Lynne Plambeck takes me to task for my post yesterday:
The argument was over requiring energy efficiency for the office buildings as was required by the City of Los Angeles and accepted by Providence Holy Cross for its Mission Hills expansion. We in Santa Clarita can complain about power polls marching through our community, the rise in asthma rates and our poor air quality, but heaven forbid that we should require any developer to DO anything about it like make an energy efficient building. Surrounding jurisdictions, even the county, are not so hard headed. Energy efficiency is a relatively easy way to reduce greenhouse gases by cutting energy use in new buildings.
I don’t expect you to be fair (although I used to think you were), but it might be helpful to the understanding of your readership if you asked about the issues before you wrote on them. I would be glad to reply to any questions.
She attached the press release from SCOPE which has this quote from Cam Noltemeyer:
“The terrible impacts of additional traffic from three multi-story office buildings should not be imposed on any residential community”, said Cam Noltemeyer, SCOPE Board member. “We wanted to ensure that promised hospital facilities would be forthcoming, while lessening the severe impacts that this residential neighborhood will suffer. We also wanted to ensure that the office buildings would be as energy efficient as possible. New facilities at Holy Cross are being built to green LEED1 standards to reduce energy use and air pollution, why should Santa Clarita accept less? Santa Clarita has some of the worst air quality in the nation. We must require such standards for new buildings in this Valley.”
It seems to me SCOPE’s primary complaints about Mayo and the possible Singing Hills MOB are familiar ones: traffic and the “character” of the surrounding neighborhood. But now they’re tacking on a desire for new office buildings to be LEED certified, which would be great, except that I don’t think you can require that after a development has already been approved.
Look, I’d love it if all new buildings were LEED certified. But you can’t ignore the fact that the traffic and pollution are going to happen somewhere in the SCV, and right now much of it comes from commuters heading south for work & services. If building new medical properties means more local, skilled jobs and more local medical resources ( a big “if” I’ll grant you), the savings in carbon and pollution emissions from reduced vehicle trips has to be considered as well, if we’re going to be consistent. That’s all I was arguing.
As for the charge of being unfair: I’m always open to emails (jeff at scvtalk.com) or comments (in fact, read CoastalSage’s great but unpersuasive comment from yesterday on this matter), but I’m entitled to my opinion as are you. And my opinion is always that we should support projects that bring more skilled jobs and resources to the SCV because they tend to reduce vehicle trips out of town. At the same time we should enhance and encourage alternative transportation if we’re serious about reducing local traffic.
Loading ...
They are conflating local air pollution with carbon emissions due to electricity generation and maybe natural gas for heating. Neither would worsen the air pollution in this valley.
The electricity doesn’t get generated here. And besides, CO2 way contribute to global warming, but it doesn’t create smog. What creates smog are all those cars driving on the 5 and 14 – trips many of us take to see doctors out of the valley.
Not to mention that this human causation issue is based on junk science making the whole religion crash in on it’s own deception.
I think Lynn is right in pointing out that the City’s standards in regards to requiring ANY KIND of energy or water conservation are non-existent. They would “prefer it” but would never requirement. And, the same weasely language is contained in the OVOV planning documents. Why do you think the State didn’t like their EIR for greenhouse gasses.
Here we are, in the midst of a water shortage, my rates will be going up 90% in five years to help reduce consumption and the City doesn’t even require a new developer to put in drought tolerant landscaping and irrigation. Even the City of Los Angeles is clearer thinking than Brotzman and crew on this issue.
Dream on, Sterling, and join the flat-earthers in your denial of global warming as the cause of human-burned fossile fuels!
Well, well, aren’t you without as horse to beat today.
I don’t recall saying anything about the earth worming or not worming. Accept, however, I did say something about the junk science that was falsified and proven to have been falsely ascertained (compiled- if you don’t know the word) and presented as pier reviewed science as to the causation of any warming.
The Church of Global Worming and Latter-day Alarmists, who say it’s conclusive as to why this large globe, with scientifically proven knowledge that we DON’T understand the earths patterns of Millennial weather, not to mention the causation of soler system and radiation flair involvement, you still have the immaturity to get on here and call me a flat earther and a denier.
You have a strange interpretative dyslexia as to the written meaning behind what you read.
That’s laughable spinflower.The name you use to hide behind is very true to your mentality, however you’re spinning more then a flower – if you know what I mean.
I guess your news source messMBC forgot to mention the face science breakthrough.
Sorry Spin,
I meant to leave you in the end by saying “Fake science breakthrough”
So you’re not confused