HomeMy WebLinkAboutIII._Additional Materials Received_Non-Agenda Items1
Rodriguez, Clarivel
Subject:FW: Letter sent to Planning Commission on proposed noise related amendments
Attachments:2023-5-3 AF Ltr to PC PDF.pdf
From: Adriana Fourcher <adriana@fourcher.com>
Sent: May 03, 2023 10:26 PM
To: CDD <CDD@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Letter sent to Planning Commission on proposed noise related amendments
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear General Plan Update Steering CommiƩee members Brown, Carter and Gardner:
Please find aƩached a leƩer that was sent today to the NB Planning Commission addressing Agenda Item #4 for
tomorrow’s public meeƟng.
Please look at the public comments submiƩed for the Planning Commission meeƟng on May 4th. Would the GPUSC
consider calling a special meeƟng of the Noise subcommiƩee to look at the Planning Commissions’
recommendaƟons? The Land Use Element commiƩee should be asking for a write up from the Noise subcommiƩee
that they can share with the community at large and the members of the GPUC.
Does the GPUSC and the GPUC have sufficient grit to address the developer dollars that are influencing appointed and
elected representaƟves to loosen safety restricƟons and recommend housing sites directly adjacent to an airport?
It is not about Sacramento it is about an unwillingness to reign sanity into a housing element plan that is on steroids.
Sincerely,
Adriana
Mrs. Adriana Fourcher
4340 Von Karman Ave, 4th Floor
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
May 3, 2023
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Delivered via electronic mail to: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
RE: Housing Element Implementation, Noise-Related Amendments
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Airport Businesses, the general aviation community and future residents of Newport Beach will
be negatively impacted by the proposed Amendments to the 2006 General Plan Land Use
Element for the Airport Area.
There is no reasonable or justifiable reason to lower the safety restrictions and to modify the
restricted areas by increasing the dBA CNEL threshold.
The published noise contours discussed in the Amendments are not based on noise levels from
aircraft operations on the shorter runway, 2R/20L. Since the noise levels for 2R/20L have not
been studied it is irresponsible to plan housing directly underneath the departure pattern.
Above is the standard flight pattern utilized throughout the United States.
Mrs. Adriana Fourcher
4340 Von Karman Ave, 4th Floor
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
This is a back door attempt to go around airport businesses and the GPAC. It is my
understanding that the GPAC is not organized into focus areas like in the 2000-2006 process.
The city has not attempted to engage Airport Businesses. It is highly problematic for the city to
be considering an MOU with a developer for an “airport village plan”. There is no developer
that represents my interests in the airport area and if that came to realization there would be a
complaint. The city needs to hire its own consultants and garner broad community input. As
you are aware the GPAC is divided into “elements”. While the “Land Use Element” has a
subcommittee handling “Noise” it does not have a Land Use Element for the Airport Area like it
did in 2006. The “Noise” subcommittee has not been asked to review the proposed changes
and as of a week ago has not met. This is the reason why I need to cc: General Plan Update
Steering Committee Members. Where is community input?
The best and most compatible land use in the proximity of a busy airport is commercial. GPAC
should not be instructed to simply ratify changes made to that portion of the report by a
consultant or allow the Planning Commission to preempt proper study and evaluation.
Moreover, the idea that noise insulation features will make up for undesirable forced closed
windows and indoor community space for a Newport Beach residential project is suspect. If the
city needs more hotel rooms that is one thing, but residents like to be able to open their
windows and recreate in outdoor common areas. It sounds like the city will take the money,
the developers will build the properties and the residents will be left with the aftermath of poor
living conditions. Again and again, I see the city accept in-lieu-of development dollars and
shortchange the community of green space. I see approvals of waivers that create parking
shortages and decrease curb appeal. High density residential projects lead to increased daily
road trips and congestion.
For these reasons and others, I urge the Planning Commission not to approve the proposed
changes to the 2006 General Plan Land Use Element for the Airport Area.
Sincerely,
Adriana Fourcher
Adriana Fourcher
Cc: General Plan Update Steering Committee