The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. Country/Territory United States of America Type of court National - higher court Date Jan 4, 2012 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appelate District. Judge Mihara, Duffy and Walsh. Reference number H035818 Language English Subject Environment gen. Keyword Land-use planning Abstract Appellant1 City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (the City) appeals from the trial courts judgment granting a mandate petition filed by respondent The Flanders Foundation (the Foundation). The Foundation successfully challenged the Citys certification of a final environmental impact report (FEIR) for, and its approval of, a project to sell a City-owned property known as the Flanders Mansion property (the Mansion property), which consists of a large residence on a parcel of land surrounded on all sides by a City-owned park. The City challenges the trial courts findings that (1) the FEIR did not adequately consider the potential environmental impacts associated with the application of the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code, § 54220 et seq.) to the Citys sale of the Mansion property, and (2) the FEIR did not adequately respond to a comment suggesting the alternative of selling the structure with a smaller parcel of land. The City contends that the impact of the Surplus Land Act was too speculative to raise any reasonably foreseeable potential environmental impact and maintains that the FEIR adequately responded to the comment suggesting a reduction in the size of the parcel. In its cross-appeal, the Foundation contests the trial courts failure to uphold its challenge on the additional grounds that (1) the economic analysis that underlay the Citys conclusion that certain alternatives were infeasible was required to be in the EIR itself, (2) the economic analysis in the administrative record was inadequate, (3) the City inaccurately concluded that the alternatives were infeasible, and (4) the Citys statement of overriding considerations was inadequate. The appealed Court concludes that the trial court erred in concluding that the FEIR had failed to adequately address the Surplus Land Act issue.However, in all other respects, it rejects the contentions of both the City and the Foundation. Accordingly, the Court modifies and affirms the judgment. The City explicitly found that the financial drain on the Citys resources made these alternatives infeasible.” The Citys required statement of overriding considerations finding that the benefits of the “sale-plus” alternative outweighed the projects significant unavoidable environmental impacts was also supported by substantial evidence. The City identified numerous benefits, the key one being “that the Mansion property would be restored and maintained in the most environmentally sensitive manner feasible without the City bearing the expense of restoration and maintenance.” This finding was supported by substantial evidence, and the Court of Appeal did not need to address the plaintiffs numerous arguments challenging each and every benefit cited by the City in light of the Citys “clearly expressed … finding that “each” of the identified benefits was individually sufficient to outweigh the environmental impacts of the project Full text COU-158035.pdf