A special meeting of the Davis Planning Commission at 8 am, out on the greenbelt near the site, served as an opportunity for the developers of the Hyatt House hotel, along Cowell Boulevard next to Davis Diamonds, to unveil a plan they hope will quell neighborhood concerns about privacy. Meanwhile, a small contingent of neighbors continued to speak out against the hotel location.
It was an impressive demonstration, as the developers strung balloons decked out in red, white and blue – with red representing the third and fourth story windows in an effort to illustrate the level of privacy or lack thereof. The developers then hired a professional drone pilot to traverse the extent of the hotel along the third and fourth story window levels to show the extent to which an individual can see into the homes and backyards of residents.
But the biggest part of the day was the unveiling of a new plan that will hopefully, at least partially, screen the homes of neighbors from the windows of the third and fourth story of the hotel.
“We listened, we worked with the developer and we have some possible solutions to take care of what we heard as the primary concern is the privacy issue,” explained Rick Harper, one of the project architect. They calculated the angle from the windows to the fence line in order “to block that view for complete privacy.”
“What we’ve come up with is a screen,” he said. The simple screen looks like a balcony, without the ability for the hotel guests to walk onto it. It looks like any hotel balcony but “what it is, is a screen floating out there that blocks both your views from here so you can’t see in the rooms and from the rooms you can’t see the neighbors’ yards or their windows.”
He explained, “We’re offering that as a way to help resolve or mitigate the visual privacy issue with or without trees. I think trees are something nice that should be maintained, but this really gives you almost a 100 percent protection for your visual privacy.”
He reiterated, “We listened and we’re trying to respond to your concerns.”
The Commission during public comment heard from a number of the neighbors prior to the presentation by the developers.
Former Mayor Maynard Skinner, who is not a neighbor, spoke out against the project, noting that historically they always kept the hotels near the downtown. Most of them are within walking distance of the downtown, but this one is far enough “that I just don’t think many people will walk to the downtown. I don’t know why the DDBA and the Chamber of Commerce went for this because they are going to go to the shopping center to the west or Mace Blvd.”
He added that this is only going to add to congestion along Richards Boulevard.
Neil Nhanowa, who lives on nearby Donovan Court, speaking as one of the leaders of the neighborhood asked the Planning Commission to “really take a step back and look at this as a community not today, but at 10, 11, or 2 in the morning – think about the noise impacts of the parking lot immediately on the other side of this fence would do to you, if you were a neighbor.”
He noted, “One of the main concerns of some of our neighbors is long term, should this be the only privacy screen we have, should something happen to the trees that inkling of privacy is diminished.”
“We’ve heard in the Planning Commission last week that safety is an issue,” he said. “I don’t think you can talk to one neighbor and they feel that this area is unsafe. A building that fits within current zoning isn’t going to alter the safety – it’s actually going to have better impacts for us given that it’s not 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”
Alisa Burnett expressed concerns about the trees, noting that 9 of 23 trees show signs of trees under stress. “That’s nearly half of these trees that are showing signs of problems,” she explained. “The idea that we’re going to have a privacy screen that is based on living things that are impacted by many different diseases… it’s irresponsible to think that they’ll never die and what happens if they do die – we get a 15-gallon sapling – that takes the next twenty years to improve our privacy screen.”
She concluded these “trees are not healthy enough, we need something better to preserve our right to privacy.”
Later in the meeting, City Arborist Rob Cain told the neighbors that, like any living thing, the trees are eventually going to die. He noted that “this area is an area that’s not maintained as meticulously as other places as it is a greenbelt area.”
He described the trees as being in “fair to good health.” He added, “The structural problems are due mainly to planting large trees too close together.” He noted, “Trees need light, they’re going to try to grow towards the light, so you’re going to have disfigured trees if you try to put a large canopy sized tree in.”
Bridgette Boyd discussed the noise issues. She was concerned about the pool and parking lot’s effects on the neighbors. She quoted the noise ordinance and argued, “I feel it’s a pretty strong argument that having parking stalls, and people hanging out on outdoor patios and a swimming pool right here in the back of these people’s homes is unreasonable noise for the neighborhood.”
Carlos Casillas noted that he lives in the most impacted home, where there are breaks in the tree line and only two deciduous trees with high foliage, leaving his property more open than many along the greenbelt. He noted the ability to see into his bedroom and bathroom windows.
He said he likes the hotel but “it’s just a square trying to fit into a circle.” He said, “great idea, just the wrong place.”
Mr. Casillas took the Vanguard along with Planning Commissioner Cheryl Essex into his home so we could see from his perspective.
The Planning Commission listened and observed. They will meet next week at their regular time and place to make determinations about this project.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It is the wrong place. Knock down the trash on Olive and put the hotels there.
Quielo, drop it about Olive Drive. We have a community over here, we are not the trailer trash you think we are, and we already have Lincoln 40 tearing down a lot of those homes you are referring to. How about we put the hotel in your neighborhood?
“How about we put the hotel in your neighborhood?” Unfortunately my presence would be a significant deterrent to people staying here. Also a hotel in North Davis would not help the core entertainment district.
I have nothing against Olive and am a big fan of the the cork oaks there. However looking at a map there is no place that is more suitable than Olive. People can reach it without driving into the core and it has easy pedestrian access to both the core and the university. There are two freeway interchanges. BTW, who is the guy in the striped polo? He is not looking too happy.
No… one interchange in vicinity, one off-ramp (that CalTrans keeps trying to get us to close). All traffic (unless you illegally cross the UPRR tracks), from Olive Drive has to go thru the intersection of Richards and Olive.
You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own “facts”….
hpierce wrote:
> one interchange in vicinity, one off-ramp (that CalTrans keeps
> trying to get us to close).
Is there some “reason” that CalTrans wants the “exit only” off ramp at the end of Olive closed?
P.S. To anyone heading west on 80 that wants to go downtown the people that get off at Richards make it through the tunnel before the people that get off at Olive about 90% of the time…
From wikipedia “In the field of road transport, an interchange is a road junction that typically uses grade separation, and one or more ramps, to permit traffic on at least one highway to pass through the junction without directly crossing any other traffic stream. It differs from a standard intersection, at which roads cross at grade. Interchanges are almost always used when at least one of the roads is a controlled-access highway (freeway or motorway) or a limited-access divided highway (expressway), though they may occasionally be used at junctions between two surface streets.”
So there two interchanges though both do not allow ingress/egress.
quielo wrote:
> BTW, who is the guy in the striped polo? He is not looking too happy.
I was thinking it might be Grok…
LMAO
If you ever have the misfortune to be on trial and you see that striped shirt guy in the jury, you might want to talk deal with the prosecutor.
Yes.
The comment from CalTrans has appeared in all (or nearly all) comments made on environmental documents that they get a chance to review, since the early 90’s. The comment is generally faxed to the city, literally less than 1 hour before the comment closing period.
Jeffery Pulverman, @ CalTrans, would be the best one to explain the reason, but I assure you, it exists, at least according to JP.
That is Herman Boschken, a regular member of the planning commission.
“That is Herman Boschken” Thank you.
During the Nishi process, when the I-80 Richards Interchange tight diamond upgrades were being discussed, the question of the CalTrans desire to permanently close the Olive Drive interchange as a prerequisite to their approving (and partially funding) the project came up (particularly germane to the Nishi developer’s pledge of construction timing constraints). Given my bias toward doing due diligence, I went through the various Olive Drive EIR documents accessible on the City website, and the historical pattern of the comments from Cal Trans was there for all to see.
Mr. Braverman was not available to talk to directly, so I spoke to one of my other contacts who is intimately familiar with CalTrans’ past and current thoughts on the Olive Drive exit. He confirmed that they absolutely do want to close it, mostly because the distance betwwen the Olive ramp and the Richards ramp is less than half a mile, which violates CalTrans’ minimum separation standards.
My contact also said that the CalTrans comments in the past were filed in order “to be on the record” with a historical paper trail, so that when a time came where CalTrans had increased “leverage” because of their ability to hold back both State of California funding and Federal funding for a project that Davis wanted, they could “bring out the sledge hammer.”
With you Odin.
Not to mention more hotels on Olive only add to the traffic issues at “the worst intersection in Davis”.
Ridiculous idea.
Odin, gentrification once again rears its ugly head. Olive drive residents referred to as “trash.” People at a different income level looking down their noses. Hotel that charges $250. per night, (seasonal rate), trying to sell itself to a community by ignoring the lower to mid income residents, who will get no benefit. Unless they want to apply for a low paid job. A job that won’t allow maids & desk clerks to live in the community where they work. One word. Gentrification.
This isn’t some video game, the developers are tied to a specific location. They can’t just move to another spot randomly.
That is what zoning is for
It only takes three votes to re-zone.
Truer words . . . . . Just ask Maynard, who will soon have the Mission Monstrosity towering over his backyard due to the above stated F-y’all reality of Davis.
The developers are only tied to this lot because this is the lot they chose to purchase. It is not the cities fault if they bought a lot that is not zoned for the intended use.
Strangely enough, there is no zoning change request here. Instead they are requesting to amend the general plan to allow for hotels at double the density for all like zoned properties in all of Davis.
They are also requesting to Rewrite the South Davis Specific Plan to do away with the landscaping requirements around parking lots for South Davis.
Either of these 2 requested changes on its own is a massive over reach to approve a single project.
Grok said . . . “Instead they are requesting to amend the general plan to allow for hotels at double the density for all like zoned properties in all of Davis.
They are also requesting to Rewrite the South Davis Specific Plan to do away with the landscaping requirements around parking lots for South Davis.
Either of these 2 requested changes on its own is a massive over reach to approve a single project.”
Grok, I agree with your final paragraph 100% these two General Plan changes, which are external to the hotel project application should be removed by Staff.
With that said, you use the pronoun “They” three times in your comment (I have bolded two of them above). “They” is frequently a non-specific reference. Your use of “they” in your first paragraph clearly is referencing the developers. Who are you referring to when you say “they” in the other two instances that I’ve copied and pasted above?
Your absolutely right Matt, my apologies for the ambiguity. I am not certain what the developers requested of staff regarding these, but both the changes to the General Plan and the Changes to the South Davis Specific plan were recommended by staff so it is fair to say “they” can be read as staff in these 2 cases.
All the information I have is consistent with what Grok has said, the two General/Specific Plan changes were not requested by the applicants. They were (to the best of my knowledge) formulated by Staff and tacked onto as appendages to the processing of the project-specific application. As I have said before, if either of these two recommended changes to the General Plan and the South Davis Specific Plan have sufficient merit to be implemented, they need to be scheduled on a future Council Agenda as focused items of their own, with a Staff Report specific to them and an opportunity for the citizens/residents to make public comment that is focused.
I have a further concern, which is my belief that tacking these two recommended changes onto the project evaluation opens the project up to a CEQA “failure of process” lawsuit. The EIR does not address the issues associated with either of these two changes. Do we really need another CEQA lawsuit? Staff should withdraw these two recommendations. The applicant should insist on the withdrawal of these two recommendations. The possibility that either the Planning Commission or City Council have to weigh in on these recommendations as part of the project deliberation process should be removed.
I hope I have made my thoughts clear on this issue.
Matt – I agree with your assessment.
The more I look at this project the clearer it is it is just to large for the small lot.
Because the lot is so small they have to build the hotel directly perpendicular to the homes.
Because the lot is so small they have put the parking lot all the way up to the property line next to the green belt.
Because the lot is so small there is no room for any landscaping between the hotel and the green belt.
Because the lot is to small they have to rely on the City owned trees in the city green belt as mitigation, leaving the city with future bills for Maintenance.
Because the lot is to small the hotel can’t plant trees to provide a green screen.
Because the lot is to small there has been not attempt to mitigate the effects of the hotel on the green belt.
Because the lot is to small the trees on the green belt have to be drastically trimmed to make room for the new parking lot.
Because the lot is to small they are proposing to amend the general plan to allow for increased density for all similar lots in the city of Davis.
Because the lot is to small they are asking to rewrite the South Davis Specific plan to get rid of landscape requirements around parking lots.
One thing that would lessen almost everyone of these negative effects caused by the small lot is to put the parking under the hotel.
The lot really isn’t that small – it’s just long and thin. Nevertheless the graphic demonstrates that the project fits alright in the lot.
“Because the lot is to small they are proposing to amend the general plan to allow for increased density for all similar lots in the city of Davis.”
That’s going to probably happen regardless because the city needs the density for whatever it decides to do as long as Measure R is the rule.
Clearly you have not read the proposal Chamber Fan. The proposed change to the general plan adds hotels at double the current allowable density to the business park designation but it does not change the density for any other project. So your argument is only valid if you are talking about building hotels.
Yes the lot is thin and that is certainly part of the problem. As I have described above the small size of the lot causes a cascade of problem because the Hotel is just to big for the small thin lot.
As we’d say in Lincolnshire,”Rhymes with full kit!”
Don, you really need to fumigate for trolls.
With balloons blowing in the wind, drones flying overhead and Maynard not being happy with the smell of this project his band performed one of their hits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4j7ggZqbiU