Staff Recommends Planning Commission Approval of Hyatt Hotel Project

Hyatt-House

City staff is recommending that the planning commission approve a proposed Hyatt House hotel project in South Davis, when it meets on Wednesday, August 24.  This is one of two extended stay hotel proposals undergoing development review, with the other a proposed Marriott Residence Inn on Mace and 2nd Street scheduled for review in September. Both applications require council action scheduled for October.

The extended stay hotel is proposed at 120 rooms, with four stories and a height of just under 48 feet, and 112 vehicle spaces in a parking lot.  There will be vehicular and bicycle access from Cowell Boulevard and bike and pedestrian access from the greenbelt along the south edge of the site.

Staff notes that the project site is located in South Davis on the south side of Cowell Boulevard, east of Playfields Park and directly west of the Davis Diamonds gymnastics center.  In a addition, a greenbelt with a multi-use trail lies directly south of the project site, with existing single-family residences on Albany Avenue beyond the greenbelt.

The city has prepared a negative declaration on the environmental impact.  A study “concluded that the project, with mitigation, would not have an adverse effect on the environment.”

Staff argues that the site, currently designated for business park use on the General Plan Land Use Map, is consistent with designated general plan usage.  While the hotel is four stories, it has a height of about 48 feet, which is lower than the height limitation of 50 feet but higher than the allowable number of stories.

Staff writes, “Staff finds that an extended stay hotel can be an appropriate addition to the mix of uses found in a Business Park / Light Industrial area. The neighborhood of the project site includes residential (single-family and multifamily), office, recreational facilities (Davis Diamonds and Playfields Park), and is proximate to the Interland office/tech center.”

Staff adds, “The hotel rooms can provide space visiting researchers and company officials from outside Davis, while the meeting rooms can support the needs of local businesses. In addition, more hotel rooms near the downtown and the UC Davis campus would support other economic development goals and activities, including the General Plan polices to ‘Increase attractions and amenities that bring people to the Core’ and ‘Promote Davis as a destination for visitors with interests in eco-tourism, university/academic events, culture and arts, and downtown shopping.’”

Staff adds, “A hotel use is similar to the restaurant and service station retail conditionally permitted under the Planned Development, and staff has concluded that the requested modification to the zoning is warranted.”

Staff does note that “the proposed project exceeds the intensity anticipated in the General Plan and Planned Development. The GP Business Park category has a maximum floor area ratio of 50 percent, with an additional 15 percent for the housing component of a mixed use project. The proposed project has a FAR [floor area ratio] of 85 percent. The tower component of the proposed project exceeds the Planned Development’s height limit of 50 feet by five feet (which can be approved as a Minor Modification), and the four-story structure exceeds the three story limitation in the Planned Development.”

Staff concludes on this that “the consistency with General Plan and Planned Development goals can be met, and recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment, South Davis Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development Amendment, along with conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review to ensure proper integration into the community in areas such as sustainability, operation, and parking management.”

Staff later notes significant neighborhood opposition including:

  • Safety; i.e. adjacency to a neighborhood with a high density of very young children
  • Access via greenbelt is immediately next door to the hotel and multiple Albany entrances/parks
  • Lighting
  • Height of the hotel
  • Adjacency to the immediate neighbors. The hotel plans, even with their recent adjustments to the plans, still locate the hotel only feet away from the backyards of residences
  • 24/7 business being a nuisance to the neighborhoods
  • Transient nature of the business
  • Overall esthetics in terms of large scale building near one story homes. Note the nearby low income housing building that sticks out like a sore thumb
  • No investment into local community, large corporation w/no skin in the game in Davis vs. local business

Staff does not consider the last issue “to be germane to the land use applications.”  Staff does note that, with the hotel structure, it would have “a 42-58 foot setback from the south property line, the greenbelt is approximately sixty-five feet wide in this location, and there is a fence between the greenbelt and the residences.”

Therefore, staff concludes, “Because of the existing trees on the greenbelt, there would be minimal impacts,” and it notes that the applicant has offered to “plant additional screening trees in the greenbelt” where necessary.  Staff adds that the construction of the four-story buildings, “has the potential of providing a significant sound buffer from freeway noise,” actually reducing the amount of ambient noise for the greenbelt and neighborhood.

In addition, “The potential for a hotel bar has been specifically noted as a source of concern during earlier neighborhood discussions. The applicant has stated that alcohol sales will be limited to beer and wine (no hard alcohol). The Police Department has not expressed any concern with the bar operation, and will have the ability to review the necessary alcohol license.”

Staff concludes that “the project is not likely to become a nuisance to the neighborhood. Other permitted and conditionally-permitted uses in the Planned Development, including Davis Diamonds, also have the potential to attract visitors to Davis or operate during expanded business hours. The hotel will have staff to ensure that there are no noise or other impacts on the neighborhood.”

The report mentions market capacity but not the analysis from the city-generated reports, only noting the approval of Embassy Suites on Richards Blvd. with pending litigation, and the potential for the Residence Inn on 2nd and Mace.  Both of these projects require council action this October.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Breaking News City of Davis Land Use/Open Space

Tags:

115 comments

  1. Note the nearby low income housing building that sticks out like a sore thumb

    Oh oh, those might be fightin’ words for some of our town’s over sensitive liberals.

        1. Might go as viral as “says who?”  By definition, almost, if you were an “under-sensitive” conservative, you wouldn’t even bother to pick up the spoon!

        2. Well I know of many folk, one of whom I called “Dad”, who were socially liberal, and financially conservative.  They are not diametrically opposed.  Dad opposed a lot of government welfare programs, but was financially extremely supportive of charities that were working to meet the same needs.

        3. LOL, it wasn’t any “under-sensitive conservatives” that stirred things up in the first place, it was the over-sensitive liberals who got their panties all in a twist over a “strangers” reference.

        4. I cry at sad movies, funerals and weddings and am a strong advocate to end all animal and child abuse so I might be just be a hyper-sensitive conservative.

        5. Frankly:  “I cry at sad movies, funerals and weddings and am a strong advocate to end all animal and child abuse so I might be just be a hyper-sensitive conservative.”

          You “might” be Alan Alda. 🙂

  2.  “Because of the existing trees on the greenbelt, there would be minimal impacts,” and notes that the applicant has offered to “plan additional screening trees in the greenbelt” where necessary.  Staff adds that the construction of the four-story buildings, “has the potential of providing a significant sound buffer from freeway noise,” actually reducing the amount of ambient noise for the greenbelt and neighborhood.

    Exactly, having the hotel there probably will enhance the area more than hurt it.  Also on the plus side the 48′ tall building will lessen the appearance of the low income housing sticking out like a sore thumb.

    1. BP

      having the hotel there probably will enhance the area more than hurt it.”

      Your comment reminds me of Frankly telling me that in his opinion, I would like Davis even more if it were bigger.  This is a clear projection of his preferences and has absolutely nothing to do with what I would like more. While you might find the area “enhanced” by a hotel, can you at least accept that this might not be the opinion of the people living next to it ?

      1. Tia, it’s my opinion, just as you they are allowed their opinion too.  Who said that I do not accept their opinion?  I might not agree with their opinion but they’re allowed it.  So I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

        1. BP

          I perhaps should not have targeted my comment to this particular post of yours since I see it as a bigger planning problem.

          My point is that when we have these discussions about planning, there is frequently a polarization of views. Instead of truly considering the point of view of the other, there is often a first tendency to tell the other person that they are wrong rather than genuinely trying to view the issue from their perspective.

          In recent conversation this was made clear when a clearly well meaning project proponent said ( paraphrased) that the neighbors were just coming up with more and more objections which approaches the argument that we have seen here many times, “they are just throwing up a bunch of stuff to see what will stick”. This dismissive attitude fails to take into account that different individuals within the same neighborhood will almost certainly have different opinions about what the biggest issues are, and some may not come to light until there have been a number of meetings and discussions. This does not mean that the additional objections are not legitimate concerns.

           

        2. Tia, Tia, Tia… when one comes to a negotiation table with reasonable goals of better impact mitigation, then I agree with and support the admonition of anyone attacking or  being dismissive of the concerns of these people.  However, when out of the starting gate the goal is to clearly defeat the project, then it is THEY that have shot the first shot and started the war.  THEY are the ones that have attacked and dismissed those that have the opinion that Davis would benefit from the project.

          Yours is a classic passive-aggressive move…. to be the one doing the attacking and then settle back into a protective victim identity.

  3. I think the staff report did a pretty good job of covering everything.  There is no way that the neighbors can halt all building on the site.  This is lower than what is permitted there and may actually reduce sound from the freeway impacting their homes.   It won’t reduce sunlight.  Similar to the hotel on campus, I think the neighbors will find that it will be a pretty quiet building.  Trees can screen the view of their homes. Even an office building would have windows.   I think the neighbors should start looking for ways to mitigate perceived negative impact, not stage a protest to stop the project.

    1. ryankelly

      There is no way that the neighbors can halt all building on the site. “

      This is a clear red herring statement. I have read nothing put forth by anyone opposing the hotel that states that they want to “halt all building on the site”.

      1. Tia, An office building will have Windows, bring strangers near their neighborhood, have 24 hour operation, etc. I feel that they are trying to delay the inevitable. What they really want is nothing to be built or more residential it seems.   The city needs revenue – manufacturing, big ticket sales, hotel taxes.  This is zoned for commercial.

        1. ryankelly

          First, I truly appreciate your inclusion of the words ” I feel” and “it seems” in your post. It is very refreshing to not hear people who probably have some very genuine concerns being told how they feel and what their motives are. I would respectfully submit that your feelings may be right about some, but may not at all reflect the genuine and specific concerns of others.

          As to the accuracy of the remainder of your post, this depends on the design and types of businesses. There is certainly a possibility that an office building could be designed so as not to have windows facing the neighbors. I doubt a hotel could successfully offer rooms without windows. I do not know of many office based businesses that have the high volume of new patrons coming and going instead of repeat patrons that a hotel would have. Could you provide me with examples of businesses where this would apply ?  I also am unaware of many office based businesses that would be in 24/7 operation with the volume of in and out traffic that a hotel generates. Again, perhaps I just don’t know and you could provide me with examples ?

          I am neither for nor against this project at this time. I am merely attempting to gain insight into people’s views from both sides.

      1. Minor clarification… there are trees (volunteers) within the proposed site that will, indeed, be removed.  They have never been cared for, and I suspect the City arborist had little/no objection to their removal.

        As I recall a few of these were also removed as part of the Davis Diamond site.

    1. Delia, here are the pertinent sections of the Staff Report regarding trees

      Work on the site adjacent to the greenbelt, and construction of the storm drain connection to Albany Avenue (and bicycle path replacement) have the potential to affect trees on the public greenbelt and bicycle connection. The Arborist’s reports make recommendations that should prevent detrimental impacts to the majority of the trees. Five trees (four Canary Pines and a callery pear) are required to be protected as feasible. Because future health of these trees cannot be ensured, the applicant is also required to provide security for compensation to the City’s tree preservation fund if the trees are compromised.

      The majority of the neighborhood comments were provided before the applicant submitted the photosimulations showing the visibility of the proposed project from nearby residences. The hotel structure would have a 42-58 foot setback from the south property line, the greenbelt is approximately sixty-five feet wide in this location, and there is a fence between the greenbelt and the residences. The majority of the homes on this portion of Albany are single-story. Because of the existing trees on the greenbelt, there would be minimal impacts (see photosimulations, Exhibit A13 in application packet). The applicant has offered to plant additional screening trees in the greenbelt where necessary for increased screening which is included as a condition of approval. The ultimate placement of any proposed screening plantings will be subject to review by the City Arborist to ensure that new trees would not be detrimental to the trees that are already on the greenbelt.

      Greenbelt Trees Adjacent to Project Site

      Construction of the Project has the potential to affect trees on the greenbelt south of the site, through impacts to their root system from earthwork, or impacts to their canopy from clearance requirements for fire lane and parking uses. The Tree Preservation, City of Davis Greenbelt Trees, Hyatt House Project report concludes that none of the pruning will negatively impact the health or structure of all but one of the trees, with recommendations to minimize development impacts.

      The following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to greenbelt trees adjacent to the project site (with the exception of Tree #8) to a less than significant level.

      3.  Impact on Greenbelt Trees

      Revise parking lot detail to utilize drain rock rather than AB in between concrete strips.
      Specify on plans to excavate for curb installation with water or air under ISA Certified Arborist supervision. If roots greater than or equal to 2 inches in diameter are encountered, bridge curb over roots allowing space for roots to expand in girth.

      Conduct a meeting to discuss tree preservation guidelines with the Consulting Arborist and all contractors, subcontractors and project managers prior to the initiation of demolition and construction.

      Prior to any demolition activity on site, identify (tagged) trees to be preserved and install tree protection fencing in a circle centered at the tree trunk with a radius equal to the defined tree protection zone (see table) unless otherwise indicated in construction plans. Tree protection fences should be made of chain link with posts sunk into the ground. These fences should not be removed or moved until construction is complete. Avoid soil or above ground disturbances within the fenced area.

      Any pruning required for construction or recommended in this report should be performed by an ISA Certified Arborist or Tree Worker. Pruning for necessary clearance should be the minimum required to build the project and performed prior to demolition by an ISA Certified Arborist.

      Avoid grading, compaction, trenching, rototilling, vehicle traffic, material storage, spoil, waste or washout or any other disturbance within tree protection zones (TPZ’s) outside of drive and parking areas.

      Any work that is to occur within the protection zones of the trees should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

      If roots larger than 1 inch or limbs larger than 3 inches in diameter are cut or damaged during construction, contact Consulting Arborist as soon as possible to inspect and recommend appropriate remedial treatments.

      All trees to be preserved should be irrigated once every week during non-Winter months to uniformly wet the soil to a depth of at least 18 inches under and beyond their canopies.

      Tree #8, a callery pear, 8” Diameter at Breast Height, with fair health and poor structure, would have 50 percent of its foliage removed to provide clearance over the fire lane and parking areas and to correct its poor structure. The arborist report recommended this pruning but did not conclude that tree health would not be compromised. The following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to Tree #8 to a less than significant level.

      4. Impact on Tree #8

      Property owner shall comply with all provisions of Mitigation Measure #3 for Tree #8.

      Property owner shall post a bond or other security for the appraised value of Tree #8 prior to the issuance of building permits, which will be released if the trees are still healthy upon completion of the 18-month monitoring period. The value of any damage to the tree will be taken from the bond and deposited into the City’s tree preservation fund, as established in Section 37.030.070(b) of the Municipal Code.

      Bicycle Connection Trees (West of Project Site)

      The storm drain connection and bicycle path replacement requires construction of a 36-inch trench from Cowell Boulevard to Albany Avenue. Replacing the existing asphalt concrete path with a Portland cement path will bring the facility to City standard, and can be completed with no additional soil compaction beyond the trench required for the storm drain pipe. The storm drain connection and bicycle path replacement have the potential to affect two Chinese tallow trees and four Canary Island Pines. The Greenbelt Tree Preservation, Public Storm Drain, Hyatt House Project report concluded that impacts to the Chinese tallow trees would likely experience a low level of impact, given construction assumptions and compliance with preservation recommendations.

      The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to the Chinese Tallow Trees to a less than significant level.

      5.  Impact on Chinese Tallow Trees

      Conduct a meeting to discuss tree preservation guidelines with the Consulting Arborist and all contractors, subcontractors and project managers prior to the initiation of demolition and construction.

      Prior to any demolition activity on site, identify trees to be preserved and install tree protection fencing in a circle centered at the tree trunk with a radius equal to one foot per inch trunk diameter (outside of paved areas). Tree protection fences should be made of chain link with posts sunk into the ground. These fences should not be removed or moved until construction is complete.

      Pruning for necessary equipment clearance should be the minimum required to build the project and performed prior to demolition by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker.

      Avoid grading, compaction, trenching, rototilling, vehicle traffic, material storage, spoil, waste or washout or any other disturbance within tree protection zones. Any work that is to occur within the protection zones of the trees should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

      If roots larger than 1 inch or limbs larger than 3 inches in diameter are cut or damaged during construction, contact Consulting Arborist as soon as possible to inspect and recommend appropriate remedial treatments.

      All trees to be preserved should be irrigated once every week during non-Winter months to uniformly wet the soil to a depth of at least 18 inches under and beyond their canopies.

      Four Canary Island Pines are located south of the Chinese tallow trees, between the City greenbelt and Albany Avenue. These trees are closer to the proposed storm drain trench and have a greater potential of impacts from the construction. The Greenbelt Tree Preservation, Public Storm Drain, Hyatt House Project report recommended either horizontal bore or preservation of all roots larger than two inches. Neither of these methods has been determined to be practical, due to the constraints of construction in the greenbelt, bike path, and Albany Avenue; the need for the storm drain line to be as straight as possible; and the necessary proximity of the trench to the existing Canary Island Pines.

      The City Arborist is recommending the following mitigation measure to reduce potential impacts to the Canary Island Pines to a less than significant level:

      6.  Impact on Canary Pine Trees

      Compliance with all measures identified in Mitigation Measure #5 for the Chinese tallow trees, above.

      Between November 1 and January 31, and no less than two weeks before trenching for the storm drain in the area of the Canary Island Pines, applicant shall remove the asphalt and prune the roots of the trees within the required three-foot trench area. The path may be closed as necessary with proper notice to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.

      Consulting Arborist shall monitor health of the trees and provide monthly reports to the City of Davis Arborist and Department of Community Development and Sustainability, from the onset of construction in the area through 18 months from completion of construction near the trees.

      Property owner shall post a bond or other security for the appraised value of the Canary Island Pines prior to the approval of improvement drawings for the storm drain and bicycle path replacement, which will be released if the trees are still healthy upon completion of the 18-month monitoring period. The value of any damage to the trees will be taken from the bond and deposited into the City’s tree preservation fund, as established in Section 37.030.070(b) of the Municipal Code.

      Compliance with these mitigation measures will ensure that the impact to on-site, greenbelt, and bicycle path trees is less than significant.

  4. Wonder what the salaries are for the hotel’s housekeeping staff, and wonder how on earth they’ll be able to afford to live in Davis””

    Can we at least get it built first before we wander off into this rabbit hole?”

    That would also not be a planning issue.”

    While I have not yet decided whether I would support or oppose this particular project, I do have a different perspective on Delia’s initial comment.

    I think that now, before a project is built, is precisely when we should be considering the potentially deleterious effects. This is called primary prevention in medicine. Heading off a potentially serious problem before it arises is always preferable to trying to resolve the problem that you have created through lack of attention to the possibility.

    I disagree that this would not be a planning issue. Numbers of car and truck trips in to a particular area of Davis whether those vehicles are carrying hotel guests or whether they are carrying employees or whether they are carrying items necessary to the running of a hotel is certainly relevant to planning on a number of levels. Traffic, parking, and environment will all be affected by whether or not the employees have to commute.

    This focus on the particular project instead of looking at the broader picture of overall community impact is one major problem that I see with our current planning strategies. The developers ( and here I am speaking of all developers not focusing on this group)understandably tend to want to focus narrowly on the benefits of a project. However, if the project brings in $700,000 annually but costs that much or more overall in ways that are not so easy to measure ( long term infrastructure support as in need for road repairs, loss of property value, need for additional housing and thus more projects, environmental degradation …) then little has been gained. However, I seldom see a balanced view that includes the forrest as well as the tree when these projects are put forward.

     

    1. “Possibilities” are one thing.  Likelihoods and probabilities are different.  There is a possibility that one of your patients will be struck by lightning this coming year.  Would your ‘preventative care’ include advising your patient not to be outside when it rains?  “Possibilities” have little, no place in the upcoming deliberations.

    2. OK.  It is possible that the hotel will provide multiple part-time jobs for students at UCD to help with their expenses beyond what is covered by their financial aid.  It’s possible that someone needs these kinds of jobs.

      1. ryankelly

        It is possible that the hotel will provide multiple part-time jobs for students at UCD”

        That is a valid point that I had not considered. This is precisely the kind of post that I value much more highly than an opinion on why someone else should not be taken seriously. It is also a point which could be researched to see what percentage of jobs at the Hyatt extended stay hotels are part time. This is a valid question for the proponents to investigate and present as it would have the potential to be a big plus for the project.

      2. Ryan wrote:

        > It is possible that the hotel will provide multiple part-time jobs for students at UCD

        Years ago when my friend Beth was a Spanish major at SF State she managed the housekeeping department at a big SF hotel (and got to use her Spanish on the job every day).  I’m sure there are UCD enology and brewing program students that would be happy to get a little extra cash as they shared their knowledge of wine and beer with guests at the hotel bar.

  5. hpierce

    Would your ‘preventative care’ include advising your patient not to be outside when it rains?  “Possibilities” have little, no place in the upcoming deliberations.”

    The answer to your question is “it depends”. If my patient is going to be here in Davis in the time frame relevant to my counseling, the answer is “no”. If she is going to be in the rural area of Arizona outside of Tucson, my answer might be “yes”. I completely disagree that we should not be considering “possibilities”. The key issue is how likely is a “possibility” to become a major factor. For example traffic issues should certainly be taken into account, and worker housing is directly involved in this issue.

    You have touched very well on my main point. I see it as a lack in our planning process not to address the larger pictures and those”possibilities” that we know we will be facing as future problems. You recently took exactly this approach in your opposition to Nishi when you addressed the “possibility” that it would worsen the traffic at the Richards/Olive drive area. Many people opposed the 5th st revision because of the “possibility” that it would worsen traffic when it fact most agree that it has improved. It is precisely the “possibilities” that we need to prioritize and address when we are considering major projects.

     

    1. Tia… I may be wrong, but I highly doubt that I used the term “possibility”, as you attribute to me,

       your opposition to Nishi when you addressed the “possibility” that it would worsen the traffic at the Richards/Olive drive area.

      I believe I likely used terms more along the lines of ‘virtual certainty’, ‘extremely likely’, or ‘surely’.  I probably didn’t, but “as sure as God made little green apples” would have captured my professional opinion.  When I discuss traffic studies, I do not use the term ‘possibility’, certainly not without heavy ‘qualification’ of that term.  Good dissembling, though…

  6. hpierce

    I believe I likely used terms more along the lines of ‘virtual certainty’, ‘extremely likely’, or ‘surely’.”

    I do not dispute that those were the words that you used. However, there was not universal agreement with your assessment of the situation. In conversation with one of the Nishi proponents, the valid point was made that with the planned increase of students and the attendant increase in faculty and support staff, traffic was going to worsen at that intersection regardless of the presence or absence of the Nishi project. What you viewed as a “certainty” or “extremely likely” was seen by this individual as an inevitability with or without Nishi. The idea occurred to me that if Nishi were largely populated by UCD students there might even be less impact since the people living at Nishi would not be obligated to make daily car trips onto campus but could ride or walk to both the downtown and campus thereby potentially lessening the car trips through that intersection, not from the present amount, but from the amount that we will inevitably see whether or not Nishi was built.

    My point is that possibilities should be assessed on their likelihood of occurrence just as you are saying, but that each needs to actually be considered, not just pooh-poohed by those who are not facing the direct consequences.

    1. So…if someone having little/no training nor experience in the principles and practices of traffic engineering, expresses a “feeling” that traffic operations would likely improve, despite the data, I should “honor” their feelings and opinions, and respect those?  Sorry, I’m not wired that way.

      As to your Nishi proponent, I’d agree that traffic operations would degrade with or without Nishi, but there is the other matter as to the degree of degradation.  No little distinction.

      1. For the general audience… this is why environmental review of traffic/circulation generally has to consider impacts for scenarios:  project only; existing; existing plus project; future w/o project; future with project.

    2. “My point is that possibilities should be assessed on their likelihood of occurrence just as you are saying, but that each needs to actually be considered, not just pooh-poohed by those who are not facing the direct consequences.”

      I think this is a valid point that you make, yet…

      As to the accuracy of the remainder of your post, this depends on the design and types of businesses. There is certainly a possibility that an office building could be designed so as not to have windows facing the neighbors. I doubt a hotel could successfully offer rooms without windows. I do not know of many office based businesses that have the high volume of new patrons coming and going instead of repeat patrons that a hotel would have. Could you provide me with examples of businesses where this would apply ?  I also am unaware of many office based businesses that would be in 24/7 operation with the volume of in and out traffic that a hotel generates. Again, perhaps I just don’t know and you could provide me with examples ?

      Are you not Pooh-poohing the validity of ryankelly’s statement? There are no restrictions against what he described in the zoning regulations, so you cannot say that the situation is not an accurate assessment of what could happen. Yet, that is exactly what you do.

      The site is zoned commercial. As the staff report says, the hotel is not a dramatic change from the currently allowed situation for the site. The assessment is not the change from the current state (undeveloped) but from the developed state as allowed within the current zoning.

      1. hpierce

        if someone having little/no training nor experience in the principles and practices of traffic engineering, expresses a “feeling” that traffic operations would likely improve, despite the data, I should “honor” their feelings and opinions, and respect those?  Sorry, I’m not wired that way.”

        Where this comment is lacking is that you have made the assumption that the individual I referenced was opinin