CITY COUNCIL: DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC. MEMORANDUM ON SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
ATTACHMENT C
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 7, 2009
To: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
RE: Supplemental Responses to Comments from the April 28, 2009 City Council
Hearing and Subsequent Correspondence
The purpose of the following memorandum is to provide a written response to certain public comments
that were received by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea concerning the adequacy of the analysis contained in
the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) and Recirculated Final EIR (RFEIR). This memorandum specifically
addresses a comment raised regarding the potential sale of the property under the Surplus Land Act
(Government Code 542204 and following), as discussed below.1
Comment Summary: Comments were received that the RFEIR was inadequate and must be recirculated
due to its perceived failure to: (1) identify the specific agencies and potential uses of the property under
the Surplus Land Act and (2) analyze the reasonably foreseeable impacts of these uses in the EIR.
Response: The foreseeable impacts of the uses allowed under the Surplus Land Act are already analyzed
in the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the EIR. The EIR identifies the project as a potential sale and
evaluates uses that are allowed in the P-2 zone. The allowable uses under this District include park and
recreation uses, residential uses, parking, municipal facilities, nonprofit uses, small conference facilities,
visitor serving (motel use), and other similar uses. These uses cover the potential uses under the Surplus
Land Act. Additionally, Section 17.18.010(b) of the City’s zoning ordinance limits permitted uses in the
P-2 district as “those that are permitted in the P-1 district, in addition to facilities and structures devoted
to public recreation, public use, governmental buildings and nonprofit buildings and uses.” Uses under the
Surplus Land Act include park and recreation, office uses, residential uses including low and moderate
housing, municipal facilities, nonprofit uses, school uses and other similar uses.
1 The other issues identified in the public testimony and comment letters received after the City Council hearing
have been adequately addressed in the record of responses to the Planning Commission hearing, responses to
comments contained in the FREIR, and the FREIR. Specific comments related to the applicability of certain
conditions of approval, mitigation measures and/or conditions of sale to Surplus Land Act agencies and/or uses are
also separately attached to the staff report for the May 12, 2009 City Council meeting. In addition, comments
specific to the Economic Analysis being included as part of the Recirculated Draft EIR have been previously
addressed as part of the Recirculated Final EIR (see Section 3.0 Master Response to Comments, Master Response 9,
Economic Feasibility).
11
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
The EIR record as a whole, including the 2005 Draft EIR, Final EIR, Recirculated Draft EIR and
Recirculated Final EIR adequately addresses the potential uses under the Surplus Land Act and the
probable environmental effects of compliance with the provisions of the Surplus Land Act (see page 3-9
of the 2005 Final EIR, page 3-8 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, and pages 5-1 through 5-2 and 5-21
through 5-23). In response to comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR, revisions were
incorporated into the Recirculated Final EIR to provide additional clarification and amplification
regarding the Surplus Land Act process. Further, additional information was incorporated to identify
those uses allowed under the Surplus Land Act and environmental constraints that would preclude and/or
limit the nature of these uses under the heading “Alternative Uses Under Public Sale.”
Specifically, the commenter cited low and moderate income housing as a new use that was not addressed
in the EIR. The residential use under P-2 zoning as well as the expanded and higher intensity uses
allowed under P-2 zoning address the potential environmental effects of higher intensity use.
Additionally, as described in the Recirculated Final EIR and elsewhere in the administrative record (2005
Draft EIR and Final EIR), future use of the subject property is severely constrained by a number of
environmental constraints (e.g. local roadway capacity, availability of water supply, etc.) and site
constraints (e.g. site access, parking, etc.). As noted, the regulations of the MPWMD including MPWMD
Rule 25.5, stipulate that future water use associated with the Flanders property would be restricted to the
amount of water historically allocated for the buildings and use on the site. The historical water use at the
project site has been for low intensity use for single-family home or limited office use. The increased
water demand represents a major constraint to development for higher intensity uses such as multi-family
residential or similar higher intensity uses identified under the Surplus Land Act. Additionally,
development of the property is also constrained by the building restrictions under the historical resource
designation. Further, mitigation measures and conditions of sale restrict any future use of the site to a low
intensity use similar to single-family home or limited office use intensity. Please refer to Section 5.0
Revisions to the Recirculated Draft EIR for further discussion (see pages 5-21 through 5-23).
Both the 2005 Draft and Final EIR and the 2009 Recirculated Draft and Final EIR evaluated potential
effects associated with those uses that are considered allowable under the site’s zoning designation, P-2
(Improved Parklands). Future use of the property under any of the various uses permitted under the
Surplus Land Act may result in comparable levels of environmental effects as the proposed project, no
project alternative, or one of the other alternatives evaluated in the 2005 Draft EIR and Final EIR and the
2009 Recirculated Draft EIR and Recirculated Final EIR. The environmental record, on the whole, has
evaluated and considered theses uses and has determined that further analysis of such uses as multi-family
residential or similar higher intensity uses, in the absence of project-level plans, would be premature,
speculative and in consistent with the requirements of CEQA (see CEQA Guidelines §15145, 15146, and
15144). In summary, any analysis of the full array of potential uses that might otherwise be sought by
agencies listed in the Surplus Land Act would involve a high degree of conjecture and speculation which
is inappropriate in an EIR.
12
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
The EIR analyzes the environmental effects of the action (sale and potential use under the P-2 Improved
Parkland Zoning) with the acknowledgment that subsequent site-specific environmental review may be
required at the time a future use is identified. After the certification of this EIR, subsequent activities must
be examined to determine if additional CEQA documentation is necessary. No further environmental
documentation is required if the subsequent activity is covered specifically and comprehensively in this
EIR’s scope. If a subsequent activity is found to have effects not cited within this EIR, the City must
prepare additional environmental documentation in accordance with CEQA (see CEQA Guidelines
§15153). CEQA requires that an EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes
account of environmental consequences (CEQA Guidelines §15151). The environmental record as
evidenced in the proceedings of the 2005 EIR and the current Recirculated Draft and Final EIRs represent
a good faith effort at full disclosure.
According to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5, “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes,
for example, a disclosure showing that:
􀂃 A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation
measure proposed to be implemented;
􀂃 A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation
measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
􀂃 A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously
analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the
project's proponents decline to adopt it; or
􀂃 The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that
meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (See CEQA Guidelines §15088.5,
subd. (a)(1)-(4).)
CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 also states “a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant
new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR… as
used in this section the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as
well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless
the EIR is change in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an
effect.” Recirculation is not required under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 (Public Resources Code
21092.1).