Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmaterials rec'd at 7-22-10_Koll-ConexantLAW OFFICES PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED WGRRT PARTNERSHIP IMCLVOwG FROFIUUROWIL CORPORATIONS ANGELO J. PALHIEPI 11926 -19991 90BEM F. WALDRON 9927 -19961 ALAN M. WIENER' ROBERT C.IHRME- JAMES E WTLMELM. OENNIS G. TTLER' MICHAEL J. GRCIUMV DENNIS W. G.N. DAVID O. PARR' CMARLCS M. IWNTER' PATRICK A HENNCSSEY DON FISHER GREGORY N. WEILER WARREN A. WILLWMS JOHN R. USTER CYIRHW M. WOLCOTT' GARY C. WESOCPG MICHAEL M. LEIFER SCOTT R. CARPENTER RICHARD A SALUS NORM" J. RODICM RONALD M. COLE MICHAEL L D'ANGELO N.`TD. f STEPHEN A SCNECH DONNA L. SNOW STAN N. EASTER ELSE M. ItESN MEUSA R. PEREE EUEABETH VAULDCE AMISH J. BANNER MICHAEL I. NEMOE ROBERT H. GARRETSOI. RYAN M. PRAGER CHAOWICK C. BUNCH ANNIE C CHU JERAO 8ELT2 HEATHER K WHTFEKEAD CWN BALSARA MAOFAI BERET; M. 0WHAHM P. JUUI,. FREEMAN III EATCA M. SOROSMY CASCY W. BOURME MIMBERLY C LVOWN wt COA,gMn p, 2603 MAIN STREET EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 9261 -6201 19491 851 -9400 www.ptI~ALOOm July 22, 2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL Chairman Robert Hawkins City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Scott Peotter Earl McDaniel Charles Unsworth Michael Toerge Barry Eaton Bradley Hillgren Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 P.O. BOX 19112 IRVINE. CA 92623-9712 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (949) 851 -7340 WRITERS DIRECT FACSIMILE NUMBER (949) 625 -5404 FIRMS DIRECT FACSIMILE NUMBERS 19491 851 -IS54 19491 757 -1223 reaster ®Ptwww.Dom REFER TO FILE NO. 31191 -001 Re: General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -002 and Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (July 22, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 2) Dear Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners: This office represents Meyer Properties, a California limited partnership ( "Meyer "), which owns that certain office building located at 4320 Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, City of Newport Beach, California (the "Meyer Building "). The Meyer Building is located in the area described in the Recommended Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (the "Conceptual Plan "), dated June 2010, which is generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Birch Street PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 2 (the "Airport Area "). The Meyer Building is also located in the area referred to as the "Koll Site" in the Conceptual Plan, as illustrated in Figure 4 of the Development Plan. The Meyer Building is subject to the Newport Beach General Plan (the "General Plan") and the proposed General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -002 (the "General Plan Amendment'). Accordingly, the Meyer Building will be directly affected by the Conceptual Plan and the General Plan Amendment. We have reviewed the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report (the "Staff Report"), prepared for the July 22, 2010 public hearing (Agenda Item No. 2), the Conceptual Plan, and the General Plan Amendment, and are submitting this comment letter for the public record and to inform the City of Newport Beach (the "City") that the General Plan Amendment and the Conceptual Plan are inconsistent with the policies set forth in the General Plan. Accordingly, these documents should not be approved and adopted by the City. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment and the Conceptual Plan are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), and the policy changes to land use and planning set forth in these documents may cause significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") must be prepared for the General Plan Amendment and the Conceptual Plan as currently drafted. The Conceptual Plan is Inconsistent with the Requirements Set Forth in the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the requirements for the implementation of residential development within the Airport Area. Specifically, Section LU 6.1 5.11 requires that one conceptual development plan be developed, should residential units be proposed on any property within the Airport Area. "This plan shall demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing nonresidential structures and uses." [Emphasis added]. The Conceptual Plan does not satisfy, and is inconsistent with, the requirements provided in the General Plan, as further detailed below. PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 3 A. Neighborhood Parks. The General Plan sets forth several requirements for the dedication and improvement of a neighborhood park within the Airport Area, and for the additional dedication, improvement, and designation of parks and open space within the Airport Area. The Conceptual Plan does not satisfy the requirements of the General Plan relating to neighborhood parks, including but not limited to requirements relating to the size of a central neighborhood park, the designation of existing land as park area, public street frontage along parks, on- street parking on public streets fronting parks, public character of parks, and compatibility of mixed -use properties within a residential village. 1. Size of the Neighborhood Park. Section 6.15.13 of the General Plan provides standards for the design and development of neighborhood parks within the Airport Area. This section states that the parks are, "[t]o provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes." To this end, this section requires that the neighborhood park provided in the Conceptual Plan be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area (as defined in the General Plan), or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. The General Plan also provides, pursuant to Section LU 6.15.11, that existing amenities may be proposed to satisfy neighborhood parks requirements, provided that the conceptual plan identify how these amenities will meet the recreational needs of residents. As stated on p. 9 of the Staff Report (p. 4 of the Conceptual Plan), the General Plan policies require a single neighborhood park of 1.29 acres. The Koll Site, which is owned by multiple private parties, not just by the Koll Company, only includes a neighborhood park that is approximately one acre. Accordingly, the Conceptual Plan does not meet the requirements set forth in the General Plan. Section LU 6.15.13 of the General Plan provides that the City may waive the requirement that a neighborhood park of at least 8% of the gross land area be dedicated and improved, when the following can be demonstrated: PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 4 (1) That the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of the residents; and (2) An in -lieu fee will be paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. The Conceptual Plan correctly acknowledges that the neighborhood park dedication requirement is not satisfied, and therefore payment of an in lieu fee will be required. However, the Conceptual Plan does not demonstrate that either the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park, or that the parcels are inappropriately located to serve the needs of the residents. Moreover, the parcels are both adequately sized to accommodate the park and appropriately located to serve the need of the residents. As illustrated in Figure 4 of the Conceptual Plan, there is ample room to dedicate and improve 1.29 acres of park (as opposed to only one acre as currently proposed). The parcel is also appropriately located to serve the needs of the residents. Because the develop parcels are not too small to accommodate the park, nor inappropriately located to serve the needs of the residents, paying an in -lieu fee for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parkland is not an option for the Koll Site. Accordingly, the Conceptual Plan does not comply with the requirement that at least 8% of the gross land area be dedicated and improved as a neighborhood park, pursuant to General Plan Section 6.15.13. 2. Use of the Koll Center Lake as Park Space. The Conceptual Plan designates the lake located just north of Von Karman Avenue in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (the "Koll Lake "), and the area surrounding the lake (the "Lake Area "), as park space. This designation, coupled with the development of the one acre park described above, purportedly satisfies the General Plan's requirement for the development of neighborhood parks. As discussed above, the Conceptual Plan does not comply with the General Plan requirement that at least 8% of the gross land area be developed as a neighborhood park, without this designation. However, even if this designation validly contributed to the satisfaction of the General Plan's requirement, the designation of the Koll Lake and the PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 5 Lake Area as a park for a residential village and the general public is unsuitable, inappropriate, and should be viewed by the City as unacceptable. a. The Koll Center is Not Consistent with Use as a Park. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community (the "Koll Center "), is a business complex which consists of four office buildings, commercial landscaping, concrete parking areas, and a lake (referred to above as the "Lake "). The design of the Koll Center is consistent with an office building complex, but it is vastly different from park spaces utilized in residential settings. The Lake and the landscaping in the Lake Area were originally marshlands, have functioned as wetlands, and as a result of their position and topography, have functioned as wildlife habitat and as visual resources for the occupants of the adjacent office buildings for decades. Additionally, the Lake also functions as a retarding basin to manage stormwater runoff in the vicinity of the Koll Center. Indeed, the City claimed the Lake's function as a retarding basin in that certain Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments, dated May, 2010 (the "PRES B Study "). However, despite the City's readiness to designate the Lake as a park area, the City conspicuously failed to recognize the Lake as a scenic resource in the PRES B study. Further, throughout the PRES B study, the City identifies the Lake as a "retention basin," or as a "retarding basin," but never as a lake. Given the City's previous failure to identify the Lake as anything other than a retarding basin or retention basin, and its failure to identify the Lake as a scenic resource and wetland area for purposes of an environmental study (in fact, the City attempted to avoid environmental analysis relating to scenic resources, biological resources, aesthetics, etc. by not identifying the Lake as a lake), it is curious that the City would now designate this same retarding basin as a neighborhood park. Although the Lake is a visual resource for the adjacent office buildings, it has no recreational utility. The Lake is not navigable, individuals are prohibited from swimming in the Lake, and the Lake is surrounded by a steep berm that prevents individuals from approaching the water's edge. The Lake has long functioned as a wetland area and as a visual resource for the individuals that work in the adjacent office buildings. PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 6 Even if the Lake was considered suitable for park purposes, the Lake Area is clearly not suitable for designation as a park. The Lake Area was designed with minimal recreational utility. The grassy areas are not designed for recreational use, as evidenced by the concrete walkways that cut across the grassy areas to connect the adjacent office buildings. Likewise, the grassy areas contain clusters of trees that minimize any potential open spaces within the grassy areas. The only design feature in the Lake Area that may be considered recreational is a sidewalk, a segment of which partially runs along the Lake. However, this sidewalk's primary function is to connect the office buildings so that individuals will not have to walk across the grassy areas. Simply put, the Lake Area has long functioned as a wetland area and as a visual resource for office buildings, and the concept of designating this Lake Area as a neighborhood park is illogical and should be considered by the City to be unacceptable. b. Park Frontage On Public Street Does Not Have Parking. The General Plan Amendment proposes to change the language set forth in Section LU 6.15.14 of the General Plan, to add the following underlined text: "Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on- street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. For infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, park frontage on only one public street may be permitted. On- street parking shall be provided along the street frontage of new parks, and is encouraged where an existing amenity is used to meet the neighborhood park requirement." The Staff Report correctly identifies that the proposed lake park has park frontage on only one public street, Von Karman Avenue. However, the Staff Report analysis is inconsistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment language. On p. 10 of the Staff Report, the second to last sentence regarding this issue states, "[t]he proposed language would require public street access on one side of the park, with public parking required on that street, rather than merely preferred." [Emphasis added]. PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 7 This statement is not true. As drafted, the General Plan Amendment only requires on -street parking to be provided along the street frontage of new narks. For existing amenities used to meet the neighborhood park requirement, such as the Lake, on -street parking is merely encouraged. In other words, public on -street parking will not be required for the proposed lake park at the KolI Site. Additionally, no parking will be available in the immediate vicinity of the proposed lake park. The parking areas are private and are utilized by the occupants of the office buildings in the Koll Center. This are in front of and adjacent to the office buildings in the Koll Center is not an "urban plaza" as claimed on p. 10 of the Staff Report. Furthermore, parking in the immediate vicinity requires each vehicle to take a ticket and pay a metered rate upon exiting the parking area. Accordingly, the only parking available for the lake park will be the parking that is reserved in the residential areas of the Koll Site, which is far from the Lake and is not necessarily available to the general public. Although the lake park would have frontage on Von Karmen Avenue, there is no street parking available on Von Karman where the street fronts the proposed park. The purpose of requiring parks to have street frontage is to ensure there is ample parking for park visitors. In this case, there will be no available parking for the general public, and the parking for residents of the Koll Site is inconveniently located. Accordingly, the requirement that street frontage be limited to one street for this project is inconsistent with the intent and purposes of the General Plan. C. The Lake Park Will Not be Clearly Public in Character. Section LU 6.15.14 requires that each neighborhood park be 'clearly public in character" and "accessible to all residents of the neighborhood." The proposed lake park will be neither. The lake park will clearly not be public in character. As discussed above, the parking areas at the lake park are not available to the general public. Furthermore, the lake park is not visible to the general public. Because the Lake functions as a wetland area and a visual resource for a business complex, it does not appear to the casual observer to be a public park. Accordingly, even if the general public could access the lake park, the general public can see that the landscaping in the vicinity of the office PALMIERI. TYLER WIENER WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 8 buildings has been designed for visual use of the office buildings and will not perceive the Lake as a park. Additionally, the lake park is not accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Although the Conceptual Plan proposes to implement a pedestrian path from the residential buildings to the lake park, the distance from the residential buildings is prohibitive and requires access over private property. Indeed, some residents' parking will be located several hundred yards away from the lake park. P. 8 of the Staff Report provides that the intent of Section LU 6.15.15 is to "provide parks that are visible and accessible to all residents of the neighborhood, as well as to the general public, promoting the General Plan's concept of residential villages. The policy seeks to avoid a development pattern that provides private open space that is accessible only to residents of the adjacent residential project." [Emphasis added]. The lake park is the antithesis of the park concept set forth in Section LU 6.15.15. The combination of lack of accessibility and parking, business- complex use, and lack of recreation utility effectively makes the lake park private, which is opposite the intent of the General Plan. Indeed, contrary to the intent of LU 6.15.15, the General Plan Amendment will designate a private open space that will not be accessible to the general public. d. Incongruity of Mixed -Uses in the Koll Site. Section LU 6.15.6 of the General Plan provides that mixed -use residential villages shall contain a minimum of 10 acres. At the discretion of the City, this acreage may also include part of a contiguous property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is used to provide functionally proximate parking, open space, or other amenity. The inclusion of the Koll Center in the Koll Site does not provide functionally proximate parking, open space, or other amenity. Indeed, the uses of the Koll Center are simply not compatible with residential or recreational uses. As described above, the proposed lake park has no recreational utility. The office buildings only serve the occupants of the buildings, and the landscaping and the Lake functions as a wetland and as visual resources exclusively for the office buildings only. The Koll Center consists only of four office buildings and limited parking for such office buildings. There are no restaurants, retail stores or other amenities compatible with a residential development. PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 9 Although the mixed -uses are not compatible, City staff is still recommending that the City use its discretion to include the Koll Center in the Koll Site, and to designate the Lake and the Lake Area as park area. Other than to meet park and open space requirements, the Staff Report does not explain why the City finds that these mixed -uses are compatible. A determination of compatibility is difficult to support with logic and it has the appearance of a political slight of hand. Additionally, p. 9 of the Staff Report describes the General Plan further as calling "for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The Staff Report correctly recognizes that the neighborhood park is supposed to be central to the residential village, and the size of the park shall be dependent on the size of the development. Yet in the Conceptual Plan, a large portion of the neighborhood park is divided from the neighborhood park that is intended to provide the sense of community and identity. Simply put, the integration of these mixed -uses is awkward, inappropriate, and incongruous. Accordingly, the Koll Center should not be included in the Koll Site, nor should the Lake and Lake Area be designated as park area for purposes of satisfying the park requirements set forth in the General Plan. Il. The General Plan Amendment Unlawfully Piecemeals the Proiect. The City is currently considering whether to approve the PRES B Study for another project that has been proposed in the immediate vicinity —o thhee Koll Site, at 4300 Von Karmen Avenue, in the City of Newport Beach (anticipated to be on the August 5, 2010 Planning Commission agenda). This project proposes to build a 50 foot high, 11,960 - gross- square feet single - tenant office building directly next to the existing office building located at 4320 Von Karmen Avenue. This proposed project is in the immediate vicinity of the Koll Site and may also be located within the boundaries of the Lake Area. Section 15378(a) of the CEQA Guidelines defines 'Project" to mean the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. 'Project is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment." McQueen v. Board of Directors ofMidpennsulia Region Open Space District (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3rd 1136. Accordingly, to the extent additional development in the immediate vicinity of the Koll Site is reasonably foreseeable, such as the development of an additional office building, this additional PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 10 project must be analyzed together with the General Plan Amendment and Conceptual Plan. The PRIES B building project is clearly reasonably foreseeable. The City has already reviewed the PRES B Study and is aware of the pending project. Accordingly, the City must evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the Koll and Conexant residential developments, together with the impacts associated with the development of an additional office building in the immediate vicinity of the Koll Site. This analysis cannot be deferred to an EIR for the residential projects. By including the Koll Center and Lake in the Koll Site of the Conceptual Plan, such impacts must be analyzed now. Such impacts were not analyzed in the EIR for the General Plan Update of 2006. III. The City is Not Exempt From Environmental Review Under CEQA. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d, 68, 75. "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be "fairly argued" that the project may have a significant impact." Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado, (3d Dist. 1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 872, 881 -885. The City states in that certain Notice of Public Hearing, regarding the public hearing to consider the application for the General Plan Amendment and the Conceptual Plan, that the Conceptual Plan and General Plan Amendment are exempt from environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. Public Resources Code Section 21094 allows a lead agency to rely on a previous environmental impact report for a project, to the extent environmental effects were mitigated as a result of the previous report, or examined in sufficient detail in the previous report to enable environmental effects to be mitigated by other means in connection with the later approved project. The City was correct to determine that some of the environmental effects were examined in a previous environmental report, and are exempt from CEQA review. However, additional environmental impacts to land use policies and planning will occur with the approval and adoption of the General Plan Amendment and the Conceptual Plan. PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 11 These impacts were not examined in sufficient detail in the previous environmental impact report, and are therefore not exempt from environmental review. Impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable PRES B project were not analyzed at all. Moreover, the City has ignored the potential impacts associated with amending the General Plan, providing little to no analysis of such impacts. For example, the cover page of the Staff Report states that the General Plan Amendment is a "minor change" in policy language, without any further explanation. Likewise, p3 of the Staff Report states that the Conceptual Plan complies with the General Plan policies in all but one "nonsubstantive respect." The land use and planning impacts are inconsistent with the policies set forth in the General Plan, and the related impacts should therefore have been analyzed by the City. It is also important to note that the subject area was formerly a wetland area, and wetland area currently lies just east of the property across Jamboree Road. The proximity to wetlands and the Lake as a habitat raises additional environmental concerns that may be impacted by the change in land use and planning polices of the General Plan. In addition to wetland environmental impacts, the land use and policy changes may effect traffic and parking in the subject area. Designating the Lake Area as a park has the potential to create parking and traffic impacts in the immediate vicinity. These impacts must be analyzed in an EIR. In concluding that the General Plan Amendment and the Conceptual Plan are exempt from environmental review under CEQA, the City has failed to recognize that further environmental study must be conducted to analyze the impacts associated with the change in land use and planning policies of the General Plan. IV. The Conceptual Plan Violates the Koll Center CC &Rs. The Koll Center is a master planned business park and is subject to and restricted by that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Koll Center Newport Beach, recorded July 20, 1973 (the "CC &Rs "). The purpose of the CC &Rs, as stated on pp. 3-4 therein, inter alia, "is to insure proper development, use and maintenance of the Property, to protect each Owner of any PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 12 portion of the Property against improper development and use of other portions of the Property which will depreciate the value of such Owner's portion," "to encourage the erection of attractive Improvements at appropriate locations," "to prevent haphazard and inharmonious Improvements," and "to provide adequately for a high type and quality of development of the Property in accordance with the [Kolll Standards." [Emphasis added]. The General Plan Amendment and Conceptual Plan clearly are inconsistent with the purpose of the CC &Rs. As further detailed above, the planned residential development on the Koll Site does not integrate well with the existing office building complex. The mixed -uses are not incorporated harmoniously to maximize the utility of the Koll Site and the building complex. The General Plan Amendment and Conceptual Plan, and the violation of the CC &Rs resulting therefrom, takes private property rights from Meyer and the other owners of office buildings in the Koll Center. Simply, the General Plan Amendment and Conceptual Plan are inconsistent with the purpose of the CC &Rs, and result in the taking of private property rights. V. Conclusion. The Introduction of the General Plan sets forth the history and purpose of the General Plan, and the efforts that led to its adoption on July 25, 2006. Specifically, the Introduction describes how thirty-eight residents representing all segments of the community (the "Committee ") developed the General Plan, after thorough study of input of thousands of residents. According to p. 1 -2 of the General Plan, the Committee spent more than four years "during the most extensive public outreach in the City's history" preparing the General Plan. Indeed, the Introduction celebrates the General Plan and the process by which the Committee and the City's residents participated to have their input incorporated into the document. The Introduction states on p. 1 -9 that "the General Plan is also a tool to help City staff, City Commissions, and the City Council make land use and public investment decisions" and that "rfluture development decisions must be consistent with the Plan." [Emphasis added]. The General Plan Amendment proposes to change the land use provisions that were developed by the Committee, specifically for the Airport Business PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission July 22, 2010 Page 13 Area. The Conceptual Plan, particularly by including the Koll Center, is inconsistent with the policies of the General Plan. Furthermore, the General Plan Amendment and Conceptual Plan are proposed to be approved without analyzing the potential environmental impacts and compliance with other regulations of CEQA. The General Plan Amendment and Conceptual Plan, with the Koll Center included, are inconsistent with the spirit and purpose of the General Plan and the land use policies developed by the Committee. The City should take care to preserve the integrity of the General Plan, particularly in light of the historic public participation in its development and adoption, to respect private property rights and CC &Rs associated therewith, and to comply with CEQA. Very truly yours, Ryan M. Easter RME:fjf cc: David Lepo, Planning Director Newport Beach City Clerk Meyer Properties Michael H. Leifer, Esq. JOHN S. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5100 BIRCH STREET. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92650 (949) B33 -1972 FAX (9491 851 -2055 July 21, 2010 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3 ')00 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Dear Ms. Ung: I am submitting these comments as President of Courthouse Plaza Association. This association includes 5100, 5120, 5140 and 5160 Birch Street, a four building office complex located immediately adjacent to the proposed Koll and Conexant projects. The proposed Koll and Conexant projects will have significant negative impact on the adjacent office and business park community. The proposed developments are an intrusion of a dense residential project into a business park environment. The proposed 75 to 150 foot building heights and overall project mass is not compatible with the surrounding area and will create a negative impact on view corridors and natural lighting. The proposed developments will divide an established business park community and conflict with surrounding land uses. The proposed project will increase traffic and noise levels in the area from residents and service firms, such as trash trucks sent to pick up trash. The proposed developments will burden adjacent property owners with increased costs for security, theft, vandalism and skateboarding. Moreover, the proposed residential projects will have a negative impact on the value of surrounding property. The proposed projects will reduce the aesthesis and appeal of the surrounding business park which has been the key element of its attractiveness to tenants and owners. The end result will be increased vacancy, reduced rent levels and reduced property values. In addition, the Conexant development proposes to utilize private easements for two of the four proposed access points. These easements were never intended for the high traffic use that will be generated by the proposed high- density use. The Birch Street is a private easement to allow secondary access to the existing Conexant chip manufacturing facility. The easement area is not owned by Conexant. The Conexant property does not have the right to unilaterally change the use of the easement agreement. The proposed developments should not be allowed to utilize private easements to mitigate their on -site traffic issues. Ms. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach July 21, 2010 Page 2 The exit on Birch Street already is impacted heavily by traffic from the courthouse, adjacent office buildings, and traffic regularly making u -tums to get to the retail uses located at the comer of Jamboree Road and Birch Street. Over the past 30 years of our ownership, we have had problems with ingress and egress at this location. In addition, there have been a significant number of accidents on this stretch of Birch Street. The proposed development would exacerbate these problems. In conclusion, the proposed residential projects are ill- conceived and not compatible with the existing business park land uses. A quick drive through the City of Irvine's Irvine Business Complex reveals the flawed logic behind dense residential uses in business park environments. Several of these project sit half - completed and in financial distress, creating an eyesore for the adjacent business park tenants and owners. Why would we want push businesses out of our city by destroying the business park environment these businesses sought when originally locating here? Sincerely, JOHN S. ADAMS S ASSOCIATES, INC. John S. Adams