Reader Response : Allan Cameron on the problems with the Sheraton

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

According to media reports, Allan Cameron spoke on behalf of some homeowners and others during the City Council meeting on Tuesday night during discussions on the proposed Sheraton at Valencia & McBean. He read my opinion post about the Sheraton and decided to respond in a comment. Here’s his comment posted as a full blog entry so that readers can see the other side of the argument.

Hello readers,

Life, and the truth is almost always in the details. Here are some of those that will help with this very, very poor “hotel” proposal.

The person who wrote an account of what transpired at the City Council meeting as the “official” verson of the truth about the hearing on this site did not include a single word of summary about the the substance of the testimony I submitted. Nor did this summary writer include an account of any of the comments made by my partner in the presentation.

Perhaps some of the facts of what we said, why we said them, and who we are might be of some assistance in coming to terms with this issue.

First, what I said.

The Caifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the master law that is supposed to see that what we as people do with our land is fully understood. If all the facts are disclosed, then measures can be taken to avoid a long list of problems, large and small. When the folks who are concerned about the planning failures associated with this wildly innapropriate project contacted me, I told them to look at the other EIR’s (Environmental Impact Reports) done for all the other projects in the area to see what these other reports had to say about conditions in the area.

I was stunned to learn that, going back 25 YEARS, NO EIR ON ANY COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR RETAIL PROJECT IN THE CENTER OF VALENCIA HAS EVER HAPPENED!!

There are over 23 major projects on this “no study” list. This list includes the first Valencia Town Center Mall, the Princess Cruises Building, Town Center Drive, the Hyatt Regency, City Hall, The Kohl’s Center, The Valencia Prominade Center(Von’s Pavilion), The Westfield expansion, The Facey Medical Building AND ALL THE REST.

This is a flagrant CEQA violation called “piecemealing”. EIR’s analyze what are called “cumulative impacts”. When you evade an EIR, you dodge this critical step. This violation hides from the public the totality of the effect of all the projects, taken together.

This so-called “Sheraton” was processed with no EIR, and therefore, no cumulative impact analysis.

Whoever wrote the summary on this web site has included only one of the many visual renderings supplied by the Developer that was supposed to disclose exactly what the “visual impact” on the surrounding area would be if the project is built.

The writer said the “Hotel” is ugly, based on what he sees.

What my testimony brought to light, is that all these renderings are invalid.

There is an 80 foot tall office building that the City approved well before this “Hotel” was brought to light, that is located about 150 feet from the wall of the “Hotel”, right at the corner of the little private street and McBean Parkway that is the sole available entry to the Hotel.

Go look at any and all of the renderings. This huge office building is absent from all of them.

The Hyatt Hotel position, as summarized by me in my testimony is this. All over the world, and all over California, there are “Hotel rows”, and “Hotel Clusters”. Hotels clammer to be part of them. If each Hotel is designed correctly, they all do more business by being together on one location, then they would achieve if they were not.

The key issue here is “designed correctly”. To actually draw ANY more business to Santa Clarita, and this area, another Hotel would have to BE MUCH LARGER then this strange “Sheraton”, especially in meetings room capacity, restaurants, conference and ballroom faciltties, and in parking spaces.

This so-called “Sheraton” is a design failure in all of these vital requirements, and cannot be fixed unless this developer had more land.

Hyatt would welcome a hotel nearby if it were much larger, and if it weren’t a design failure. Other parts of my testimony concerned the undisclosed DDT contamination of the site, which would be agitated and dispersed into the air during grading, and far more.

I am running out of time for this, but must include a bit more. If you really want all the rest of the facts from my testimony, I invite you to call me on my direct personal mobile number, which is 818-634-8669.

I am against this project, because there is NOTHING about it that stands up under more than the most casual scrutiny.

None of the testimony from my partner in the presentation was summarized or included here in detail either. Here is who we both are.

Again, this is Allan Cameron. The City of Santa Clarita was founded by a committee of about 15 people, beginning in 1985. My wife and I are two of these people. I am the President and CEO of Comprehensive Development Consulting. Our company does Master Strategic Planning for real estate development entilements. We have secured more than 200 major entitlements for projects in Santa Clarita, more than anyone else. Call me for a list of our projects.

In second place is Newhall Land, with perhaps 80 such entitlements. I am also (this confuses some people) the co-founder and first elected president of SCOPE (The Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment), which is now older than the City. I am also a founder and member of the Board of Directors of Safe Action for the Environment (SAFE), which, for over ten years, has led the fight against the CEMEX sand and gravel mine. It was SAFE that enrolled the City in the fight in April of 1999.

My unquoted partner on this blog who made the presentation to the City Council with me is Attorney Robert Silverstein. Robert is one of the most renowned real estate and CEQA lawyers in California. Search “Robert Silverstein Law” for more information on his extraordinary background.

We made our carefully researched comments, because this proposal is false, and is not at all what it seems at first glance. To answer a good question asked by Mayor Ferry, which was “Why would these people want to build a hotel that would lose money”, please do this.

On your favorite search program, search “McSam”, “Hotel developer McSam”, and so forth.

What you find could be the grist for many a Tim Meyer column, or for postings on this blog.

As to the “NIMBY” charge leveled at the Woodlands folks who oppose this outrage (I live in Canyon Country) some context is appropriate. NIMBY (not in my back yard), like virtually everything can certainly be abused. In this circumstance, it is not being abused, but is an honorable, necessary course of conduct.

Abusers often try to make the term “NIMBY” into some kind of negative insult. That tactic can backfire.

One of the more effective NIMBY movements has another name.

It is better known as The United States of America.

Call me at 818-634-8669, and email me at ac_cdc@msn.com.

Allan Cameron

Thanks to Allan for the response. I get his point about CEQA regulations- but how is that the City’s concern? So what that a full EIR was never done for Princess, or the Mall, or the Hyatt; those projects are built and in place. I’m not persuaded that past CEQA violations means we can’t build something that would economically benefit the rest of the community now. Is he essentially saying that the Sheraton can’t build a project one one side of the street because someone across the street violated the law 10 or 20 years ago?

Comments (9)

David GaunySeptember 10, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Jeff, Please see my posts from this similar topic yesterday. I’m not sure if you really want the answers or if your just asking questions to generate response, but what is your reasoning when you say, “I’m not persuaded that past CEQA violations means we can’t build something that would economically benefit the rest of the community now.”? First off, please explain how this “economically benefits the community now.” Secondly, you ask: “Is he essentially saying that the Sheraton can’t build a project over there because someone across the street violated the law 10 years ago? He’s not saying that at all. He’s merely stating correctly that failed planning in the past should not excuse diligent planning and proper procedure moving forward. This becomes increasingly crucial as we run out of developed space and seek denser projects. Burying our head in the sand will not achieve desired results for either business or quality of life. Both will suffer in the long run and people will leave our valley in droves… If you don’t believe this, then why do more and more people want to leave SFV for our well-planned valley instead of it being the other way around?

JeffSeptember 10, 2009 at 2:35 pm

David- building a hotel would employ construction people and, in the future, hotel workers. That’s an economic benefit. With 20%+ office and retail vacancies, that’d be a Good Thing. As for your second question, what would an EIR tell us about this project that we already don’t know? And yes I’m interested in discussion and answers. Persuade me.

CashSeptember 10, 2009 at 3:11 pm

Jeff, the city seems to have turned its head to favor development. I am sure they have had good reason for this ( appropriate reasons may be another question) . Unfortunately it seems they have allowed development to happen without the proper review. And if the city’s ways are not challenged now, the negative impact on the Civic Center area will only get worse. I have heard Jeff Lambert say, when questioned as to how his project may be impacting others, that his project should not be held hostage, or something to that effect, because of other potential projects. Well, that kind of comment seems to have lost its wings with the new hotel challenge. I suppose we will learn who is correct in their opinion. But my guess is that a look at potential accumulative effects will prevail. One thing is clear, and that is that our city council does not have the political will or the power of critical think to ask the questions that need to be asked of staff and the developers. Think about this. Bill Kennedy is the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Bill Kennedy was the chair of the planning commission when the commission approved the hotel project, Bill Kennedy was appointed to the planning commission by Bob Kellar, Bill Kennedy is now on the board of directors of the newly formed, non profit (taxpayer funded if the associations request for funding is granted) Economic Development Agency. This is not to say Bill Kennedy is anything but an upstanding citizen, but it does bring to question the code of conduct and ethics practiced in this city. Do you not see any potential conflict of interest here?

David GaunySeptember 10, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Jeff – God bless the workers who do the day-to-day work to run a hotel but ask anyone at the Hyatt how many of them are coming from SFV or Palmdale, or further. They simply can’t afford to live here. This means more cars on local freeways and roadways and money earned that’s being spent outside of our valley. Isn’t that an actual cost since their sales taxable dollars are mostly spent elsewhere? And what about the quality of life for those who endure the additional traffic here? With regard to building, how many General Contractors large enough to handle this project are located here? And how many of their workers? Is there a commitment that they will use local banks and subcontractors for the work? Regarding the EIR: Aside from the moved fault line, the fire safety issue, and the missing building impacts, there are numerous other reasons for an EIR but traffic is the probably the most relevant to your readers. Without an EIR, there is no cumulative traffic study – and there is a reason for this. An EIR would prevent each building’s impacts from being considered individually, including the missing building to which Mr. Cameron refers. Only one exit exists for the office building and the hotel and the bus terminal – should this not be considered in total? And what about the 260,000 sqft mall expansion and G&L’s project which pushed roads beyond their limits? No solution yet to that disaster but we keep adding. Yes, a summary study was conducted but a CEQA-mandated EIR requires cumulative traffic studies with specific criteria. This is really where the numbers are realized and where hiding the numbers becomes difficult. The project requires an additional lane be added at the Valencia/McBean intersection yet then concludes that impacts are minimal and not subject to CEQA review. What?! This alone makes clear that this should never, never, NEVER have received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (passage without EIR). Dividing the Hyatt’s market share is the wrong move at this time and does not deliver much in the way of benefit for our city in either the short or long term. Frankly, if they do the proper reports so we can really see what we’re getting – and they add some banquet space so they’re self-supporting, I have no problem with the plan… either do the people I’ve spoken with at the Hyatt, by the way. As it sits, the project will never be built as a hotel within the timeframe allowed by the permit. And THAT’s a question that should be pondered.

TimBen BoydstonSeptember 10, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Jeff, Using the bad economy to justify bad planning is bad government. The other issues have been addressed above, but I would like to point out that the approval of this project gaurantees no new jobs. In fact a great deal on money is made by getting all permissions on a property and flipping it. With an extension, three years could go by before the construction starts. With the economy depressing the Real Estate market, this is the best time for good planning.

MoneySeptember 10, 2009 at 8:42 pm

When are you announcing that your running for office cash?

CCSeptember 10, 2009 at 10:08 pm

Wow, these are really good points and I appreciate those who have taken the time to give this project thought.

Scott BerrySeptember 11, 2009 at 12:17 am

I have to agree that your post, Jeff, sure makes it sound like you are happy to have the city ignore the improper planning of this project especially given the evidence of inappropriately approved projects in the past. If there were agreements in place that guaranteed local jobs, benefits for local businesses and proper studies were in place then I don’t think many here would be as concerned.

cashSeptember 11, 2009 at 7:14 am

Not a politician.

David GaunySeptember 10, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Jeff, Please see my posts from this similar topic yesterday. I’m not sure if you really want the answers or if your just asking questions to generate response, but what is your reasoning when you say, “I’m not persuaded that past CEQA violations means we can’t build something that would economically benefit the rest of the community now.”? First off, please explain how this “economically benefits the community now.” Secondly, you ask: “Is he essentially saying that the Sheraton can’t build a project over there because someone across the street violated the law 10 years ago? He’s not saying that at all. He’s merely stating correctly that failed planning in the past should not excuse diligent planning and proper procedure moving forward. This becomes increasingly crucial as we run out of developed space and seek denser projects. Burying our head in the sand will not achieve desired results for either business or quality of life. Both will suffer in the long run and people will leave our valley in droves… If you don’t believe this, then why do more and more people want to leave SFV for our well-planned valley instead of it being the other way around?
JeffSeptember 10, 2009 at 2:35 pm
David- building a hotel would employ construction people and, in the future, hotel workers. That’s an economic benefit. With 20%+ office and retail vacancies, that’d be a Good Thing. As for your second question, what would an EIR tell us about this project that we already don’t know? And yes I’m interested in discussion and answers. Persuade me.
CashSeptember 10, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Jeff, the city seems to have turned its head to favor development. I am sure they have had good reason for this ( appropriate reasons may be another question) . Unfortunately it seems they have allowed development to happen without the proper review. And if the city’s ways are not challenged now, the negative impact on the Civic Center area will only get worse. I have heard Jeff Lambert say, when questioned as to how his project may be impacting others, that his project should not be held hostage, or something to that effect, because of other potential projects. Well, that kind of comment seems to have lost its wings with the new hotel challenge. I suppose we will learn who is correct in their opinion. But my guess is that a look at potential accumulative effects will prevail. One thing is clear, and that is that our city council does not have the political will or the power of critical think to ask the questions that need to be asked of staff and the developers. Think about this. Bill Kennedy is the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Bill Kennedy was the chair of the planning commission when the commission approved the hotel project, Bill Kennedy was appointed to the planning commission by Bob Kellar, Bill Kennedy is now on the board of directors of the newly formed, non profit (taxpayer funded if the associations request for funding is granted) Economic Development Agency. This is not to say Bill Kennedy is anything but an upstanding citizen, but it does bring to question the code of conduct and ethics practiced in this city. Do you not see any potential conflict of interest here?
David GaunySeptember 10, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Jeff – God bless the workers who do the day-to-day work to run a hotel but ask anyone at the Hyatt how many of them are coming from SFV or Palmdale, or further. They simply can’t afford to live here. This means more cars on local freeways and roadways and money earned that’s being spent outside of our valley. Isn’t that an actual cost since their sales taxable dollars are mostly spent elsewhere? And what about the quality of life for those who endure the additional traffic here? With regard to building, how many General Contractors large enough to handle this project are located here? And how many of their workers? Is there a commitment that they will use local banks and subcontractors for the work? Regarding the EIR: Aside from the moved fault line, the fire safety issue, and the missing building impacts, there are numerous other reasons for an EIR but traffic is the probably the most relevant to your readers. Without an EIR, there is no cumulative traffic study – and there is a reason for this. An EIR would prevent each building’s impacts from being considered individually, including the missing building to which Mr. Cameron refers. Only one exit exists for the office building and the hotel and the bus terminal – should this not be considered in total? And what about the 260,000 sqft mall expansion and G&L’s project which pushed roads beyond their limits? No solution yet to that disaster but we keep adding. Yes, a summary study was conducted but a CEQA-mandated EIR requires cumulative traffic studies with specific criteria. This is really where the numbers are realized and where hiding the numbers becomes difficult. The project requires an additional lane be added at the Valencia/McBean intersection yet then concludes that impacts are minimal and not subject to CEQA review. What?! This alone makes clear that this should never, never, NEVER have received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (passage without EIR). Dividing the Hyatt’s market share is the wrong move at this time and does not deliver much in the way of benefit for our city in either the short or long term. Frankly, if they do the proper reports so we can really see what we’re getting – and they add some banquet space so they’re self-supporting, I have no problem with the plan… either do the people I’ve spoken with at the Hyatt, by the way. As it sits, the project will never be built as a hotel within the timeframe allowed by the permit. And THAT’s a question that should be pondered.
TimBen BoydstonSeptember 10, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Jeff, Using the bad economy to justify bad planning is bad government. The other issues have been addressed above, but I would like to point out that the approval of this project gaurantees no new jobs. In fact a great deal on money is made by getting all permissions on a property and flipping it. With an extension, three years could go by before the construction starts. With the economy depressing the Real Estate market, this is the best time for good planning.
MoneySeptember 10, 2009 at 8:42 pm
When are you announcing that your running for office cash?
CCSeptember 10, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Wow, these are really good points and I appreciate those who have taken the time to give this project thought.
Scott BerrySeptember 11, 2009 at 12:17 am
I have to agree that your post, Jeff, sure makes it sound like you are happy to have the city ignore the improper planning of this project especially given the evidence of inappropriately approved projects in the past. If there were agreements in place that guaranteed local jobs, benefits for local businesses and proper studies were in place then I don’t think many here would be as concerned.
cashSeptember 11, 2009 at 7:14 am
Not a politician.