meet the primary project objective of divestment of the Flanders Mansion property by the City.

Lease for Single-Family Residential Use: This alternative would consist of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea retaining ownership of the Flanders Mansion property and leasing the property as a single-family residence. This alternative assumes that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea would implement some facility upgrades and maintenance requirements in order to comply with the Superior Court’s ruling. In additional, this alternative also assumes that the City, prior to the lease of the building, would implement additional facility upgrades to ensure that the Flanders Mansion is leasable. This alternative also assumes that exterior features, such as fencing, hedges, walls, gates, circulation patterns, and landscaping patterns may be made on the property to provide privacy to the future lessee and/or exclude the public from the property. Future terms of the lease agreement would be determined at the time a lessee was identified. This alternative assumes that the various conditions and mitigation measures identified in this RDEIR would be applicable to the future use of the property.

Lease for Public/Quasi-Public Use: This alternative would consist of the City retaining ownership of the Flanders Mansion property and subsequently leasing the facility to a low-intensity public/quasi-public use. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea would still be responsible for implementing necessary facility upgrades and maintenance requirements in accordance with the findings of the Superior Court. Moreover, this alternative assumes that the City would be required to implement additional facility upgrades in order for the building to be leasable. Similar to the single-family lease alternative, this analysis assumes that some exterior improvements may be made depending on the type of public/quasi-public use. As a result, this alternative assumes that public access to and through the site could be restricted or significantly restricted. This alternative assumes that exterior changes, such as fencing or other exterior elements may be made as part of this alternative to accommodate the needs of a future lessee. While some limited public access may be permitted as part of daily operations or on a more limited basis such as special events, this analysis assumes access would be restricted under this alternative. Future terms of the lease agreement would be determined at the time a lessee was identified. A number of the mitigation measures that would be applied to the single-family residential use lease alternative would be applicable.

Sale with Conservation Easements and Mitigations: This alternative would consist of recording conservation easements on certain portions of the Flanders Mansion Property in order to minimize potential impacts to the Lester Rowntree Arboretum and a number of existing trails that would need to be reconfigured as a result of the proposed project. Specifically, this alternative consists of applying a conservation easement (or reducing the parcel size) over portions of the Lester Rowntree Arboretum that are located within the boundaries of the Flanders Mansion parcel. This alternative would also consist of recording an easement or reducing the parcel size along the eastern portion of the driveway to preserve existing trail access to the Mission Trail Nature Preserve (Serra Trail) and the Lester Rowntree Arboretum. A scenic/conservation easement covering the westerly/southwesterly boundary of the site to include areas bordering ESHA would be recorded to minimize potential biological impacts. The purpose of these easements would be to prevent a future property owner from erecting exterior elements or causing changes to the property within areas that are particularly sensitive, provide access to the Lester Rowntree Arboretum, and feasibly retain park benefits. These easements are intended to reduce and/or avoid significant impacts due to the permanent loss of parkland, ensure that park benefits associated with the Property are preserved, provide continued public use of certain portions of the property and protect environmental resources. The total land area covered by the easements would be approximately 0.5 acres. The total remaining area of the property under this alternative would be 0.752 acres and it is assumed that all conditions and mitigation identified in this RDEIR would be applicable. Figure 6.1-1 provides a graphical representation of the alternative parcel configuration and easements. Implementation of this alternative would retain existing park benefits associated with the Flanders Mansion Property to the maximum extent feasible, while still allowing the City to divest itself of the property. This alternative is not use-specific and therefore it is assumed that either a single-family or low-intensity public/quasi-public use could occupy the property.

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 intended to minimize adverse impacts to the project site and surrounding environment while achieving the basis objectives of the project. The “No Project” alternative could be considered the environmentally superior alternative because adverse impacts associated with project construction and operation would be avoided. Both the lease alternatives and the sale with easements and mitigation alternative would significantly reduce potential environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project. Although both lease alternatives and the sale with conservation easements and mitigation alternative would significantly reduce the extent of impacts as compared to the proposed project, the lease alternatives would avoid significant impacts to 1) park and recreation and 2) land use and planning by retaining the property. Consistent with the findings of the 2005 DEIR, as modified, the Lease Alternatives identified in this RDEIR are considered environmentally superior. If the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea determines that the lease alternatives are considered infeasible for specific economic, legal, social, technical, or other considerations, the sale with conservation easements and mitigations would therefore be considered the environmentally superior alternative that also meets the primary project objectives.

2.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS

A summary of significant project impacts and mitigation measures are provided in Table 2-1. Mitigation measures have been identified to either avoid the impact or reduce the level of significance. The significance after mitigation implementation is also stated.

TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Excerpt of “Significant and Unavoidable” Environmental Impacts

Former Army First Sergeant Provides Help to Mayor to Honor Old Glory

In the spirit of letting “others know how to properly display our nation’s flag,” former Army first sergeant John A. Mulshine wrote in a Letter to the Editor of The Monterey County Herald today, as follows:

“...and anyone else who flies the flag: Some very simple rules to follow.

1. Sun up, flag up; Sun down, flag down, and then put it away.

2. If the flag is left up after sundown, illuminate it.”


As Mayor Sue McCloud flies her residential flag 24/7 without illumination between sunset and sunrise, John A. Mulshine has done a public service by informing her, a former federal government employee, of proper flag etiquette.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

RDEIR: Photographic Highlights of the Flanders Mansion Property

Mission Trail Nature Preserve Aerial Photo

Project Vicinity

Cumulative Project Map

Mission Trail Nature Preserve Trail Map

Scenic Vista and Flanders Mansion Trail Map

Flanders Mansion Property Habitat Types

Representative Photos of the Flanders Mansion

Representative Photos of the Flanders Mansion

Representative Photos of the Flanders Mansion

Representative Photos of the Flanders Mansion

Scenic Vista Photos

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY: Overview

ABSTRACT: Over a seven day period, The Carmel-by-the-Sea WATCHDOG! will publish sections of the January 2009 RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY (RDEIR); some sections in their entirety, some selected sub-sections in their entirety and highlights of some sections and sub-sections, with an emphasis on the two identified “significant and unavoidable” environmental impacts involving 1) Land Use and Planning and 2) Parks and Recreation, both specifically related to the permanent loss of parkland. An emphasis on the two “significant and unavoidable” environmental impacts involving 1) Land Use and Planning and 2) Parks and Recreation is because if a majority of the City Council Members vote to sell the Flanders Mansion Property then the City Council must adopt a statement of overriding concerns which states that the two “significant and unavoidable” impacts are acceptable due to overriding concerns. Overriding concerns may include specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other aspects of the project that outweigh the adverse environmental effects. The adoption of a statement of overriding considerations must have supportable findings of infeasibility of the alternatives and the findings of infeasibility must be supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, based on the Superior Court’s findings, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has contracted for an economic feasibility analysis that evaluates the feasibility of potential project alternatives vis-à-vis the relevant project objectives and various economic considerations. Findings of feasibility will ultimately be up to the discretion of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as part of the project approval process required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15092. Therefore, if the City Council determines that the Lease Alternatives are infeasible for specific economic, legal, social, technical, or other considerations, then the Sale with Conservation Easements and Mitigations Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. And also based on the Superior Court’s findings, the proposed sale shall comply with the California Government Code Sections 38440-38462 (discontinuance of public parkland process, including an election) and 54220-54222 (“surplus land” process), including but not limited to the subjecting any proposed sale to a public vote. Postings will present Photographic Highlights of the Flanders Mansion Property from the RDEIR, then the SUMMARY (2.0), INTRODUCTION (1.0), PROJECT DESCRIPTION (3.0), ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES (4.0), CEQA CONSIDERATIONS (5.0) and ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT (6.0).


With last week’s release of the RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY (RDEIR) prepared by Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, The Carmel-by-the-Sea WATCHDOG! will publish sections of the RDEIR; some sections in their entirety, some selected sub-sections in their entirety and highlights of some sections and sub-sections with an emphasis on the two identified “significant and unavoidable” environmental impacts. The two significant environmental impacts identified as “significant and unavoidable” are summarized, as follows:

4.4 Land Use
Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in environmental impacts due to the permanent loss of parkland that have the potential to conflict with certain goals, objectives and policies identified in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan intended on minimizing impacts parkland and promoting public use of publically owned parkland.

Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into this EIR as part of each topical CEQA section. No additional measures have been identified.

Level of Significance After Mitigation:
Significant and Unavoidable

4.5 Parks and Recreation
Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in the loss locally significant parkland that is considered an integral component of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve.

Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into this EIR to minimize impacts due to the sale of parkland. No additional measures have been identified.

Level of Significance After Mitigation:
Significant and Unavoidable

An emphasis on the two “significant and unavoidable” environmental impacts involving 1) Land Use and Planning and 2) Parks and Recreation is because if a majority of the City Council Members vote to sell the Flanders Mansion Property then the City Council must adopt a statement of overriding concerns which states that the two “significant and unavoidable” impacts are acceptable due to overriding concerns. Overriding concerns may include specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other aspects of the project that outweigh the adverse environmental effects. The adoption of a statement of overriding considerations must have supportable findings of infeasibility of the alternatives and the findings of infeasibility must be supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, based on the Superior Court’s findings, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is in the process of preparing an economic feasibility analysis that evaluates the feasibility of potential project alternatives vis-à-vis a the relevant project objectives and various economic considerations. Findings of feasibility will ultimately be up to the discretion of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as part of the project approval process required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15092. Therefore, if the City Council determines that the Lease Alternatives are infeasible for specific economic, legal, social, technical, or other considerations, then the Sale with Conservation Easements and Mitigations Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. And also based on the Superior Court’s findings, the proposed sale shall comply with the California Government Code Sections 38440-38462 (discontinuance of public parkland process, including an election) and 54220-54222 (“surplus land” process), including but not limited to the subjecting any proposed sale to a public vote.

Postings will present Photographic Highlights of the Flanders Mansion Property from the RDEIR, the SUMMARY (2.0), then INTRODUCTION (1.0), PROJECT DESCRIPTION (3.0), ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES (4.0), CEQA CONSIDERATIONS (5.0) and ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT (6.0), as follows:

Photographic Highlights of the Flanders Mansion Property

2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Summary of Project Description
2.3 Alternatives Evaluated in this RDEIR
2.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
2.5 Summary of Project Impacts

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Authorization and Purpose
1.5 Flanders Mansion Project Summary
1.6 Environmental Review Process for the RDEIR

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Location and Area
3.2 Project Background
Chronological History
3.3 Project Objectives

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.4 Land Use and Planning
4.5 Parks and Recreation

5.0 CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts

6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Summary of Project Objectives and Significant Impacts
6.3 No Project Alternative
6.4 Lease Alternatives
6.5 Sale with Conservation Easements and Mitigation
6.6 Discussion of Alternative Findings
6.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Random Reportings

ABSTRACT: Random Reportings on the City's hiring of Protrades Connection, City Administrator Rich Guillen's decision not to enforce the removal of holiday lights in the Commercial District by the second Wednesday in January, city expenditures to appellate attorney Joel Franklin for Flanders Mansion Legal Services and the status of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Villas de Carmelo Project, with associated COMMENTS, are presented.

• UPDATE: Total expenditures associated with Holiday Lights equal $2,684.73.
117291 2/3/09 PROTRADES CONNECTION $ 367.29 50 24050 REMOVAL OF HOLIDAY LIGHTS

117041 12/23/08 PROTRADES CONNECTION $ 428.52 50 24050 LABOR COSTS FOR CITY HOLIDAY LIGHTS

The City hired Protrades Connection, “one of California's leading providers of temporary help,” to install Holiday lights in the Ocean Av. medians at a taxpayer expense of $1,888.92, according to the city’s December Check Register.

COMMENT: In contracting with Protrades Connection, the City has commercialized what had once been a community event.

Reference: 116930 12/10/08 PROTRADES CONNECTION $ 1,888.92 50 24050 CITY XMAS LIGHTS INSTALLATION

• City Administrator Rich Guillen instructed staff not to enforce the removal of holiday lights in the commercial district by the second Wednesday in January, but to allow holiday lights until after next month’s AT & T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am Golf Tournament, according to “Deadline extended for removal of lights” in The Carmel Pine Cone, dated January 9, 2009.

COMMENT: When the City indiscriminately and inconsistently enforces the Municipal Code, when the City suspends a “rule” for dubious, unsupported reasons, the City is communicating to the public that the City views the Municipal Code and “rules” as discretionary, not mandatory. Moreover, if the Carmel Chamber of Commerce wants more lights in the Commercial District, then the Chamber should petition the city and an amendment to the Municipal Code and/or changes to the “rules” should be considered at a public hearing.

• A check for $32,129.20 to attorney Joel Franklin for “Flanders Litigation Legal Expenses,” dated December 16, 2008, represents the largest and latest taxpayer expense to appellate attorney Joel Franklin regarding the Flanders Mansion property.
Reference: 116969 12/16/08 JOEL FRANKLIN $ 32,129.20 01 61051 FLANDERS LITIGATION LEGAL EXPENSES

COMMENT: After Judge Robert O’Farrell’s decision regarding Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al (M76728), the city hired appellate attorney Joel Franklin to advise about filing an appeal. The City chose not to appeal the decision. Since that time, the city has compensated attorney Joel Franklin a total of $89,363.70 for “Flanders Legal Services,” from October 2007 to December 2008. That taxpayer dollar amount, not to mention the expenditures to William B. Conners, the city’s previous attorney, and Susan Brandt-Hawley, Flanders Foundation attorney, is more than the city has spent on the maintenance and upkeep of the Flanders Mansion since the City purchased the property in 1972!

References:
116969 12/16/08 JOEL FRANKLIN $ 32,129.20 01 61051 FLANDERS LITIGATION LEGAL EXPENSES

116513 10/21/08 JOEL FRANKLIN $ 20,744.70 01 61051 FLANDERS LEGAL SERVICES

115987 8/12/08 JOEL FRANKLIN $ 8,857.70 01 61051 FEB-JUN 2008 FLANDERS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

114859 2/19/08 JOEL FRANKLIN $ 14,832.10 01 61051 FLANDERS LITIGATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

114144 10/30/07 JOEL FRANKLIN $ 12,800.00 FLANDERS LAWSUIT LEGAL EXPENSES

• The Draft Environmental Impact Report for Villas de Carmelo Project at the site of the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital is still being finalized by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. and is therefore not expected to be available and loaded onto Monterey County’s website for another month, according to Bryce Ternet, Planning and Environmental Consultant, Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

'MINUTES' for Three Noteworthy City Council Agenda Items

“MINUTES”
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
January 6, 2009


VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.

F. Consideration of a Resolution adopting revisions to the Land Use element of the General Plan and chapters 17.12.230, 17.14.14D and 17.64.220 of the zoning ordinance related to affordable housing. The proposed revisions are required by the California Coastal Commission.


Council Member ROSE moved Item F be noticed as an Ordinance, calendared for First Reading and taken up at the next regular meeting.

X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution establishing the Trevvett Court Specific Plan for a site located on the east side of Dolores Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues.


City Council Members ROSE and HAZDOVAC recused themselves due to living within 500 ft.

Planning/Building Services Manager Sean Conroy presented the staff report.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

No Public Comments.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member TALMAGE moved approval of a Resolution establishing the Trevvett Court Specific Plan for a site located on the east side of Dolores Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: SHARP, TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

NOTE: Resolution effective post-approval of Ordinance at later date.

XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report on the results of the General Plan Survey.

M. Barker, RBF Consulting, presented a powerpoint presentation on the General Plan Survey results.

Of the total 5,330 Community Surveys mailed to homeowners, business owners and registered voters, only 21% or 1,118 Community Surveys were completed and returned.

CONCLUSIONS
No strong majorities, with exceptions for the following issues:
• Perception of the traffic in the Commercial District, pedestrian safety and users of parking structure
Parking not perceived as a problem on a daily basis, however more parking needed to serve the Commercial District, visitors and tourists.

• Noise disturbance perception
Carmel viewed as "tranquil, quiet place," only occassional noise problems

• Satisfaction with parks, city services, improvement priorities, water supply priorities


Contradictory Opinions
• Parking issue perception-quantitative vs. narrative
• Shuttle Support-don’t use public transportation, but support public transportation


Both Workshops and Surveys indicated Urban Forest as important topic


Survey Findings Contradict Workshop Findings
• Support for traffic calming measures
• Satisfaction with parks and open space
• Noise disturbance perception

(Source: Archived Videos, Regular City Council Meeting, January 6, 2009)

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Three Noteworthy 6 January 2009 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Three noteworthy 6 January 2009 City Council Agenda items, namely a Resolution adopting revisions to the Land Use element of the General Plan, et cetera, related to affordable housing, a Resolution establishing the Trevvett Court Specific Plan and a report on the results of the General Plan Survey, are presented. A SYNOPSIS, consisting of selected excerpts from each Agenda Item Summary and/or Staff Report, is presented for each agenda item. Selected COMMENTS are made.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council AMMENDED Agenda
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, January 6, 2009


VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.

F. Consideration of a Resolution adopting revisions to the Land Use element of the General Plan and chapters 17.12.230, 17.14.14D and 17.64.220 of the zoning ordinance related to affordable housing. The proposed revisions are required by the California Coastal Commission.


SYNOPSIS:
Description: This Resolution involves the adoption of modifications to the City’s affordable housing ordinance and General Plan amendment as approved by the California Coastal Commission on 10 December 2008.

As modified, the amendments will allow a maximum density of up to 88 units per acre for projects consisting exclusively of low or very low-income housing. The amendments, however, will not allow the Planning Commission to grant exceptions to other zoning standards such as height, floor area, setbacks, etc. as was originally proposed.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Decision Record: The City Council adopted a Resolution amending the General Plan on 1 July 2008 and an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance on 5 August 2008. The Coastal Commission certified the amendments with modifications on 10 December 2008.

COMMENT:
• According to the Staff Report, the Coastal Commission determined that the City’s ordinance allowing for exceptions to numerous zoning standards had the potential of negatively impacting the character of the City. The Commission approved the density bonus, but eliminated the ability of the City to grant other zoning exceptions. The Commission indicated that the City could still make exceptions for individual projects through the specific plan process.

X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution establishing the Trevvett Court Specific Plan for a site located on the east side of Dolores Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues.


SYNOPSIS:
Description: This project involves an 8,000-square-foot site that is currently developed with nine units of affordable senior housing. The proposed Specific Plan would allow for the redevelopment of the site to include 14 units of affordable senior housing and a subterranean garage.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution establishing the Specific Plan.

Important Considerations: Specific Plans are a substitute for standard zoning districts and apply to selected areas within the City. Specific Plans may be used to address unique site characteristics and/or for projects that promote affordable housing.

This project originally was approved contingent upon approval of the affordable housing ordinance. Due to the required revisions to the ordinance from the Coastal Commission, however, the project cannot be approved without the creation of a Specific Plan, or significant project modifications.

Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Specific Plan on 16 December 2008.

XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report on the results of the General Plan Survey.


SYNOPSIS:
Description: As part of the General Plan update process, a community survey was prepared and mailed to all property owners, business owners and voters. A representative from RBF Consulting will give a presentation summarizing the results of the survey.

Important Considerations: The City is in the process of updating several elements of the General Plan. The City held three public workshops in July 2007 to gather public input on the update. The City Council later requested that a community survey be prepared to allow for additional public input opportunities. The results from the workshops and the survey will assist in the development of the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan update.

COMMENT:
• Originally the Community Survey was mailed to Carmelites in July 2008. However, due to mistakes by the City, Surveys had to be reprinted and mailed to Carmelites, hence the delay in receiving a report on the results of the General Plan Survey.

(Sources: Agenda January 6, 2009 and Agenda Packet January 6, 2009)