HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Notice of Intent to Override OC ALUC's Determination of Inconsistency for the City's Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments (PA2022-0245) - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
May 28, 2024
Agenda Item No. 17
From: Adriana Fourcher
To: City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Dent - City Council; Leung, Grace
Subject: 5/28/24 City Council Meeting - Written Public Comment on Item XVIII
Date: May 27, 2024 11:20:10 AM
Attachments: 2024-5-27 Ltr Reaardina Res. 2024-32.pdf
XTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
co�fe.
Please enjoy this Memorial Day holiday.
I was recently discussing how upsetting it is that as tax paying residents and citizens of this
great nation that we seem constantly at odds with the priorities of appointed and elected
"officials". Just because something is in a report or becomes a resolution or a law doesn't
mean that it is correct, trustworthy or in the best interests of the people it impacts. There are
facts of omission that bias many reports which leads to laws/statutes with detrimental
consequences for business and citizens.
My challenge to city staff and the planning commission is to schedule a brown bag lunch
meeting at the Renaissance Newport Beach Hotel on MacArthur. It is in the Airport Environs.
One would need to commit to sitting by their outdoor pool for a full lunch hour with no devices
to diminish the ambient noise. This very inexpensive field trip would provide city "officials"
with a data point that is not clearly being communicated in the reports. Experiencing noise
pollution is much more powerful than simply reading about it.
Also, if any city officials would like to take a flight in a small plane or helicopter that could also
be arranged. Again, seeing the departure pattern as it relates to the "overlay zones", would
allow factual knowledge to inform the planning process in a way that a report may be
intentionally glossing over. You have an invitation to be flown over the overlay zone areas.
Between the flight school instructors, FBO's and private pilots there are numerous aircraft
available to help with that field trip.
Find a letter attached that should be included in the public record.
Thank you for your consideration of these observations and recommendations.
By e-mail to: cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov
Ms. Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk May 27, 2024
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Item XVIII. Resolution 2024-32 - Intent to override ALUC determination that the Amendments are
Inconsistent with the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan
Dear Ms. Brown
On Tuesday, May 281h, City Council will vote on Resolution 2024-32. As a resident of Newport Beach, a
business and commercial property owner in the Airport District, I have been urging the Housing Element
planning committee, City Staff, and elected officials to reach out to the businesses in the Airport District
during the planning process. See the attached letter that was sent about a year ago.
On behalf of our business, members of Von Karman Corporate Owners Association, as well as other
business interests in the Airport District, we are opposed to Resolution 2024-32. The city should NOT
override the ALUC (an established commission) entrusted to preserve the function of the airport and
ensure that all City planning and zoning codes comply with the AELUP specifically for noise, safety and
overflight.
Furthermore, we concur with the points made in the May 1611 letter from the Airport Land Use
Commission to the Commissioners/Alternatives. It is incompatible with existing fit and function of the
Airport District for the city to target 40% of residential growth. The proposed zoning changes are
inconsistent with most Airport District businesses, office space owners, flight schools, private pilots and
FBO's. Legal immunity conferred to the airport is not extended to the city. As a taxpayer, I do not wish
the city to be at odds with future residents living adjacent to and/or under an air traffic pattern.
Overriding the ALUC and changing zoning will create negative economic and environmental impacts. The
ill-conceived urban sprawl will cannibalize the commercial property market and reduce employers in the
city of Newport Beach. It is not necessary to list case law to make the point that businesses and property
owners in any of the areas impacted maintain the right, at any point in the public planning process to
shape land use outcomes impacting their employees, property rights and businesses.
Sincerely,
Adrian Fourc6ier
Adriana Fourcher
City of Newport Beach Resident, Business and Property Owner
Attachment: Letter to Planning Commission May 3, 2023
Cc: City Councill(citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov)
City Manager (gleung@newportbeachca.gov)
Mrs. Adriano Fourcher
4340 Von Korman Ave, 41" 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.
Base leg
Above is the standard flight pattern utilized throughout the United States.
Mrs. Adriana Fourcher
4340 Von Korman Ave, 41" 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
Cc: General Plan Update Steering Committee
Received After Agenda Printed
May 28, 2024
# Agenda Item No. 17
C)CAL IPILC)TS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PILOTS ASSOCIATION
May 27, 2024
Submitted via email to: cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov
Ms. Leilani I Brown, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Item XVIII on Agenda for City Council Meeting 5/28/2024. Resolution 2024-32 -
Intent to override ALUC determination that the Amendments are Inconsistent with the
2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan
Dear Ms. Brown,
The Southern California Pilots Association (SoCal Pilots) represents over 1,400 pilots,
with 300 frequently using John Wayne Airport. Many are tie -down or permanent hangar
residents. Building residential developments near an airport contradicts urban planning
guidelines. The area in Newport Beach near the airport is directly under the flight path
of Runway 20L, which handles intense flight training. Established helicopter flight
corridors also pass over the planned development area, with helicopters approaching at
roof -top level.
SoCal Pilots supports the current business use of this area since business operations
take place indoors, where noise is less disruptive. Commercial use is compatible with
the airport corridor. However, mixing residential use close to a busy airport will lead to
economic loss for existing airport businesses and the pilot community. Residents,
dissatisfied with the noise and pollution, historically use their influence to restrict aircraft
and flight training.
Likewise, investors in properties this close to the airport may end up entangled in
complaints that include the City of Newport Beach when the impacts result in economic
damage.
1
c)AL PILcTs
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Airports have standard flight patterns for safety, and this pattern is used nationwide.
The aircraft noise and flight pattern for Runway 20L, is not included in the contour
maps. The proposed "overlay zones" do not take into account aircraft taking off from
Runway 20L emiting their highest noise levels as they climb from 100' to 850' over the
proposed residential areas.
The airport land use commission has outlined the incompatibility of residential uses in
close proximity to the operation of private planes, helicopters, FBO's and flight school
operations. A Planning Commission or City Council who would override the sensible
urban planning guidance from the Airport Land Use Commission shows that profit has
taken the place of common sense. Unlike business uses in a commercial zone,
residential use will place families under this flight path 24/7, exposing them to
unhealthy noise levels and increasing liability for the city.
C)AL PILcTs
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PILOTS ASSOCIATION
To illustrate the intensity of aircraft flying over the proposed residential area, SoCal
Pilots requested flight statistics from Access and Noise at John Wayne Airport, showing
air traffic for only Runway 20L and not the main runway used by jets. The yellow dot
indicates an area within the overlay zone near Von Karman and Birch.
SoCal Pilots supports the existing commercial land use in the Airport Area and opposes
high density residential development in close proximity to the take off and departure
pattern of either runway.
Regards,
Fred Fourcher
Founder and Board Member, SoCal Pilots Assocation
cc: Newport Beach City Council(citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov)
3