Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - Land Use Entitlements for the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project (PA2020-061) - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed January 26, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 11 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, January 25, 20213:06 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Residences at 4400 Von Karman Attachments: Residences at 4400 Von Karman - Property Owner Opposition Letter 1-25-21.pdf From: Adriana Fourcher <adriana@fourcher.com> Sent: Monday, January 25, 20213:02 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Residences at 4400 Von Karman [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Avery and City Council Members, Please find enclosed a Group Property and Business Owner Opposition Letter jointly submitted by 28 Property and Business Owners who are requesting changes to the proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project. The signatories comprise a majority of the properties closest to and most affected by the proposed Project. A map is also provided showing the location of the signatories' properties in relation to the Project. As indicated by this letter, The Picerne Group has not properly addressed the input and concerns of surrounding property owners. The opposition of numerous surrounding property owners is emblematic of this. Although as the hour of the City Council meeting has approached, some property owners have had discussions with The Picerne Group, there remains unresolved issues. Likewise, adjusted plans that are being submitted by the Applicant to the City have not had adequate time to review, let alone to get approval from the various stakeholders. The Project changes requested by these adjacent property owners are entirely reasonable. As noted in the letter, every Developer reaches for its "wish -list" in its first Project submittal and Picerne is doing exactly that. The current Project is lopsided in its benefits to Picerne versus its substantial impacts to existing businesses. It would be inappropriate and unsupported by City policies for the Council to approve Picerne's proposal at first blush without making appropriate, common sense changes to the Project. Sincerely, Koll Center Property and Business Owners (signatories noted in attached letter) January 25, 2021 City of Newport Beach City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Opposition from Surrounding Business Owners to Proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project as Currently Designed Dear City Council: The undersigned represent 28 property and business owners located immediately adjacent to and most significantly affected by the proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman apartments (the "Project"). Enclosed is a map showing the location of our properties - all adjacent to the proposed Project. Most of our properties are within 300 feet of the Project. We are opposed to the proposed Project as currently designed. We request that the City Council require that the Applicant correct several significant problems presented by the current design. The current proposed design would create substantial negative impacts to the Airport Area, our businesses and our property values/rights. If the Applicant is not willing to make these necessary changes, the City Council should deny the Project. We request that the City Council direct the Applicant to resolve several issues presented by the current design and entitlement application, including but not limited to: 1. CEQA - The Project is noncompliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in a number of important areas, including, but not limited to, the improper use of an Addendum to a 15 -year old EIR. The Addendum also fails to address several important environmental impacts and ignores changes in state law that apply to the project and impact analysis. The Applicant is attempting to circumvent the correct CEQA process for its entitlement application. Because considerable environmental impacts would occur from this Project, a full Environmental Impact Report should be prepared. 2. 265 -Stall Parking Deficiency - The Project's Phase 2 construction would create a 265 - stall parking deficiency for a period of 2+ years. This deficiency would create substantial negative impacts to our business operations and would directly impair our property rights. It is entirely unreasonable for the Council to allow such a large deficiency over the extremely lengthy proposed timeframe. 3. Close Proximity of Project Massing to Existing Buildings - The distance from the proposed Project to existing buildings should be increased considerably so impacts are reduced, both during construction (vibration, noise, etc.) and after construction (massing, shading, etc.). This applies to both the apartment buildings and the standalone parking garage. 4. Construction Staging, Parking, and Hauling - The Project estimates that nearly 200 hundred construction workers will be active on the site. In addition, thousands of dirt hauls, construction materials deliveries, and equipment staging will congest the site over approximately 3 years of construction. The Applicant is attempting to characterize this as a minor "inconvenience," but the reality is that this will likely create extreme impacts to the operations and financial viability of existing businesses. The Council needs to carefully review and revise the Construction Management of the project to alleviate such impacts. 5. Lacks Adequate Retail - As previously promised by the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) and the City, in numerous policy documents, the Project should be required to have a retail component that creates the "residential village" required by the GP and ICDP. 6. Number of Apartment Units Should be Reduced. The ICDP promised a maximum of 260 units, not the 312 units currently proposed. Such a large increase of units amplifies the Project's impacts on adjacent businesses and property rights. The City Council should meaningfully reduce the Project's unit count to reduce excessive impacts. 7. Inadequately Addresses Property Owner Concerns - The Applicant is claiming that the Council should cease listening to neighbor concerns and proceed with the Project. However, the concerns expressed by neighboring properties are reasonable, policy - based issues and are at the heart of whether the Project, as designed, is "cohesively and compatibly integrated with existing properties" as required by General Plan and ICDP policies. Neighboring properties are not asking for the moon here - we are asking for fact -based, reasonable Project changes which are fully in-line with existing City plans and policies. Every Developer reaches for its "wish -list" in its first Project submittal and Picerne is doing exactly that. The current Project is lopsided in its benefits to Picerne versus its substantial impacts to existing businesses. It would be highly inappropriate and unsupported by City policies for the Council to simply rubberstamp Picerne's proposal at first blush without making appropriate, common sense changes to the Project. Sincerely, 1. Bill Paoli 2. Mark Hasker Byer, MAI Paoli and Purdy, PC Byer & Associates, Inc. 3. Luis Navarro 4. Steven Liang Navarro Mckown Wealth Ocean S. Emery Brett Ledger 6. Fidelia Chun The Ledger Law Firm COMAC America 7. Robert E. Meyer 8. Dana Haynes Meyer Properties Citivest 9. John Adams 10. Brian Davis CP Associates, Inc. Forward Counsel 11. Jane An 12. Igor Olenicoff Monolithe Wealth Planning Group Olen Properties 13. Allen Basso Scott Harada Gordon Michie 5120 Birch 15. Huijun Ge Clover Investment Inc. 17. Fred Fourcher Bitcentral Inc. 19. Tod Hammeras PARS 21. John Lembeck Broadway Escrow 23. Bonaparte H. Liu Labrador Capital 25. David Harvey Harvey & Company 27. American Rui Xin Investment 4340 Birch Street 14. Dave Edwards California Fire Protection 16. Hubert Kuo Ardent Law Group, PC 18. Cameron Jackson C. Jackson Investigations, Inc. 20. Board of Directors Von Karman Condo Owners Association 22. Longmei Zhou Andy Q, LLC 24. Raj Mulchandani RM Enterprises, LLC 26. Kirk Summers Beauty Barrage 28. Joanna Jen Cheung and Chu OPPOSED OPPOSED 5160 Birch 5100 Birch Ledger Law John Adams and Associates OPPOSED 5100 Birch OPPOSED Byer and Associates 5120 Birch 1 Windes Inc. Map of Property Owners and Businesses Opposed to Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project as Currently Designed 28 Adjacent Property and Business Owners are Opposed T, OPPOSED _. 4320 on Karman u JL-- - wti OPPOSED 4340 Von I j ' 111 Office Condo• E - - OPPOSED - - • -7) i1 A5 \ (IIIIII��P.. 4910 Birch m IJ 11J11_LI1J L a °� i Ililllliillll. i,_)' 111111 rk :I,rL JL-- - wti dta / 5000 Birch Street. Suite 3000 www.�iru�rieeD"iA.com Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mayor Brad Avery b Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Proposed Apartment Project at 4400 Von Karman Dear Mayor Avery: Received After Agenda Printed January 26, 2021 Item No. 11 January 22, 2021 My name is David Taussig, and I am the Chief Executive Officer of DTA, which is a public finance and economics consulting firm established in 1985, with our corporate headquarters office located in Newport Beach since 1991. For the past twelve years, these offices have been situated in Suite 6000 of the West Tower of the Koll Center at 5000 Birch Street in Newport Beach. It is my understanding that Piceme Group has proposed a new 312 -unit upscale apartment development to be constructed in a portion of the existing parking spaces located directly to the northwest of our office spaces at 5000 Birch. With 52 existing employees, about two- thirds of whom are renters, we at DTA are excited about the prospect of these apartments due to their proximity to our offices. Quite frankly, hiring entry level and mid-level employees at DTA has been made more difficult by the shortage and relatively high rental costs of apartments located in the vicinity of our offices. Many of our employees who are in their 20s and 30s reside in Anaheim, Mission Viejo, Huntington Beach and even Long Beach in their quest for housing that meets their lifestyle needs, and the commute they would face on a daily basis driving to work has dissuaded a number of applicants from accepting our offers of employment. Similarly, these commutes have caused several existing employees to leave DTA for jobs located closer to their homes, thereby allowing them to spend more time with their families. The opportunity for housing so close to our offices is something about which several of our employees have already expressed interest, particularly those in middle management for whom the rent levels will be similar to what they are paying elsewhere at locations requiring commutes of 30 -minutes or more. As DTA's owner, I look forward to showing job applicants the type of amenity -laden apartments located literally across an interior road from our corporate offices. There is definitely a shortage of apartments in close proximity to our offices, and 4400 Von Karman would certainly enhance DTA's employee recruiting and retention programs, which is why I wholeheartedly support the approval and construction of this project. Sincer /�C91- . avid Taussig CEO and President DTA Newport Beach I San Jose 1 San Francisco ] Riverside 1 Dallas ! Houston I Raleigh [ Tampa Kimley>»Horn MEMORANDUM To: James Campbell and Rosalinh Ung, City of Newport Beach From: Dana C. Privitt, AICP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: January 26, 2021 Subject: Residences at 4400 Von Karman Avenue On November 5, 2020, the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission recommended that the City Council take action to approve the proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project (Project, PA2020-061). Consideration of the Project will be heard at the January 26, 2021 City Council meeting. The project applicant, The Picerne Group, is requesting the City Council's consideration of minor modifications to the proposed Project at the January 26, 2021 hearing. The modifications would increase the distance between the proposed Project residential building and the nearest existing office buildings, and the distance between the proposed free-standing parking structure to the nearest office buildings. The following modifications are proposed and are depicted on the attached exhibits. Increased Free -Standing Parking Structure Setback. Relative to the existing office building at 4340 Von Karman, the applicant would increase the setback for the free-standing structure from approximately 78 feet to 114 feet. In order to continue to provide 284 parking spaces in the parking structure as considered by Planning Commission, the increased setback results in a smaller parking structure footprint and a corresponding height increase to 45'4" with a 597" elevator tower (five levels of above -ground parking, inclusive of rooftop parking). The Planning Commission considered a 367" parking structure with a 40'6" elevator tower (four levels of above -ground parking, inclusive of rooftop parking). ■ Increase Residential Structure Setback. The setback of the residential structure from the existing office building at 4910 Von Karman will be increased from 33' to 50' on the ground floor. An Addendum to the 2006 General Plan Update Program EIR and the 2008-2014 City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared to evaluate the proposed Project's consistency with the prior CEQA documentation. The purpose of this memorandum is to confirm that the applicant's proposed modifications are adequately addressed in Kimley>>> Horn Page 2 the Addendum and require no additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that an Addendum may be used if minor technical changes or additions to a project are made by an applicant or lead agency, but that none of the following conditions are met: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum found that potential impacts associated with the proposed Project would either be the same or not substantially greater than those described in the General Plan Program EIR. As discussed in the Addendum, these conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, including project -specific analyses of potential impacts. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the General Plan Program EIR. No new information of substantial importance shows that mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible or that are considerably different from Kimley>>> Horn P_1(1'r those analyzed for the General Plan Program EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Therefore, no conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines has occurred. For these reasons, City staff and Kimley-Horn and Associates, as a consultant to the City, found that an Addendum is the appropriate document that will comply with CEQA requirements for the proposed Project. For the reasons noted below, Kimley-Horn believes that an Addendum remains the appropriate level of CEQA review for the Project as modified. No additional environmental review is required as a result of the two changes to the scope of the Project. The two design modifications to the Project proposed by the applicant do not change that conclusion. First, the proposed modifications do not change the use or intensity of the Project. The Project is still proposed as a 312 -unit multi -family residential project with surface and structured parking. The size of the residential building would not increase. The free-standing parking structure would have the same number of spaces that were identified in the plans considered by Planning Commission and the residential building would have the same number of units, inclusive of affordable units. The height of the free-standing parking structure would increase by approximately 18'6" (inclusive of the elevator tower) when compared to the plans that were considered by Planning Commission to allow for one additional level of parking in the structure. This increase does not change the conclusion in the Addendum that the Project regarding: (1) scenic views; (2) zoning and regulations governing scenic quality; or (3) creation of sources of significant light or glare. As noted in the Addendum, the nearest public view point to the project site identified in the General Plan is approximately 1.1 miles south of State Route (SR) 73 at Bayview Park. The nearest coastal view designated portion of Jamboree Road to the Project site is approximately 0.6 mile south of the site. Further, the Project site is flat and bordered by office buildings and roadways. With respect to scenic quality, the proposed increased height of the free-standing parking structure south of and adjacent to an existing parking structure would not change the conclusions of the Addendum. The height of the parking structure would not result in conflicts with respect to airport land use or compatibility. The Project is under the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport's 200 -foot height limit. The five -level parking structure would be below the Project's maximum height of 71 feet and the maximum height permitted by the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text), which is 75 feet. Therefore, it would not increase the maximum height of the Project or cause any new or increased impacts regarding John Wayne Airport. With respect to lighting and as addressed in the Addendum and the responses to correspondence on the Addendum, to minimize visibility of lighting from each floor of the structure, the facades of the above -ground levels of the structure would have a wall system to obscure the lighting. With respect to the upper -roof level, light standards are required to not exceed 25 feet above the driving surface. Consistent with the findings of the Addendum, the proposed modifications would not result new impacts relative to adverse effects related to lighting or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR. The standard condition set forth in the Addendum provides quality 714-939-1030 Kimley>>)Horn Page= assurance that the final lighting plan associated with the final design package would continue to provide the same protections to neighboring properties as the design evaluated in the Addendum. For the reasons above, the increase in the free-standing parking structure's height would not change the conclusions in the Addendum or result in any potential new or increased environmental impacts. The proposed increased setbacks between the residential buildings and existing office buildings do not change any conclusions in the Addendum. The Project would remain consistent with the overall character of surrounding urbanized development. The Project's architectural style would not change and is intended to complement the surrounding land uses in the area. The increased setbacks would not create any aesthetic, design, or lighting conflicts that would potentially result in new or increased environmental impacts. If anything, the increased setback would allow for a widened public park buffer between the Project and the adjacent office buildings. For the reasons above, the minor modifications proposed by the applicant do not mandate any additional environmental review or change the analytical findings of the Addendum, and that an Addendum as supplemented by this memorandum remains the appropriate level of CEQA review for the Project. The proposed revisions do not adversely impact the stability of the Addendum's Project Description. Settled case law provides that a Project Description must provide the lead agency and the public with enough information to ascertain the project's environmentally significant effects, assess ways of mitigating them, and consider project alternatives. (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523; Save Found Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437.) A project description is stable if it contains key geographic components, a written description of the project, maps depicting the extent of the project's sphere of influence, project boundaries, and other information needed for evaluation and review of environmental impacts. (Id.; Guidelines, § 15124.) In other words, it is stable unless it omits integral components. (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.3d 818.) The proposed modifications do not meaningfully change the Project Description: the project site, number of units, number of parking spaces, public park, affordable housing, and other project components remain accurate and stable. The Project Description in the Addendum was and remains sufficient to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project. The two minor modifications proposed by the applicant do not change the "integral components" of the Project under CEQA. As described above, based on our evaluation, these modifications also do not change the Addendum's environmental analysis or result in new or potentially increased environmental impacts. In addition, some commenters have raised a concern that there will be a parking shortfall of approximately 265 spaces during the Project's approximately 32 -month construction period. This issue has been addressed, and as set forth in the Addendum and LSA's parking report (attachment PC3 of the Planning Commission's November 5, 2020 agenda package), the analysis concludes that Kimley>>> Horn Page 5 there will not be a parking shortfall during Project construction for two reasons. First, the first phase of the Project includes completion of a new free-standing parking structure prior to initiating grading or construction of the remainder of the Project, resulting in a net increase of 176 parking spaces to Koll Center Newport . Second, LSA prepared a parking survey which concluded that an average of 37 percent of all spaces in the Koll Center Newport were vacant even during peak period (pre-COVID-19). During the construction of the residential project component of the project, 440 parking spaces would be removed but the combination of 176 net new parking spaces in the new parking structure and 450 unused parking spaces as documented in the LSA report indicates the availability of 186 surplus spaces in Koll Center Newport. At the end of construction, there would be no net loss of parking (to return to the 37% peak period parking vacancy rate identified by LSA), which is a CC&R requirement. Also, as described in the Addendum, the Project would operate a shuttle between parking lots and neighboring office buildings during the construction period. While parking is not a CEQA impact issue, the Addendum did consider temporary and permanent parking conditions, and confirmed that the Project's parking components met all City parking standards. SN ISIA38 dnoHe 3Ni13Jld 3H1 JLIYJL I t TO CD ii w -QO'OZ ry I t III I� I 1 1I I. ILII IuL�ul H -U I O C) cr- CD CL O 2 C7 W Z W V CL x F I�