I Heart SCV has the most detailed description of what went down at last night’s Council meeting regarding the proposal for a Sheraton Hotel at Valencia & McBean:
Of course, the reasons to despise the proposed Sheraton Hotel went well beyond the fact that an EIR hadn’t been drafted for the massive project. Renderings show the new hotel will be ferociously unattractive, an even uglier version of the sprawling beige boxes currently found in the heart of town. Residents of the Woodlands community will have open views–for which they paid a premium—marred by the Sheraton, and several homeowners from the area said they worried about their property values if the hotel is indeed built. With only one entry to the hotel, many of the twenty speakers against the project mentioned their worries about increased traffic congestion on already congested McBean Parkway.
If you read through his whole report, and the accompanying documentation on the Agenda item, you’ll realize that the initial (but well organized apparently) opposition to this hotel boils down to two groups: homeowners nearby who dislike that their view may be interrupted and the Hyatt, which tried to argue at last night’s Council meeting that there’s no demand for a new Sheraton (haha!)
Let’s deal with the Woodlands homeowners. According to the city docs, here’s how their view would be changed:
So they have a point: obviously the Sheraton will obstruct views of Valencia Town Center, the hills beyond it and won’t even do anything shield the Woodland owners from something else they likely find distasteful in the area: the McBean bus depot (in the foreground).
I dont’ think it gets any more NIMBY than this- the Sheraton is literally proposing to build a hotel right in their back yard, and according to the developer’s own images, it will block (somewhat) the view for those residents.
Who cares?
I mean apart from a few hundred homeowners in that wealthy part of town, why would anyone fight the Sheraton? I agree with I Heart -it’s an ugly beige box- but that can be improved, I hope. Besides, I remain committed to the idea of infill: let’s build up the center of town with attractions, shops, and amenities that the entire valley (and beyond) can enjoy. We already have TCD, the Hyatt, Princess Cruises (which is a major economic engine in the area), Westfield, and soon we’ll have the Patios open. That’s not to mention Whole Foods, Kohl’s and other shops across the street.
It’s not like the Sheraton is some radical new concept for the area. This is the kind of project we as a city want for our nascent “downtown.” We want business people to host conferences at the Sheraton (and the Hyatt), we want vacationers to stay there and shop at the businesses across the street, and we want there to be a lively and active scene in that part of town (more high class bars and perhaps night clubs even!)
What’s more, the infrastructure is there and already supportive of this. The docs say that while the Sheraton will increase traffic, McBean and Valencia are both built-out enough to handle it. This is why we have three traffic lanes and two right/left turn lanes people!
Build it! Build it and build more in that area. Once Newhall Land moves out of its office building on Valencia, tear that down and build something there too (a new Civic Center perhaps?)
We can’t keep letting a few homeowners in strategic areas of town derail this valley’s progress, especially when they should have realized that if you buy next to open or undeveloped space in the center of town, it’s likely to be developed at some point in the future.
And now you may commence slinging your arrows at me!
Have a look at Google earth and you will see just how few homes would be affected. So they paid a premium for their view. So what? There is hardly a construction project in the city that doesn’t come into someone’s field of view. Someone got the idea to build a house on the hill. Good for them. At no point did they also purchase veto power over everything in their field of vision. These are the most absurd, selfish and narrow minded complainers I’ve seen in years.
It’s astounding how hysterical people become at these meetings over something that at worst would be a mild annoyance.
I think it’s location downtown is great and agree with Mike that it’s a good fit for the area.
Understandably, some may see this as taking away from SC’s ‘small town’ feel . . . but again, it’s right in the middle of town next to the mall . . .
I think these Hyatt folks went renegade. I can’t imagine the management company opposing another hotel, because it could come back to bite them in another venue. A call to the Hyatt management company about what their employees are doing, putatively representing the interests of their employer, will probably put a stop to this.
The building is too big for the site and the surrounding area. Traffic will be a mess and access to the location will be jammed. I think we will learn that the owner paid to have the seismic concern adjusted to enhance the value of the property. Would someone do such a thing?! Oh I don’t know, but stranger things have happened.
This is the first time I have seen the City Attorney show his concern or question the appropriateness of the city’s action. He did not even stutter when he gave his assessment of the situation.
In all fairness to the Woodlands residents that will be affected by the Sheraton, they did pay a premium for those lots (which is why I didn’t purchase one at the time they were being pushed) and they were led to believe that the Seismic zone would prevent any substantial development on that property. They also sounded as if a scaled down version (4 to 5 stories) might work for them. Another case of NIMBYism? What else is new. The real problem is that acces road that serves the Hyatt, the car wash, the bus terminal, the proposed hotel AND the proposed Backer project. How much can they cram onto that expanded driveway??? Couple ALL OF THAT with the fact that the parking area is, once again, sub-standard and you have a pretty good reason to ask for a complete EIR instead of a rubber stamp from city staff. You’re right, Jeff, keeping all the attractions and accommodations in one place is a huge benefit to economic development but plan the damn thing out ahead of time.
The homeowners that should have complained would have been the those on Bennington in Northbridge that have that shopping center (with Bristol Farms) built in their backyard. The proposed Sheraton is sooo far away from the homes in the Woodlands that they should not be complaining.
Navigator is 100% correct. It’s the “planning” that’s missing from the “plan”.
There were numerous problems cited last night that had nothing to do with NIMBYism, including the fault line, only one ingress/egress that dumps all traffic onto McBean, and an approved but not yet complete 80’ tall office building that was mysteriously left completely out of all visuals.
One thing I do know for sure, the cumulative traffic analysis was NOT done, so all of these projects are being looked at without a complete or accurate review of the traffic impacts.
And, Jeff, as a biker you don’t want that kind of traffic… you’ll notice that there aren’t too many bike lanes in San Fernando and your complaint here will come far too late.
As for the Hyatt’s concerns, the city needs a plan. We need a civic auditorium or a convention center of some sort to bring a draw to the city before we build another 200-room hotel. Publicly available industry stats demonstrated last night that the Hyatt is in the 60% occupancy range. A new hotel will push this to 50%. This not only questions the ridiculous idea that splitting market share is “economic growth,” it raises a serious question about whether a new hotel will actually be built at this location. No lender will fund this in the next three years which is when the project application expires. So what?
This company has many uncompleted projects in New York and they have been trying to restructure 100s of millions of dollars in debt. Given the economy, it’s not improbable that the entitlements will be received and then the land sold for profit. The city could then be forced to change entitlements to whatever the new builder wants in order to avoid a half-constructed eyesore at a main intersection to our city.
There is MUCH more to consider here than your comments reflect and the project deserves a full and proper hearing.
I’d like to know how large is the Valencia Town Center Master Plan? As large as the next development project? The City’s traffic engineer green lighted Henry Mayo’s office expansion by explaining (and justifying) the drive from Northbridge to I-5 would take 6 seconds longer. I suppose with such logic, it will take maybe 8 seconds longer upon completion of the Sheraton complex!?
It is easy to call people NIMBYs when it isn’t your property being affected. When I first heard about the project, I thought it was too big and not appropriate that close to residences. Then, I saw the pictures (thanks Jeff) and I thought it wasn’t all that bad. The issues pointed out at the City Council should definitely be addressed and it does seem like the City operates in some sort of stream of consciousness without regard to any plan. One example of the lack of planning is that they are putting an overlay on Valencia this week that will likely be torn up by the project as well as the unfinished mall project. Between the Mall expansion, the Hospital expansion, and the proposed Sheraton, it is very reasonable to ask for an EIR.
Hmmm imagine that, buying a home next to an undeveloped area may mean development in the future – ding, ding, ding!
…pay a premium, I would like to see for what in writing, you pay a premium to have an end lot (i.e. no house in the “same development” right next to you), it doesnt meant the city is forever banned from building anything next to your lot, the development is not part of that area of land.
And “led to believe”, a lot of people can say a lot of things it doesnt necessarily mean its true.
And shocker of all the Hyatt doesnt want it. Its about time we get some convention/conference/banquet space, the Hyatt has had the “monopoly” on it and charge through the roof. I have been party to the planning of an event that has been held there for many years and each year they take away concessions and charge more and more, that now the non-profit group cannot afford to have it there anymore, but yet they are stuck because of space considerations of other localtions.
When I go to many restaurants around town they are not busy and have 100% table occupancy, should they have been denied to build because there wasnt enough diners to keep their tables at 100% occupancy, nope!
“When I go to many restaurants around town they are not busy and have 100% table occupancy, should they have been denied to build because there wasnt enough diners to keep their tables at 100% occupancy, nope!”
Thank you Jeff Lambert. Is Brooke your middle name?
Brook,
The people bought homes there knowing that a fault line made the property below them unbuildable. Tell me, how much does it cost to change or move an Act of God?
Regarding the event space, the new hotel has literally half of what the Hyatt has… this creates neither occupancy draw nor significant price reductions on rentable space.
Lastly, you seem to share Lambert’s position that this will create “synergy” and be good for both the hotels and the area as a whole. Let me ask: would adding 500 more real estate agents to SCV help those agents that are already working here?
Again, I don’t necessarily disagree with the plan, I just want the information needed to make an informed decision – information that is painfully lacking to an embarrassing extent! I also think the city needs a long term plan. I love the idea that we will all live here and work here, as well as the reduced traffic, pollution, and sprawl that this idea supposedly offers us. However, this will only occur if we have higher paying jobs and a real plan for infrastructure and development. Unfortunately, each of these elements are either swept under the rug or completely absent in this plan.