Holman Hotel and Measure F
Postcard of the old El Carmelo Hotel
I support hotel use for the Holman block, but I am opposed to Measure F because the rezoning would allow a building that's too big for the site.
The new height limit of 75’ and site coverage allowance of 100% would permit construction of a building, whether a hotel or something else, that would be out of scale with the rest of downtown. I agree that the current restrictions do need to be amended (the existing Holman Building exceeds them), but not so radically.
What the Council should have done is put the rezoning measure on the ballot for a special election, after a full EIR on a specific hotel project is completed. That way the zoning amendments would be tailored to what is necessary for the project, and the voters would know exactly what they are voting on. The Council was given this option in August, but decided instead (I dissented) on a November ballot measure that would create this expansive zoning, counting on other mitigations and processes to ensure an ultimate outcome different from what the zoning would allow.
I believe that a hotel would be a good use for the Holman block. That was its original use, and in 1994 the voters rezoned the block specifically to permit hotel use again. However, it has to be the right hotel, appropriate to the site. I believe a small hotel in place of the current antique mall would greatly enhance downtown and contribute significantly to our local economy and city tax revenues without having a negative impact on the character of downtown or our quality of life.
If Measure F passes, I will push hard for a project that is consistent with the vision of a small downtown hotel that voters had in mind when they decided to rezone the block for hotel use in 1994. If it fails, I hope we can work with the developer to continue the dialogue and come up with a new plan that the community will support and a new zoning measure specific to that plan.
The new height limit of 75’ and site coverage allowance of 100% would permit construction of a building, whether a hotel or something else, that would be out of scale with the rest of downtown. I agree that the current restrictions do need to be amended (the existing Holman Building exceeds them), but not so radically.
What the Council should have done is put the rezoning measure on the ballot for a special election, after a full EIR on a specific hotel project is completed. That way the zoning amendments would be tailored to what is necessary for the project, and the voters would know exactly what they are voting on. The Council was given this option in August, but decided instead (I dissented) on a November ballot measure that would create this expansive zoning, counting on other mitigations and processes to ensure an ultimate outcome different from what the zoning would allow.
I believe that a hotel would be a good use for the Holman block. That was its original use, and in 1994 the voters rezoned the block specifically to permit hotel use again. However, it has to be the right hotel, appropriate to the site. I believe a small hotel in place of the current antique mall would greatly enhance downtown and contribute significantly to our local economy and city tax revenues without having a negative impact on the character of downtown or our quality of life.
If Measure F passes, I will push hard for a project that is consistent with the vision of a small downtown hotel that voters had in mind when they decided to rezone the block for hotel use in 1994. If it fails, I hope we can work with the developer to continue the dialogue and come up with a new plan that the community will support and a new zoning measure specific to that plan.
PG's Proper Role in Regional Water Issues
I don’t believe the City of Pacific Grove should be in partnership with a private developer on a regional desalination project. We don’t have staff with the time or technical expertise to responsibly manage such an undertaking, no matter how many outside consultants are hired at the developer’s expense. Given all that has happened in recent years, there can be no doubt that this is a risky and litigious business where everything takes longer and costs more than planned, and iron-clad contracts don’t stop people from filing lawsuits. We simply can’t afford to assume those kinds of risks.
As a matter of policy, if a public partner is required for a regional project, it should be an agency that is representative of the public served by the project. I believe the only agency that meets that definition is the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Our city certainly does not.
We should continue to be fully engaged in working with other jurisdictions on regional solutions to this regional problem. We could be more effective in that role if we were not involved unilaterally in one of the contending projects.
As a matter of policy, if a public partner is required for a regional project, it should be an agency that is representative of the public served by the project. I believe the only agency that meets that definition is the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Our city certainly does not.
We should continue to be fully engaged in working with other jurisdictions on regional solutions to this regional problem. We could be more effective in that role if we were not involved unilaterally in one of the contending projects.
Pension Funding
The pension problem is actually multiple problems. It’s a long-term debt problem, a subject of contract negotiations with employees, a matter of current litigation, and a basic policy issue at both the local and state levels. We need to continue working on it at all those levels.
This is the most serious financial challenge the City has faced in my memory, and if there’s ever been a time we have to work together on constructive solutions this is it. I reject the notion that the council should exclude the city manager and city attorney from the discussion. I also believe that attempting to undo the 2002 ordinance that authorized 3% at 50 would be unsuccessful, costly, and wrong.
Others feel differently, which is as it should be, giving us something to debate. Unfortunately, when it comes to this issue there’s been a tendency not to debate but to demonize people, including current and former city managers and city attorneys. That accomplishes nothing and interferes with accurate fact-finding, careful analysis and rational problem-solving.
This is the most serious financial challenge the City has faced in my memory, and if there’s ever been a time we have to work together on constructive solutions this is it. I reject the notion that the council should exclude the city manager and city attorney from the discussion. I also believe that attempting to undo the 2002 ordinance that authorized 3% at 50 would be unsuccessful, costly, and wrong.
Others feel differently, which is as it should be, giving us something to debate. Unfortunately, when it comes to this issue there’s been a tendency not to debate but to demonize people, including current and former city managers and city attorneys. That accomplishes nothing and interferes with accurate fact-finding, careful analysis and rational problem-solving.
