Residents press for model transparency, flag parking and density concerns

Multiple residents used the workshop public‑comment period to question the consultants' assumptions and request greater transparency in the financial modeling used to justify potential code changes.

"We cannot create demand," said Mark Hoey, urging caution about relying on high‑end hotel assumptions. He and others said the model is built on hypothetical land values and that the city should not assume premium room rates or demand without an attraction strategy. "Putting higher‑end hotels out there doesn't automatically mean we're going to have a flurry of people," Hoey said.

Sarah Pennington asked why consultants' alternative concept changed height and FAR before exploring parking flexibility. "Why didn't that alternative concept move the parking lever first?" she asked. West Evans and multiple commenters recommended the city study options to reduce building parking requirements (for example, a city garage) and to run scenarios using the consultants' model. Several speakers asked for drawings or visualizations (renderings) to help residents understand the scale of proposed changes.

Public commenters also pushed for access to the consultant model or full disclosure of assumptions. Grant Smith urged the commission to demand the model inputs for peer review because the city paid for the professional work. "Anytime a predictive model is not transparent... we need to beware," he said.

The public pressure shaped later discussion on the PD enabler about whether to move forward immediately, to set numerical guardrails, or to hold more workshops for public review and clarity.