AMERICAN TIN CANNERY ASPIRATIONS ON HOLD
Hotel project waits for a Coastal Commission hearing
More than a year has passed since plans to revitalize Pacific Grove's American Tin Cannery building were put on hold by the California Coastal Commission. In the interim, updates – at least in the public eye – have been few. Instead, it's been months of silence from stakeholders and continued economic downturn for the hefty piece of ATC real estate.
The seemingly slow-moving interlude begs the question: what's been going on behind closed doors?
In short, not much, say many associated with the venture. But project developers are hoping headway is on the horizon. Meanwhile, a recent message from the Coastal Commission indicates there could soon be some progress.
Maybe.
Dialogue, finally
It was just over four years ago that El Segundo-based company Comstock Homes expressed initial interest in replacing the longbeleaguered outlets housed at Pacific Grove's American Tin Cannery building with a hotel. That vision ultimately matured into plans to redevelop the roughly 6.2-acre site (the ATC space plus a would-be vacated section of
Sloat Avenue) into a 225-room, two-wing hotel. Plans also include 10,968 square feet of accompanying retail space.
After a belabored process of community debate, project revisions and pushback from lower city bodies, the Pacific Grove City Council OK'd moving ahead with Comstock's proposal on a 6-1 vote in January 2022. Less than a month later, however, the Coastal Commission intervened and pressed pause on the endeavor.
The holdup came from a pair of commissioners within the state agency, who appealed the City Council's previous approval of the hotel project for reasons ranging from water availability – or lack thereof – to public access problems. The move stayed the City Council's decision and halted any progress on the project until it could be reviewed by the entire Coastal Commission in an appeal hearing.
A date for that hearing still has not been set. But hopes of seeing the matter snag a spot on the agency's monthly meeting agenda this calendar year aren't entirely unfounded.
In an email sent to The Herald on Feb. 17, Coastal Commission spokesperson Noaki Schwartz said, “We hope to bring this project to an upcoming Commission hearing, perhaps in the summer.” Schwartz also said that Commission staff are “currently reviewing project materials recently submitted to us by the Ap
plicant.”
Debra Geiler, Comstock vice president of entitlements and acquisitions, likewise pointed to momentum as of late, though progress, she said, has mainly been the small victory of establishing a line of communication with the Coastal Commission, a deceivingly difficult task.
According to Geiler, conversation between Comstock and the Coastal Commission was at a standstill from the agency's late January 2022 appeal through almost the end of the year. It wasn't until a few months ago that the two parties started a meaningful dialogue.
“We've only been in active conversation since about November,” Geiler explained. “That's when we really started to get into a dialogue with Commission staff about (their) issues (with our project).”
The late start to consistent communication was reportedly due to Commission staff being stretched too thin both Geiler and city officials said. Coastal Commission staff have also previously communicated to The Herald having staffing constraints and little to no spare time over the past year. Geiler added that she understands the challenges of capacity limits and how that can cause delays. What she didn't anticipate was sparse communication in the meantime.
“I know that these things can take time,” she said. “I've worked with the Commission in the past. I know that they are short-staffed, and I knew it could take a year or more. But I think the biggest challenge is that it hasn't been a year of dialogue. That's the part that's been surprising.”
Given their communication snags, Geiler is grateful to finally have discussions going over what post-appeal steps to take from here, even if they are early.
“There hasn't been a lot of development yet. There's not a lot to report, but we are actively talking now, which is good news,” she said. “At this point, we're trying to work (out) with the Coastal Commission what issues they're focused on and how, within our ability, we can address those issues.”
So what's the rub?
Four key reasons are behind the appeal putting a freeze on Comstock's ATC aspirations: concerns that there's not enough water to support the project, inadequate lower-cost visitor accommodations, obstruction of public views and lack of public access. Qualms, according to the appeal, all raise questions of project consistency with Pacific Grove's Local Coastal Plan. Approved in 2020, Pacific Grove's Coastal Plan governs and essentially allows the city to make its own decisions about development within a state-designated Coastal Zone. The proposed ATC project falls in that zone.
To tackle unease, Geiler said Comstock is looking for some more direction on what exactly the commissioners behind the appeal – Caryl Hart and Linda Escalante – cite as wrong with the proposed project in ongoing and future conversations with Coastal Commission staff.
So far, most strides have been made regarding lowcost accommodations, Geiler said. In their appeal, Hart and Escalante argued that accommodations initially offered by Comstock in project plans fell short of a Coastal Commission goal to help provide access to the coast, regardless of income, a mission that's echoed in Pacific Grove's Coastal Plan.
In Comstock's latest exchange with Commission staff, Geiler said they've sent “a number of proposals” for new low-cost accommodation possibilities to consider. Geiler is hoping staff reach out with feedback on Comstock's ideas within the next couple of weeks. She did not offer any more detail as to what suggestions entailed.
“What I will say is that we're proud of what we've
come up with,” she said.
There's less to relay about matters of public views and public access. Hart and Esclante's appeal argues that redeveloping the ATC building into a 225-room hotel would “oversubscribe the site with development that does not appear to maintain community character.” It also maintains that the project does not provide enough public amenities and would actually reduce public access in some respects. Asked if there's progress on these points, Geiler said she's
waiting on more feedback from Commission staff.
As for water, whether there's really an issue is up for debate.
“Long-term water supply”
Hart and Escalante's worries with water come down to a stipulation within Pacific Grove's Coastal Plan that a development like Comstock's proposed hotel is only allowed if “it is clearly demonstrated that the development will be served by an adequate
and sustainable longterm water supply.” Hart and Escalante don't think that's been proven in this case.
“Sustainable potable water sources are increasingly precious and limited resources in the state, and it is no different in Pacific Grove,” their appeals reads. They later point to a 2009 moratorium slapped on Cal Am for illegal pumping of the Carmel River, which prohibits any new or intensified water service for development on the Monterey Peninsula.
But Comstock maintains that its ATC hotel project would not require any new or intensified water use beyond what is already allotted for the site. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District – the permitting authority for the project – concurs.
David Stoldt, general manager for the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, said Comstock first approached the district with its ATC project plan in 2018. At that time, Stoldt informed the developers that their project, between the number of rooms and other mixed-use spaces it involved, would likely exceed the site's established water capacity of 18.53 acre-feet per year. That is, if the project's water demand was evaluated under traditional factors set by the district. But that wasn't the only method for evaluation.
Stoldt offered an alternative for “special circumstances” wherein those traditional factors for water permitting would not apply. Instead, Comstock had to put forth innovative design plans and construction methods that allowed their post-project water capacity to stay within that 18.53 acre-feet limit. According to Stoldt, Comstock met those requirements.
“We said that if they came to us with a feasibility study that shows specific technology or approaches to the project that would help it potentially stay within the water capacity for the site we would move it forward. They did,” Stoldt said.
To save on water, Comstock plans to install waterless urinals, as well as make use of a rainwater and greywater capture and reuse system. Hotel laundry is also proposed to be off-site. With the alterations, a 2020 feasibility study found that the project would utilize 17.91acre feet per year (changes to the project design in September 2021 later reduced that estimated demand to 17.14-acre feet). With that determination, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District lent its support to Comstock.
Stoldt added that under the special circumstances allowed to the developers, the project, once built, will be subject to a five-year monitoring period. During that time, the hotel and accompanying retail space will have to report its annual water usage to the district. If it does not fall within the 18.53-acre feet credit, changes – such as retrofits – would be in store.
Clarifying what that 18.53 limit means, Stoldt said the ATC building's water capacity was determined by looking at historical use of the site over time.
“Essentially, we went into the Tin Cannery site years ago and we, in effect, eval