HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-04_4_Agenda Packet for February 3, 2014 Meeting of Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment AdvisoryBURNS,MARLENE
From:
Wisneski, Brenda
Sent:
Monday, February 03, 2014 8:24 AM
To:
Burns, Marlene
Subject:
FW: Agenda Packet for February 3, 2014 Meeting of Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment
Advisory Committee
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
For distribution
From: Paul Watkins [mailto:paul a�lawfriend.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:04 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg
Cc: Wisneski, Brenda; Brandt, Kim
Subject: Agenda Packet for February 3, 2014 Meeting of Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory
Committee
Hi Gregg:
I had a chance to take a look at the Agenda and its attachments for our upcoming meeting
scheduled for Tuesday, February 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM in the Friends Room.
If it's OK, I wanted to share a couple of thoughts:
January 7, 2014 Minutes:
(i) Handwritten page 3, Section II, third line: please correct the spelling of
"Mosher ".
(ii) Handwritten page 3, Section III, third paragraph, sentence reading: "The
Committee asked staff to look at the definition of "reduce" and search for
the words "reduce, reduction, reducing" to determine if any of the
references are on a citywide basis." I may have misunderstood Mr. Tucker's
requests but wasn't the gist of his requests as follows: (a) Would staff
please provide to the Committee a clear simple definition of "reduce ",
"reduction ", and "reducing" in the context of greenhouse gases
( "GHG ")? (b) Would staff please make a change throughout the "Goals and
Policies" (i.e., on a "global" basis) to make it very clear that when the words
"reduce ", "reduction ", and "reducing" are used with reference to GHG, the
standard for "reduction" of GHG will be applied on an overall CITYWIDE
basis as opposed to a PROJECT -BY- PROJECT basis (i.e., the concept here is
that rather than imposing a nebulous undefined project condition that a
particular project must "reduce" GHG emissions, perhaps a project condition
could be added along the following lines: "The Project shall be designed and
constructed where feasible to reduce GHG emissions on an overall citywide
basis." (I noted in the "Goals and Policies" a few instances where the word
1
"reduce ", "reduction ", or "reducing" appear without the "citywide' qualifier; I
will raise these inadvertent omissions at our meeting.) (c) Would staff
please provide the Committee with a beginning baseline so that our policy
makers will be able to determine the "reduction" of GHG from that specific
beginning baseline? (d) Would staff please add the words "where feasible'
or "lessen to the extent practicable' at appropriate places throughout the
"Goals and Policies" in connection with GHG emissions "reduction "? Mr.
Tucker may disagree with my interpretation of his requests and may suggest
revisions /additions.
(iii) Handwritten page 4, top line: please correct the spelling of "General ".
I look forward to seeing you next Tuesday, February 3 at 2:30 PM. Thanks, Gregg.
Best regards,
Paul
Paul K. Watkins for
Watkins, Blakely & Torgerson, LLP
535 Anton Boulevard, Suite 810
Costa Mesa, California 92626 -7047
Telephone: (714) 556 -0800, ext. 2108
Facsimile: (714) 641 -4012
E -Mail: paul@lawfriend.com
N