Agenda packet — Seaside City Council, September 17, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

PROJECT LOCATION
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE

TITLE SHEET
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
A1.0

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
A1.0 TITLE SHEET
A2.0 EXISTING SITE PLAN
A2.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A2.2 EXISTING / DEMO GARAGE
A2.3 PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLAN
A2.4 PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR DIMENSION PLAN
A2.5 PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN
A2.6 PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR DIMENSION PLAN
A2.7 UPPER FLOOR ROOF PLAN
A3.1 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL
A4.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A4.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A5.0 SECTION 1
A5.1 SECTION 2
E1 ELECTRICAL PLAN - LOWER FLOOR
E2 ELECTRICAL PLAN - UPPER FLOOR

BMP CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGMENT

PRACTICES

PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT TEAM

AREAS SUMMARY

DRAWING LIST

YOSEMITE RESIDENCE CODE COMPLIANCE

ADDRESS

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER

LOT SIZE

USE TYPE

CONSTRUCTION TYPE
1828 YOSEMITE ST, SEASIDE,
CA 93955
012621034000
7,200 SF (0.165 ACRES)

RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
V-B
OWNER

ARCHITECT/ENGINEER

PETER MACIEL

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

VICINITY MAP

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11.

12. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND/OR OBTAIN ALL BUILDING PERMITS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF SAFETY DURING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SHORING AND BRACING TO ENSURE SAFETY.

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES.

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, CONCRETE OR MASONRY, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

ALL DIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS TO BE FIELD VERIFIED AND SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.

IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR NOT, AND TO PROTECT THEM FROM DAMAGE.

DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND PRIOR TO THE INCORPORATION OF ANY CHANGES, REVISIONS,

MODIFICATIONS, AND/OR DEVIATIONS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, CONTRACTOR

SHALL BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT AND SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE GOVERNING BUILDING OFFICIAL BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

THE MANUFACTURERS, PRODUCTS AND EQUIPMENT LISTED ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS. SUBSTITUTIONS OF EQUAL PERFORMANCE MAY BE SUBMITTED FOR THE ARCHITECT’S APPROVAL.

ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS/SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

SPECIFIC NOTES AND DETAILS ON DRAWINGS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL NOTES AND TYPICAL DETAILS. WHERE NO DETAILS ARE SHOWN, CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO SIMILAR WORK ON THE PROJECT.

PROPOSED COLOR AND MATERIALS WILL MATCH EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE. ROOF W/ RED CLAY SHINGLE ACCENTS. TAN STUCCO EXTERIOR SIDING. DARK BROWN WINDOW FRAMES WITH BLACK ACCENTS. BLACK EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES.

1. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES AND REGULATIONS, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:
2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE

UPPER FLOOR ADDITION, ADU ADDITION AND

GARAGE RELOCATION
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
1648.71
1183.27 SF
1571.97 SF
391.11 SF*
178.08 SF
210.62 SF
2013.59 SF
1442.34 SF
234.15 SF
337.10 SF
3585.56 SF
2570.85 SF
1183.27 SF
0 SF (NET AREA: 391.11 - 440 EXEMPTION*)
388.7 SF
998.88 SF

7.200 SF

35.71%
*Per City Comment, the first 440 SF of the attached garage are excluded from the coverage/floor area calculation.

EXISTING
[E] FLOOR TO REMAIN
PROPOSED (1ST FLOOR)
[P] GARAGE RELOCATION
[N] FLOOR ADDITION (MAIN HOUSE)
[N] FLOOR ADDITION UNIT
[N] SECOND FLOOR
FLOOR

BALCONY
DECK
TOTAL

PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE
[E] FLOOR TO REMAIN
[P] GARAGE
[N] FIRST FLOOR ADDITION
[E] DRIVEWAY (MODIFIED)

LOT SIZE

COVERAGE PERCENTAGE

SCOPE OF WORK
Remodel Main House with an ADU and
2nd floor addition, relocate and connect
detached garage, add 2nd story deck
above garage.

PROPOSED COLORS AND MATERIALS

AREA SCHEDULE
Name Area Level
B. BEDROOM 1 137.03 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

B.HALLWAY 75.23 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

B. CLOSET 2 13.86 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

B. CLOSET 1 12.68 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

B.WC 27.37 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

HALLWAY 108.45 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

DINNING 62.66 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

KITCHEN 88.51 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

LIVING ROOM 256.11 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

B. BEDROOM 2 98.76 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

B.BATHROOM 2 103.31 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

GARAGE 391.11 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

B. KITCHEN 102.36 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

B. LIVING ROOM 169.43 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

DECK 219.76 SF MAIN HOME F.F.

BEDROOM 1 242.64 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
BEDROOM 2 209.06 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
BATHROOM 1 90.02 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
BEDROOM 3 148.53 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
BEDROOM 4 146.18 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
BATHROOM 2 59.55 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
HALLWAY 2 209.17 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
CLOSET 34.85 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
DECK 337.10 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
CLOSET 3 14.79 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
CLOSET 2 12.94 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
Room 3.10 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
LIVING ROOM 2 261.14 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
CLOSET 10.37 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN
BALCONY 1 234.15 SF PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN

SITE COVERAGE

ARIA RAILING - PREASSEMBLED

ALUMINUM, BLACK POWDER
COATED.

CHIASSO ALUMINUM 1-LIGHT

BLACK DARK SKY CYLINDER

OUTDOOR WALL LANTERN

TIMBERLINE HDZ CHARCOAL

ALGAE RESISTANT LAMINATED

HIGH DEFINITION SHINGLES
ENHANCE BASICS 1IN. X 6 IN. X
1FT. CLAM SHELL COMPOSITE

DECK BOARD SAMPLE - GREY

GUARDRAIL

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

ROOFING DECKING

EXTERIOR
STUCCO/PAINT: [N] EXTERIOR STUCCO:

SAKRETE SCRATCH & BROWN W/ BEHR
PREMIUM #MS-66 NEW ENGLAND GRAY
FINISH.

WINDOWS
MILGARD C700 SERIES FIBERGLASS WINDOWS -
COLOR: STEEL GREY.

DECK POST
BEHR PREMIUM - #SC-102 SLATE GRAY

SOLID COLOR WATERPROOFING EXTERIOR

WOOD STAIN AND SEALER
Packet Page 780
[E] ONE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
1,170 SQFT
G
W
[E] GARAGE
[E] SIDEWALK

YOSEMITE ST

8.00" 6.00"
E
[E] PLANTER
[E] CONCRETE
120' - 0"
60' - 0"60' - 0"
120' - 0"
10' - 4" 8' - 7 3/16"
32' - 0" 5' - 5 1/16" 16' - 0 15/16" 6' - 6"
20' - 0"
22' - 1 9/16"
8' - 0 1/16"
20' - 0 3/4"
3' - 0"
12' - 6 1/2"
11' - 0" 0' - 6" 8' - 7 3/16"
20' - 1 3/16"
35' - 6 13/16"
7' - 9 1/8"
4' - 7 3/8"
7' - 1"
6' - 11 5/8"
7' - 10"
38' - 4 5/16"
20' - 1 3/16"
22' - 6 15/16"
[E] SIDEWALK
[E] DECK
[E] DRIVEWAY
[E] PAVERS
4' - 7"
21' - 1 7/8" 6' - 11 3/8"
[E] PAVERS ON SAND/AGGREGATE BASE.

PERVIOUS SURFACE - EXCLUDED FROM
COVERAGE CALCS.

EXISTING BUILDING

EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED

PROPOSED BUILDING

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK LINE

OUTLINE OF ROOF OR BALCONY ABOVE

CENTERLINE OF PUBLIC ROAD

EXISTING SEWER MAIN

EXISTING WATER MAIN

EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL

ACCESSIBLE PATH
TW
BW
EG
FG
FFE
ROW
TYP
UNO
CL
EL
WM
SW

SITE PLAN LEGEND
WGE

TOP OF WALL

BOTTOM OF WALL

EXISTING GRADE

FINISHED GRADE

FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION

RIGHT OF WAY

TYPICAL

UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

WATER METER

GAS METER

ELECTRICAL PANEL

SEWER CLEANOUT

SEWER CLEANOUT
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE

EXISTING SITE PLAN
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
A2.0

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
3/16" = 1'-0"
1 EXISTING SITE PLAN
N
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
Packet Page 781
G
W [E] SIDEWALK

YOSEMITE ST
0' - 8" 0' - 6"
E
[E] PLANTER
120' - 0"
60' - 0"
43' - 6 7/16"
7' - 0 5/8"
22' - 1 5/8"
6' - 2 3/8"
19' - 11 3/4"
3' - 0"
178.08 SF

ADDITION
1ST
FLOOR
18' - 11"
6' - 6 1/2"
(P) GARAGE
391.11 SF
210.62 SF

ADDITION
1ST FLOOR
20' - 1 3/16"
10' - 4"
8' - 1 5/8"
37' - 4 15/16"
37' - 4 1/2"
38' - 1"
32' - 0" 5' - 5 1/16" 6' - 6" 16' - 0 15/16"
60' - 0"
120' - 0"
[E] SIDEWALK
[E] DRIVEWAY
[E] DECK
[E] CONCRETE
22' - 1"
28' - 2"
4' - 7"
7' - 8"
(E) MAIN
HOUSE
8' - 7" 21' - 2"
5' - 0"
TOTAL VEHICLE APPROACH LENGTH = 50'-7" L
(20' REQUIRED MIN)
30' - 7"
20' - 0"

EXISTING BUILDING

EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED

PROPOSED BUILDING

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK LINE

OUTLINE OF ROOF OR BALCONY ABOVE

CENTERLINE OF PUBLIC ROAD

EXISTING SEWER MAIN

EXISTING WATER MAIN

EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL

ACCESSIBLE PATH
TW
BW
EG
FG
FFE
ROW
TYP
UNO
CL
EL
WM
SW

SITE PLAN LEGEND
WGE

TOP OF WALL

BOTTOM OF WALL

EXISTING GRADE

FINISHED GRADE

FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION

RIGHT OF WAY

TYPICAL

UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

WATER METER

GAS METER

ELECTRICAL PANEL

SEWER CLEANOUT

SEWER CLEANOUT
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
A2.1

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
3/16" = 1'-0"
1 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
N
Packet Page 782
2 A4.1
1 A4.1
2 A4.0
13' - 3 11/16"
7' - 7 3/8"
A5.0 / 1A5.0 / 1
A5.0 / 2A5.0 / 2
A5.1 / 1A5.1 / 1A5.1 / 2A5.1 / 2

EXISTING GARAGE DOOR TO BE

CAREFULLY REMOVED, SALVAGED, AND
REINSTALLED IN NEW LOCATION.

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
EXISTING / DEMO GARAGE 1828 YOSEMITE ST
SEASIDE, CA 93955
A2.2

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN (MAIN RESIDENCE)
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
N
Packet Page 783
REF
REF
W/D
12345
15 14 13 12 11 109876
2 A4.1
1 A4.1
1 A4.0
2 A4.0

75.23 SF
B.HALLWAY

13.86 SF
B. CLOSET 2

12.68 SF
B. CLOSET 1

27.37 SF
B.WC
A5.0 / 1A5.0 / 1
A5.0 / 2A5.0 / 2
A5.1 / 1A5.1 / 1
A5.1 / 2A5.1 / 2
108.45 SF

HALLWAY

62.66 SF

DINNING

88.51 SF

KITCHEN
256.11 SF

LIVING ROOM

98.76 SF
B. BEDROOM 2
103.31 SF
B.BATHROOM 2
137.03 SF
B. BEDROOM 1
102.36 SF
B. KITCHEN
169.43 SF
B. LIVING ROOM
219.76 SF
DECK
391.11 SF
GARAGE
[N] 2-BEDROOM ADU
[E] MAIN HOUSE LOWER
D01
D02
D03
D04
D05 D06
D07
D09
D11 D12
W01
W02
W03
D28
W07
38 5' - 0"
W14
W15
D30
W16
20' - 5"
19' - 2"
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN (MAIN RESIDENCE)
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLAN 1828 YOSEMITE ST SEASIDE, CA 93955 A2.3

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
N
MARK OPERATION WIDTH HEIGHTET Fase de creación
D01 DOUBLE SLIDING 6' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D02 DOUBLE SLIDING 6' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D03 MAIN DOOR 3' - 0" 6' - 8" NEW
D04 DOUBLE SLIDING 6' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D05 SWING 3' - 0" 6' - 8" NEW
D06 SWING 2' - 6" 6' - 8" NEW
D07 SWING 2' - 6" 6' - 8" NEW
D09 SWING 2' - 6" 6' - 8" NEW
D11 DOUBLE SLIDING 4' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D12 DOUBLE SLIDING 4' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D28 SWING 6' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D30 GARAGE 16' - 0" 8' - 4" NEW

WINDOW SCHEDULE
MARK STYLE WIDTH HEIGHT Fase de creación
W01 SLIDING DOUBLE 4' - 3" 4' - 8" NEW
W02 SLIDING DOUBLE 5' - 0" 4' - 0" NEW
W03 SLIDING DOUBLE 4' - 0" 3' - 0" NEW
W07 SLIDING DOUBLE 3' - 0" 4' - 0" NEW
W14 FIXED 5' - 0" 2' - 0" NEW
W15 FIXED 5' - 0" 2' - 0" NEW
W16 FIXED 6' - 0" 2' - 0" NEW

DOOR SCHEDULE
Packet Page 784
2 A4.1
1 A4.1
1 A4.0
2 A4.0
A5.0 / 1A5.0 / 1
A5.0 / 2A5.0 / 2
A5.1 / 1A5.1 / 1
A5.1 / 2A5.1 / 2
2' - 4" 3' - 0" 7' - 7" 3' - 0" 9' - 7" 3' - 0" 7' - 11" 36' - 5"
1' - 6" 6' - 0" 10' - 4" 3' - 0" 0' - 10"
21' - 8"
1' - 9" 4' - 0" 1' - 2" 2' - 9" 6' - 0" 1' - 1" 5' - 0" 4' - 8" 19' - 4"
47' - 10"
6' - 10"
28' - 2"
3' - 4" 6' - 0" 1' - 6" 6' - 0" 3' - 1"
19' - 11"
0' - 6"
0' - 1" 5' - 11"
25' - 10"
4' - 7" 3' - 2"
0' - 9" 4' - 3" 7' - 7"
12' - 7"
8' - 5"
27' - 7"
13' - 5" 0' - 4" 13' - 11"
19' - 3"
27' - 7"
0' - 4" 25' - 7" 0' - 5" 13' - 10" 0' - 5" 7' - 1" 0' - 4" 0' - 4" 9' - 7" 0' - 4" 2' - 0" 0' - 5" 1' - 10" 0' - 4" 13' - 2" 0' - 5" 0' - 4" 16' - 9" 0' - 4" 3' - 10" 0' - 5" 5' - 5" 0' - 2" 10' - 4" 0' - 4" 0' - 4" 10' - 7" 0' - 5" 10' - 5" 0' - 4" 0' - 4" 19' - 3" 0' - 4" 6' - 0" 0' - 4" 5' - 1" 0' - 5" 5' - 1" 0' - 5" 6' - 1" 0' - 4" 19' - 1" 0' - 4" 0' - 4" 10' - 6" 20' - 5" 21' - 1"
5' - 0"
20' - 0"
19' - 2"
16' - 2"
2' - 4"
21' - 6"
2' - 7"
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE

PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR

DIMENSION PLAN
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
A2.4

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN DIMENSIONS
N
Packet Page 785
W/D
S/C
146.18 SF
BEDROOM 4 148.53 SF
BEDROOM 3
209.06 SF
BEDROOM 2
242.64 SF
BEDROOM 1

90.02 SF
BATHROOM 1

59.55 SF
BATHROOM 2
337.10 SF
DECK
A5.0 / 1A5.0 / 1
A5.0 / 2A5.0 / 2
A5.1 / 1A5.1 / 1A5.1 / 2A5.1 / 2

12.94 SF
CLOSET 2
261.14 SF
LIVING ROOM 2

10.37 SF
CLOSET
209.17 SF
HALLWAY 2

14.79 SF
CLOSET 3

34.85 SF
CLOSET
234.15 SF
BALCONY 1

SETBACK
8' - 7"
SETBACK 20' - 5"

SETBACK
5' - 0"
D15 D13
D21
D20
D16 D17
D14
D22
D24 D23
D25
D26
D27
D19
D18
W09
W10
W11
W12
W13
D29
W08
16' - 5"
19' - 9"
21' - 5"
16' - 5"
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1828 YOSEMITE ST SEASIDE, CA 93955 A2.5

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
[N] MAIN HOUSE UPPER FLOOR
N
MARK OPERATION WIDTH HEIGHTET Fase de creación
D13 SWING 3' - 0" 6' - 8" NEW
D14 DOUBLE SLIDING 4' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D15 SWING 3' - 0" 6' - 8" NEW
D16 DOUBLE SLIDING 4' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D17 DOUBLE SLIDING 4' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D18 DOUBLE SLIDING 6' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D19 DOUBLE SLIDING 6' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D20 SWING 3' - 0" 6' - 8" NEW
D21 SWING 2' - 6" 6' - 8" NEW
D22 SWING 2' - 6" 6' - 8" NEW
D23 SWING 3' - 0" 6' - 8" NEW
D24 SWING 3' - 0" 6' - 8" NEW
D25 DOUBLE SLIDING 4' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D26 DOUBLE SLIDING 4' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW
D27 SWING 3' - 0" 6' - 8" NEW
D29 MAIN DOOR 6' - 0" 7' - 0" NEW

WINDOW SCHEDULE
MARK STYLE WIDTH HEIGHT Fase de creación
W08 SLIDING DOUBLE 5' - 0" 4' - 8" NEW
W09 SLIDING DOUBLE 5' - 0" 4' - 0" NEW
W10 SLIDING DOUBLE 4' - 0" 3' - 0" NEW
W11 SLIDING DOUBLE 3' - 0" 1' - 6" NEW
W12 SLIDING DOUBLE 5' - 0" 4' - 0" NEW
W13 SLIDING DOUBLE 3' - 0" 4' - 0" NEW

DOOR SCHEDULE
Packet Page 786
28' - 2"
1' - 6" 5' - 0" 11' - 5" 3' - 0" 0' - 8" 1' - 7" 4' - 0" 1' - 4" 9' - 10" 5' - 0" 4' - 7" 21' - 8" 6' - 10" 19' - 4"
47' - 10"
17' - 6" 3' - 0" 17' - 4"
37' - 10"
16' - 5"
3' - 2" 6' - 0" 1' - 6" 6' - 0" 9' - 2" 0' - 6" 5' - 0" 4' - 11" 6' - 0" 5' - 7" 16' - 4" 5' - 7" 25' - 11"
47' - 10"
21' - 6"
19' - 10"
0' - 4" 2' - 5" 0' - 4" 16' - 4" 0' - 4" 9' - 1" 0' - 4" 3' - 5" 0' - 4" 2' - 1" 0' - 4" 12' - 6" 0' - 4" 0' - 5" 12' - 10" 0' - 4" 11' - 3" 0' - 4" 12' - 7" 0' - 4" 0' - 4" 10' - 2" 0' - 4" 2' - 1" 0' - 4" 8' - 7" 0' - 4" 6' - 3" 0' - 4" 2' - 3" 0' - 5" 16' - 5" 0' - 4" 0' - 4" 15' - 0" 0' - 4" 3' - 10" 0' - 4" 3' - 1" 0' - 4" 4' - 10" 0' - 4" 0' - 5" 9' - 2" 0' - 5" 10' - 1" 0' - 4" 9' - 3" 0' - 4" 7' - 8" 0' - 4" 0' - 4" 15' - 0" 0' - 4" 12' - 4" 0' - 4"
0' - 4" 10' - 1" 0' - 4" 19' - 3" 0' - 4"
0' - 4" 21' - 5" 0' - 4"
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE

PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR

DIMENSION PLAN
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
A2.6

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN DIMENSIONS
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
N
Packet Page 787
2 A4.1
1 A4.1
1 A4.0
2 A4.0
41' - 11 1/16"
26' - 1 1/16"
22' - 7 13/16"
9' - 11 3/4"
19' - 5"
32' - 4 5/16"
25' - 11 1/2"
9' - 6 3/4"
2' - 0 11/16"
2' - 0 11/16"
4 55/256" / 12"
4 55/256" / 12"
6" / 12"
6" / 12"
4 171/256" / 12"
4 171/256" / 12"
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
UPPER FLOOR ROOF PLAN 1828 YOSEMITE ST
SEASIDE, CA 93955
A2.7

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 UPPER FLOOR ROOF PLAN
N
Packet Page 788
G
W [E] SIDEWALK

YOSEMITE ST

8.00" 6.00"
E
[E] PLANTER
178.08 SF

ADDITION
1ST
FLOOR
GARAGE
210.62 SF

ADDITION
1ST FLOOR
[E] SIDEWALK
[E] DRIVEWAY
[E] DECK
[E] CONCRETE
(E) MAIN
HOUSE

STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION

ACCESS (ENTRANCE/EXIT)

MATERIAL

DELIVERY &

STORAGE
(COVER WHEN NOT

IN USE)

STAGING AREA

CONCRETE WASTE

MANAGEMENT

TREE PROTECTION FENCE

MAINTAIN EXISTING GRADE WITH THE TREE

PROTECTION FENCE

UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS

PROPOSED SILT FENCE / PERIMETER

SEDIMENT CONTROL
NOTES:

CONCRETE WASHOUT NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A DESIGNATED, LINED WASHOUT AREA FOR CONCRETE, STUCCO, AND PAINT TOOLS. NO

CONCRETE WASTE OR WASHOUT WATER SHALL BE DISCHARGED INTO THE SOIL, STORM DRAINS, OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 1.

1. 1.

EROSION CONTROL PLAN NOTES
THE INTENT OF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN IS TO MINIMIZE ANY WATER QUALITY IMPACTS IN THE FORM OF SEDIMENT POLLUTION TO MAIN CREEK & TRIBUTARIES.

A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WILL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO GRADING. THE LOCATION OF THE ENTRANCE MAY BE ADJUSTED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO FACILITATE GRADING OPERATIONS. ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ENTERING THE PAVED ROAD MUST CROSS THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL STONE AS CONDITIONS DEMAND, AND REPAIR OF ANY MEASURES USED TO CONTROL SEDIMENTS.

WHEN NECESSARY, WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT BASIN. ALL SEDIMENT SHALL BE PREVENTED FROM ENTERING ANY STORM DRAIN, DITCH, OR WATERCOURSE THROUGH THE USE OF SANDBAGS, GRAVEL, BOARDS, OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS.

DURING THE RAINY SEASON, ALL PAVED AREAS WILL BE KEPT CLEAR OF EARTH MATERIAL AND DEBRIS. THE SITE WILL BE MAINTAINED SO THAT A MINIMUM OF SEDIMENT-LADEN RUNOFF ENTERS THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

INSTALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL OVER DISTURBED AREAS UTILIZING STRAW MULCH

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE / GENERAL NOTES
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS). AT A MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING BMPS ARE REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF WEATHER CONDITIONS AND AS APPLICABLE TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES PLANNED. VERIFY ALL OF THE BELOW MEASURES ARE ADDRESSED ON THE ESCP SUBMITTAL, AS APPLICABLE.

WET WEATHER MEASURES. IF POSSIBLE, AVOID LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES DURING THE WET WEATHER SEASON (OCTOBER 15 THROUGH APRIL 15). OTHERWISE, EXTRA BMP MATERIALS (FILTERS, FIBER ROLLS, GRAVEL BAGS, MULCH/STRAW, PLASTIC COVERS) SHALL BE KEPT ON-SITE FOR PRE-RAIN INSTALL.

EXISTING VEGETATION. PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION; AVOID REMOVAL AS REQUIRED AND WHEREVER POSSIBLE. INSTALL APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE FENCING AND PERIMETER CONTROLS PRIOR TO WORK.

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. AS APPLICABLE, SLOPE AND SOIL STABILIZATION BMPS SHALL BE UTILIZED TO PREVENT SLOPE EROSION AND SOIL MOVEMENT ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE. NO SEDIMENT MAY LEAVE THE SITE, BE DEPOSITED OFF-SITE, OR POLLUTE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.

STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT. ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE CONTAINED AND COVERED WHEN NOT ACTIVE AND SECURED AT THE END OF EACH DAY. STOCKPILES SHALL BE SECURELY COVERED OVERNIGHT AND PRIOR TO, DURING, AND AFTER RAIN EVENTS. NO MATERIAL SHALL LEAVE THE SITE OR MOVE INTO THE STREET.

WASTE MANAGEMENT. ALL CONSTRUCTION WASTE SHALL BE CONTAINED AND SECURELY COVERED ON-SITE, INCLUDING TRASH, PAINT, GROUT, AND CONCRETE. ANY WASHOUT FACILITY SHALL BE CONTAINED, MAINTAINED, AND ITS CONTENTS DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. NO MATERIAL SHALL BE WASHED INTO THE STREET.

VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES MUST ENSURE ALL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ARE MAINTAINED IN GOOD WORKING ORDER AND WILL NOT CAUSE DIRT, MUD, OIL, GREASE, OR FUEL TO BE DISCHARGED OR TRACKED OFF-SITE INTO THE STREET. INACTIVE VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT MUST USE COVERS AND/OR DRIP PANS.

DRAIN/INLET PROTECTION & PERIMETER CONTROLS. DRAINS/INLETS THAT RECEIVE STORMWATER MUST BE COVERED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM RECEIVING SEDIMENT, MUD, DIRT, OR ANY DEBRIS AND MUST INCLUDE GUTTER CONTROLS AND FILTRATION WHERE APPLICABLE, IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC OR SAFETY. PROPERLY INSTALLED SILT FENCING OR EQUIVALENT LINEAR CONTROL SHALL BE EVIDENT ALONG THE SITE PERIMETER TO PREVENT MOVEMENT OF SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS OFF-SITE.

SWEEPING. ALL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES (DRIVEWAYS, STREETS) SHALL BE PHYSICALLY SWEPT (NOT WASHED OR HOSED DOWN) AND MAINTAINED FREE OF DEBRIS AND ACCUMULATIONS OF DIRT. NO TRACKING OFF-SITE.

DEWATERING. NO DEWATERING IS ALLOWED FROM CONSTRUCTION SITES UNLESS DISCHARGE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DISCHARGE PROHIBITION PER CITY CODE CH. 31.5-12(C), EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED FOR ASBS DRAINAGES. ANY PROPOSED DEWATERING MUST BE REVIEWED AND CLEARED BY THE CITY AND APPLICABLE REGULATORY AGENCIES.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. STORMWATER MIXED WITH NON-STORMWATER SHALL BE MANAGED AS NON-STORMWATER.

SITE SPECIFIC NOTES OR MITIGATION MEASURES
INSTALL VEGETATION FENCING UPSTREAM OF SENSITIVE WATER BODY.

CONSTRUCTION PARKING
NO OFF-SITE PARKING, ALL CONSTRUCTION-RELATED VEHICLES SHALL BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. PARKING ON PBC PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

TOP OF FENCE HUNG WITH FLUORESCENT
FLAGGING TAPE EVERY 10 FEET
6" CHAIN LINK OR WELDED WIRE MESH
8" FENCE POST OF 2" DIAMETER GI PIPE OR

T-ANGLE POST
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL 1828 YOSEMITE ST SEASIDE, CA 93955 A3.1

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
3/16" = 1'-0"
1 SITE PLAN - EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL

TYPICAL TREE PROTECTION DETAIL
2 N
Packet Page 789
MAIN HOME F.F.
0' - 0"
GRADE
-4' - 4"
MAIN HOME T.O. ROOF
15' - 1"

TOP OF ROOF
12' - 6"

PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL
FLOORPLAN 9' - 0"

TOP OF NEW ROOF
23' - 0"

BOTTOM OF THE NEW ROOF
17' - 1"
MAIN HOME F.F.
0' - 0"
GRADE
-4' - 4"
MAIN HOME T.O. ROOF
15' - 1"

TOP OF ROOF
12' - 6"

PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL
FLOORPLAN 9' - 0"

TOP OF NEW ROOF
23' - 0"

BOTTOM OF THE NEW ROOF
17' - 1"
BEHR PREMIUM - #SC-102 SLATE

GRAY SOLID COLOR

WATERPROOFING EXTERIOR WOOD

STAIN AND SEALER
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
A4.0

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 SOUTH
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 WEST
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
BEHR PREMIUM - #MS-66 NEW

ENGLAND GRAY STUCCO EXTERIOR
PAINT

BLACK METAL GARAGE ROOF
Packet Page 790
MAIN HOME F.F.
0' - 0"
GRADE
-4' - 4"
MAIN HOME T.O. ROOF
15' - 1"

TOP OF ROOF
12' - 6"

PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL
FLOORPLAN 9' - 0"

TOP OF NEW ROOF
23' - 0"

BOTTOM OF THE NEW ROOF
17' - 1"
23' - 7"
MAIN HOME F.F.
0' - 0"
GRADE
-4' - 4"
MAIN HOME T.O. ROOF
15' - 1"

TOP OF ROOF
12' - 6"

PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL
FLOORPLAN 9' - 0"

TOP OF NEW ROOF
23' - 0"

BOTTOM OF THE NEW ROOF
17' - 1"
23' - 7"
22' - 7"
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
A4.1

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 EAST
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 NORTH
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
New garage door
MATERIALS : SEE TITLE SHEET A1.0
Packet Page 791
MAIN HOME F.F.
0' - 0"
GRADE
-4' - 4"
MAIN HOME T.O. ROOF
15' - 1"

TOP OF ROOF
12' - 6"

PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL
FLOORPLAN 9' - 0"

TOP OF NEW ROOF
23' - 0"
A5.1 / 2A5.1 / 2A5.1 / 1A5.1 / 1

BOTTOM OF THE NEW ROOF
17' - 1"
8' - 0"
MAIN HOME F.F.
0' - 0"
GRADE
-4' - 4"
MAIN HOME T.O. ROOF
15' - 1"

TOP OF ROOF
12' - 6"

PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL
FLOORPLAN 9' - 0"

TOP OF NEW ROOF
23' - 0"
A5.1 / 2A5.1 / 2A5.1 / 1A5.1 / 1

BOTTOM OF THE NEW ROOF
17' - 1"
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
SECTION 1
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
A5.0

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 Section 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 Section 2
Packet Page 792
MAIN HOME F.F.
0' - 0"
GRADE
-4' - 4"
MAIN HOME T.O. ROOF
15' - 1"

TOP OF ROOF
12' - 6"

PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL
FLOORPLAN 9' - 0"

TOP OF NEW ROOF
23' - 0"
A5.0 / 2A5.0 / 2A5.0 / 1A5.0 / 1

BOTTOM OF THE NEW ROOF
17' - 1"
MAIN HOME F.F.
0' - 0"
GRADE
-4' - 4"
MAIN HOME T.O. ROOF
15' - 1"

TOP OF ROOF
12' - 6"

PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL
FLOORPLAN 9' - 0"

TOP OF NEW ROOF
23' - 0"
A5.0 / 2A5.0 / 2A5.0 / 1A5.0 / 1

BOTTOM OF THE NEW ROOF
17' - 1"
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
SECTION 2
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
A5.1

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 Section 3
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 Section 4
Packet Page 793
REF
REF
W/D
GFCI
WP
+42"
GFCI
+42"
GFCI
+34"
GFCI
+34"
GFCI
GFCI
WP
+42"
GFCI
+42"
GFCI
240V
SS
J
J
S3
S3 S3 S
J
S S
SSS
S3
S3
S3
S3
S
S
S/C
S/C
S S
S
S
240VHOOD
240V
+42"
GFCI
+42"
GFCI
+42"
GFCI
+42"
GFCI
S/C
S S S
S
+42"
GFCI
+42"
GFCI
+42"
GFCI
240V
GFCI
WP
GFCI
WP
S
S
S S
S/C
S3
S3
S3
S3
SSS S3S3
S S3
S
S3
S3
S3
S3
SSS
Spc Sos
S
[N] 2-BEDROOM ADU
[E] MAIN HOUSE LOWER
3-WAY CIR. CONT. UP TO
UPPER LEVEL FIXTURE.
8'-0" A.F.F.
8'-0" A.F.F.
8'-0" A.F.F.
8'-0" A.F.F. 8'-0" A.F.F.
8'-0" A.F.F.

CLG

ELECTRICAL LEGEND

LIGHT FIXTURE

DUPLEX RECEPTACLE

GFCI DUPLEX RECEPTACLE

WP GFCI DUPLEX RECEPTACLE (WEATHERPROOF & GFCI-PROTECTED) 240V RECEPTACLE
S
S3
SO
Spc

LIGHT FIXTURE

DUPLEX RECEPTACLE

GFCI DUPLEX RECEPTACLE

WP GFCI DUPLEX RECEPTACLE (WEATHERPROOF & GFCI-PROTECTED) 240V RECEPTACLE

COMBINATION SMOKE/CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM

SMOKE ALARM (INTERCONNECTED W/ BATTERY BACKUP)

EXHAUST FAN

ELECTRICAL PANEL

SINGLE-POLE SWITCH
3 WAY SWITCH

OCCUPANCY SENSOR SWITCH

PHOTOCELL SWITCH
GFCI

WP GFCI
240V
S/C
S
4' X 1' FLUORESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE

PUSH BUTTON SWITCH

1. 2.

3. ELECTRICAL NOTES

1. ELECTRICAL OUTLET AND CONTROL HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS

ALL ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE OUTLETS, SWITCHES, AND CONTROLS (INCLUDING CONTROLS FOR HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING) SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A HEIGHT NO HIGHER THAN 48 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF THE OUTLET BOX AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE OUTLET BOX ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR, PER §R327.1.2 CRC.

2. TAMPER-RESISTANT RECEPTACLE REQUIREMENT
ALL 125V, 15A, AND 20A RECEPTACLES INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS REQUIRED BY CEC 406.12 SHALL BE LISTED AS TAMPER-RESISTANT (TR). THIS INCLUDES ALL HABITABLE ROOMS, KITCHENS, BATHROOMS, HALLWAYS, LAUNDRY AREAS, GARAGES, BASEMENTS, AND OUTDOOR RECEPTACLES. EXCEPTIONS APPLY TO RECEPTACLES INSTALLED MORE THAN 5'-6" ABOVE THE FLOOR, DEDICATED OUTLETS FOR APPLIANCES, AND RECEPTACLES IN AREAS WITH RESTRICTED ACCESS.

3. ARC-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER (AFCI) PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS ALL 125V, 15A, AND 20A OUTLETS IN THE DWELLING UNIT, INCLUDING RECEPTACLES, LIGHTING OUTLETS, AND HARDWIRED APPLIANCES, SHALL BE PROTECTED BY AN ARC-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER (AFCI) PER CEC 210.12. AFCI PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LISTED AFCI CIRCUIT BREAKERS OR RECEPTACLES AS PERMITTED BY CODE.

4. DEDICATED 20-AMP BRANCH CIRCUIT REQUIREMENTS
DEDICATED 20-AMP BRANCH CIRCUITS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY CEC 210.11(C):

A MINIMUM OF TWO 20-AMP SMALL APPLIANCE BRANCH CIRCUITS SHALL SERVE ALL KITCHEN, DINING, AND PANTRY RECEPTACLE OUTLETS.

AT LEAST ONE 20-AMP BRANCH CIRCUIT SHALL SERVE LAUNDRY RECEPTACLE OUTLETS ONLY.

AT LEAST ONE 120V, 20-AMP BRANCH CIRCUIT SHALL SERVE BATHROOM RECEPTACLE OUTLETS ONLY.

5. THE INSTALLATION OF SMOKE ALARMS AND SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: [CRC R314.3.3]
(4) SMOKE ALARMS OR SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM A PERMANENTLY INSTALLED COOKING APPLIANCE.

EXCEPTION:
• IONIZATION SMOKE ALARMS WITH AN ALARM SILENCING SWITCH OR PHOTOELECTRIC SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE INSTALLED 10 FEET (3 M) OR GREATER FROM A PERMANENTLY INSTALLED COOKING APPLIANCE. • PHOTOELECTRIC SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE INSTALLED GREATER THAN 6 FEET (1.8 M) FROM A PERMANENTLY INSTALLED COOKING APPLIANCE WHERE THE KITCHEN OR COOKING AREA AND ADJACENT SPACES HAVE NO CLEAR INTERIOR PARTITIONS AND THE 10 FT DISTANCES WOULD PROHIBIT THE PLACEMENT OF A SMOKE ALARM OR SMOKE DETECTOR REQUIRED BY OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE. SMOKE ALARMS LISTED FOR USE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A PERMANENTLY INSTALLED COOKING APPLIANCE.

6. SMOKE DETECTOR NOT LESS THAN 3 FEET HORIZONTALLY FROM THE DOOR OR OPENING OF A BATHROOM THAT CONTAINS A BATHTUB OR SHOWER UNLESS THIS WOULD PREVENT PLACEMENT OF A SMOKE ALARM REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION. [CRC R314.3(4)]

7. LUMINAIRES INSTALLED IN WET OR DAMP LOCATIONS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT WATER CANNOT ENTER OR ACCUMULATE IN WIRING COMPARTMENTS, LAMPHOLDERS, OR OTHER ELECTRICAL PARTS. ALL LUMINAIRES INSTALLED IN WET LOCATIONS SHALL BE MARKED, “SUITABLE FOR WET LOCATIONS.” ALL LUMINAIRES INSTALLED IN DAMP LOCATIONS SHALL BE MARKED “SUITABLE FOR WET LOCATIONS” OR “SUITABLE FOR DAMP LOCATIONS.”
(B) CORROSIVE LOCATIONS. LUMINAIRES INSTALLED IN CORROSIVE LOCATIONS SHALL BE OF A TYPE SUITABLE FOR SUCH LOCATIONS. [CEC 410.10]
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE

ELECTRICAL PLAN - LOWER
FLOOR
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
E1

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 ELECTRICAL - 1ST FLOOR PLAN
N
Packet Page 794
W/D
+42"
GFCI
+42"
GFCI
+42"
GFCI
240V
GFCI
WP
GFCI
WP
S
S
S S
S/C
S3
S3
S3
S3
SSS S3S3
S S3
S
S3
S3
S3
S3
SSS
S

1. 2.

3. ELECTRICAL NOTES

1. ELECTRICAL OUTLET AND CONTROL HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS

4. DEDICATED 20-AMP BRANCH CIRCUIT REQUIREMENTS
DEDICATED 20-AMP BRANCH CIRCUITS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY CEC 210.11(C):

A MINIMUM OF TWO 20-AMP SMALL APPLIANCE BRANCH CIRCUITS SHALL SERVE ALL KITCHEN, DINING, AND PANTRY RECEPTACLE OUTLETS.

AT LEAST ONE 20-AMP BRANCH CIRCUIT SHALL SERVE LAUNDRY RECEPTACLE OUTLETS ONLY.

AT LEAST ONE 120V, 20-AMP BRANCH CIRCUIT SHALL SERVE BATHROOM RECEPTACLE OUTLETS ONLY.

ELECTRICAL LEGEND

LIGHT FIXTURE

DUPLEX RECEPTACLE

GFCI DUPLEX RECEPTACLE

WP GFCI DUPLEX RECEPTACLE (WEATHERPROOF & GFCI-PROTECTED) 240V RECEPTACLE
S
S3
SO
Spc

LIGHT FIXTURE

DUPLEX RECEPTACLE

GFCI DUPLEX RECEPTACLE

WP GFCI DUPLEX RECEPTACLE (WEATHERPROOF & GFCI-PROTECTED) 240V RECEPTACLE

COMBINATION SMOKE/CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM

SMOKE ALARM (INTERCONNECTED W/ BATTERY BACKUP)

EXHAUST FAN

ELECTRICAL PANEL

SINGLE-POLE SWITCH
3 WAY SWITCH

OCCUPANCY SENSOR SWITCH

PHOTOCELL SWITCH
GFCI

WP GFCI
240V
S/C
S
4' X 1' FLUORESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE

PUSH BUTTON SWITCH
3-WAY CIR. CONT. UP TO
1ST FLOOR LEVEL FIXTURE.

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
ELECTRICAL PLAN - UPPER FLOOR 1828 YOSEMITE ST SEASIDE, CA 93955 E2

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 ELECTRICAL - UPPER FLOOR
N
Packet Page 795
SHEET NO. © 2024

REVISIONS
---
OWNER

THOMAS RETTENWENDER

ECOLOGIC ARCHITECTS
P.O. BOX 6451,
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 920 8333
[email protected]

DESIGNER
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALE. ALL

PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY AUTHORITIES.

SCALE NOTE YOSEMITE RESIDENCE

CONSTRUCTION BEST

MANAGMENT PRACTICES
1828 YOSEMITE STSEASIDE, CA 93955
BMP

PETER MACIEL
06/26/2026YOSEMITE RESIDENCE
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
Packet Page 796

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 10.C.

TO: City Council
FROM: Greg McDanel, City Manager
BY: Andrew Myrick, Housing & Planning Manager
DATE: September 17, 2026
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17.40 OF THE SEASIDE

MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY

SIGNS FOR PLACES OF WORSHIP AND PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
MEETING FACILITIES ON LOCAL STREETS. THIS ACTION IS

NOT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA

GUIDELINES (FIRST READING - ROLL CALL VOTE)

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce the attached Ordinance for adoption at the next City Council meeting.

BACKGROUND
Electronic Display Message Signs - Background and Scope Signs in the City of Seaside are regulated by Chapter 17.40 of the Municipal Code. This Chapter identifies the allowable type, locations, size, and other characteristics regarding allowable signs in the City of Seaside.

Among the provisions of this Chapter is Section 17.40.050.B. Section 17.40.050 includes a list of types of signs which are prohibited in all circumstances in the City of Seaside. Section 17.40.050.B prohibits signs which meet the following:

Animated signs, including electronic message display signs, and variable intensity, blinking, or flashing signs, or signs that emit a varying intensity of light or color, except time and temperature displays (which are not considered signs) and electronic message display signs for places of worship and public and private meeting facilities Packet Page 797

Item No. 10.C. Page 2 of 8
The Zoning Ordinance does not include a definition of "Electronic Message Display Signs," although it does include a definition for "Electronic Reader Board Sign" (a term which does not appear in Chapter 17.40) as follows under the definition of "Sign" in Section 17.98.020.S:

Electronic Reader Board Sign.

A sign with a fixed or changing display composed of a series of lights, but not including time and temperature displays.

As noted above, electronic display message signs (as well as any other sign exhibiting the behaviors described) are prohibited in nearly all cases in all locations in the City.

There are only three exceptions where such signs may be considered:
- Time and Temperature Displays
- Electronic message display signs at places of worship and public and private meeting facilities.
- Gas pricing signs (although not specifically called out as an exception here, Section

17.40.040.B.7 identifies such signs as being exempt from the provisions of Chapter

17.40)
Section 17.98.020.M of the Seaside Zoning Ordinance defines Meeting Facility, Public or Private as follows:

Meeting Facility, Public or Private.

A facility for public or private meetings, including community centers, religious assembly facilities (e.g., churches, mosques, synagogues, etc.), civic and private auditoriums, grange halls, union halls, meeting halls for clubs and other membership organizations, etc. Also includes functionally related internal facilities such as kitchens, multi-purpose rooms, and storage. Does not include conference and meeting rooms accessory and incidental to another primary use that are typically used only by on-site employees and clients, and occupy less floor area on the site than the offices they support (see “Office”). Does not include: sports or other commercial entertainment facilities (see “Theater, Cinema or Performing Arts” and “Sports and Entertainment Assembly”); or convention centers (see “Conference/Convention Facility”). Related on-site facilities such as day care centers and schools are separately defined, and separately regulated by Section 17.10.030 (Permitted Land Uses and Planning Permit Requirements).

As a final point, in general, signs are permitted to be illuminated, provided that they comply with the provisions of Section 17.40.060.H. These standards are as follows:

Sign lighting. Sign lighting shall be designed to minimize light and glare on surrounding rights-of-way and properties in compliance with Section 17.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) and the following:

1. External light sources shall be directed and shielded so they do not produce glare on Packet Page 798

Item No. 10.C. Page 3 of 8
any object other than the sign.

2. The light illuminating a sign shall not be of a brightness or intensity that will interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of residential properties.

3. Sign illumination shall not blink, flash, flutter, or change light brightness, color, or intensity, except for electronic message display signs per Section 17.40.080.I, Electronic Message Display Signs.

4. Colored lights shall not be used at a location or in a manner so as to be confused or construed as traffic control devices.

5. Neither the direct nor reflected light from primary light sources shall create hazards for pedestrians or operators of motor vehicles.

6. Reflective-type bulbs and incandescent lamps that exceed 15 watts shall not be used so as to expose the face of the bulb or lamp to a public right-of-way or adjacent property.

7. Light sources shall utilize hard-wired fluorescent or compact fluorescent lamps, or other lighting technology that is of equal or greater energy efficiency.

8. Permanently installed illuminated panels, visible tubing, and strings of lights outlining all or a portion of a structure, other than lighting that is primarily for indirectly illuminating architectural features, signs, or landscaping, shall be deemed “signs” subject to this chapter and shall be counted as part of the allowed sign area. Each line of tubing or lights shall be deemed to have a minimum width of at least six inches for the purpose of calculating area.

Some takeaways from this language includes:
1) Under the current and proposed Ordinances, electronic message display signs are prohibited at all locations other than Public and Private Meeting Facilities. They would continue to be prohibited for all other uses at all locations in the City. This Ordinance would not enable other users such as retail establishments to install such signs (except for time/temperature display signs and gas pricing signs). 2) Signs with changeable copy but which are not electronic and do not exhibit the behaviors described in Section 17.40.050.B are permitted. This means that "traditional" changeable copy such as the manually adjusted message boards used by religious assemblies do not fall under this prohibition and may be installed in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. These signs are permitted to be illuminated provided that they do not employ the behaviors described in Section 17.40.050.B and meet the requirements of Section 17.40.060.H. 3) Public or Private Meeting Facilities are allowed in any residential zone, but always require a Use Permit (Zoning Ordinance Section 17.12.030.C, Table 2-1). This means that the establishment of any new Public or Private Meeting Facility would be subject to public notification and hearings.

Proposed Ordinance
Packet Page 799

Item No. 10.C. Page 4 of 8
Existing law indicates that such signs must abide by the following operating standards:
- Signs must be located so that they do not interfere with visibility or functioning of traffic signals or signage;
- Signs must be at least 50 feet from the nearest residence; - Animated messages shall be limited to fading and dissolving, with no other effect to give the appearance of movement;
- Signs shall not include any audio message;
- Message shall have a minimum hold time of 30 seconds; - Signs shall not illuminate between 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM; - Illumination shall direct light towards the ground and shall not include excessive illumination (as defined in detail in Section 17.40.080.I.7); - Signs shall employ light detectors so that they automatically dim after dusk and before dawn.

This item is being brought forward due to language in Section 17.40.080.I.1 which provides that electronic signs must be located on an arterial or collector street.

Currently, electronic display message signs are prohibited on local streets, which include the majority of residential streets in the City. Staff has received inquiries from a church located on a local street regarding the possibility of replacing an existing internally illuminated message board with an electronic message board.

This Item was considered by the Planning Commission on May 13, 2026. The Planning Commission ultimately was supportive of allowing the placement of such signs on local streets. The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Ordinance allowing such signs as they are allowed on other street types in the City, subject to the requirement that these signs would be subject to the Minor Use Permit process (which would include public notification) unless the sign was a replacement of an existing illuminated sign.

This Item was then considered by the City Council on June 4, 2026. Extensive public comment was received, both in favor of the Ordinance as well as opposed. Those in favor pointed to the challenges associated with changing sign copy by hand, especially in inclement weather, and also asserted that several churches had already placed signs with no apparent ill effects. Those opposed brought up a number of concerns relating to the quality of life for those in proximity to the signs. After hearing the public comment, the City Council referred the item back to the Planning Commission for comment regarding matters related to sign size, color, and hours of operation.

The Item was heard by the Planning Commission on July 22, 2026. At that hearing, extensive public comment in opposition to the installation of electronic message display signs on local streets was received, with the primary objection being that illuminated signs are inappropriate in residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission Packet Page 800

Item No. 10.C. Page 5 of 8
reviewed the items pertaining to sign size, color, and hours of operation. In addition, the Planning Commission requested information regarding the technologies which could be utilized for these signs, as well as the potential locations of these signs within the City. The Planning Commission continued the Item to August 26, 2026 to allow staff to respond to the additional inquiries.

The Item was heard again by the Planning Commission on August 26, 2026. At this meeting, further discussion was held and additional concerns by the public were presented. Information related to potential technologies as well as the locations of Public or Private Meeting Facilities on local streets. After hearing the information presented by staff and the public, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Ordinance with several modifications.

Sign Size
Under the current Ordinance, electronic display message signs are allowed to be up to 8 feet in height; this may be increased up to 14 feet with a Minor Use Permit. Staff believes that this is unnecessary on local streets. Local streets generally have a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. While signs on roads where higher speeds are allowed may need to be larger in order to be readable (since traffic is moving faster, letters need to be larger so they can be read from farther away in order to provide sufficient time to communicate the message), on local streets smaller lettering would be sufficient.

The proposed Ordinance would match maximum sign heights on local residential streets to those for other signs in residential districts (6 feet for freestanding signs). Maximum sign area for the screen would be limited to 18 square feet, reduced from the 24 square feet allowed in other locations.

Sign Color
Several members of the public brought up potential issues related to the color(s) shown on the sign screen. The concept has been presented as signs allowing text - however, this does not preclude the use of designs or even of installing screens capable of displaying graphics.

Some factors to consider regarding different colors:
- Reds, greens, and yellows generally are colors used by traffic lights. The existing Ordinance includes language which limits the use of electronic display message signs when the signs could interfere with the operation of traffic signals or signage. Thus far, existing signs have made use of red lettering with no obvious negative effects. Further, traffic signals are rare on local streets, reducing the potential for interference or confusion.
- Blues and whites are unlikely to be confused with traffic signals. However, they also Packet Page 801

Item No. 10.C. Page 6 of 8
are closer to the natural daylight spectrum, which arguably could be more disruptive to sleep than other colors.
- Staff used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to conduct a review of the Ordinances of other California jurisdictions to see if other jurisdictions have passed Ordinances limiting the colors to a specific palette. None were found, although it was discovered that at least one jurisdiction outside of the state (Tyler, TX) limits the displays to amber lighting only when an institutional use is facing a residence (Section 10-415.a.15(a)). - Another possibility would be to limit signs to be monochromatic (only one color, although the color itself would be up to the applicant). Again, staff used AI to see if there are any other jurisdictions in California with such a requirement and, again, no Ordinances with such a requirement were found.
- Limiting the signs to a single color would effectively prohibit the use of color graphics on screens capable of displaying graphics (such as a PowerPoint slide), as most graphics make use of multiple colors.

Staff is providing this information for the Council's consideration. The Ordinance as presented has not been modified to reflect any of these changes.

Hours of Operation
Concerns were brought up that the allowable hours of operation (6:00 AM to 9:00 PM) might not be appropriate for residential neighborhoods. In particular, the concern was that the 9:00 PM end time might be too late and would be disruptive to residents' sleep.

Staff used AI to search for time restrictions in other jurisdictions. Four examples were found, in Alpine County and the Cities of Monrovia, Ceres, and National City. None of the examples were perfect parallels - for example, the hours may not apply to residential areas, or may only apply to certain uses. However, for the individual circumstances of each jurisdiction, the prohibited hours were 8:00 PM to 7:00 AM in Alpine County, 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM in Monrovia and Ceres, and 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM in National City.

Staff also explored the possibility of using a "dusk to dawn" requirement. Staff does not recommend this approach for two reasons. First, during the winter it is dark by 5:00 PM, which is a time when most people are still pursuing daily activities even though it is dark outside and would be a prime time to display the messages to capture the evening commute. Second, it is unclear when dusk or dawn actually begin, which makes enforcement challenging. Staff also considered a hybrid model (ie dusk to dawn in the summer with specified hours in the winter), but the resulting rules would be challenging to enforce due to their complexity.

At the August 26, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the hours of operation on local streets be limited to 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. The Ordinance language reflects that recommendation.

Packet Page 802

Item No. 10.C. Page 7 of 8
Types of Signs
Changeable copy signs can generally be divided into three categories:
- LED displays, which come in a variety of types but are essentially screens with pixels that can display text, graphics, photographs, videos, and animation, where the pixels are backlit by an LED light;
- Other sources of electronic illumination, such as fiber, plasma, OLED, etc; and - Mechanical/flippable lettering where the content is not displayed electronically but instead is printed on surfaces that physically move, most commonly through a flipping rolodex-type mechanism.

The third type of changeable-copy signs (mechanical signs where the content is not displayed electronically) are not considered to be electronic message display signs, and thus are not subject to the restrictions for electronic message display signs (including the prohibition in 17.40.050.B), whether or not they are illuminated.

With regards to other technologies, there are differences between the various technologies with regards to typical installations and clarity. However, all can be adjusted to function adequately as messaging boards. The Ordinance as drafted is focused on performance standards such as brightness, and it is possible for signs using many of these technologies to achieve compliance. Therefore staff has not made any modifications to the Ordinance based upon this topic.

Sign Locations
Staff has reviewed the locations of existing Public or Private Meeting Facilities. A total of 29 locations have been identified in the original City "core" (defined roughly by all properties south of Military Avenue and west of General Jim Moore Boulevard), a list of which is provided as Attachment 2. Of these, 19 have at least one frontage on a local street. However, only seven have frontages solely on local streets. To minimize the potential impacts of electronic display message signs to local streets, the Ordinance has been modified to stipulate that whenever a facility proposes an electronic display message sign, it must be located on a street other than a local street if one exists, thus providing for a maximum of seven locations throughout the City which would be effected by this Ordinance.

In addition, at its August 26, 2026 hearing, the Planning Commission indicated that it felt that electronic message display signs should be prohibited on one-way streets and alleys. The proposed Ordinance reflects this change.

Miscellaneous
At its August 26, 2026 hearing, the Planning Commission indicated that it preferred a Packet Page 803

Item No. 10.C. Page 8 of 8
different name for the signs besides "electronic display message sign." In addition, the term "electronic display message sign" is undefined in the current Ordinance.

Accordingly, staff has proposed to rename the sign to "Electronic Changeable Copy Signs" and has added a definition to the Ordinance.

At the same hearing, the Planning Commission also indicated that it wished to clarify that signs that were exhibiting prohibited behavior, such as flashing, due to a technical issue should also be prohibited. The proposed Ordinance clarifies that flashing and other animations are prohibited whether they are generated by design or malfunction.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this Item.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY
Community Safety & Quality of Life

ATTACHMENTS

1. CC Ordinance Electronic Signs 2026-09-17

2. Attachment 2 CC - List of Public or Private Meeting Facilities Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:

____________________________________
Greg McDanel, City Manager
Packet Page 804
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17.40 OF THE SEASIDE MUNICIPAL

CODE TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY SIGNS FOR PLACES OF

WORSHIP AND PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MEETING FACILITIES ON LOCAL

STREETS
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2017, the City Council passed and adopted Ordinance No. 1045 to set forth requirements for the installation of electronic message display signs at Public or Private Meeting Facilities; and WHEREAS, when initially adopted, the Ordinance prohibited the installation of electronic message display signs on local streets; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2026, the Planning Commission met and discussed the potential for a modification to the Zoning Ordinance to provide the criteria under which electronic message display signs could be installed on local streets in residential zones, and recommended adoption of the proposed Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2026, the City Council considered the proposed Ordinance and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission to consider potential impacts related to sign size, color, and hours of operation; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2026 and August 26, 2026, the Planning Commission again met and discussed the potential for a modifications to the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Seaside recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance, subject to modifications which have been incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Seaside does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The Seaside Municipal Code is hereby amended with underlines showing the additions to the language and strikeout deletions of language as provided in Exhibit A.

Packet Page 805
SECTION 3. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days following adoption of its second reading.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside, State of California, held on the 17th day of September 2026 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside, State of California, held on the ___th day of _____ 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
__________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk

Attach:

Exhibit “A” – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Text

Packet Page 806
Exhibit “A”
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Text

17.40.050 Prohibited Signs
All signs not expressly allowed by this chapter shall be prohibited. Examples of prohibited signs include the following:

B. Animated signs, including Eelectronic message displayChangeable Copy sSigns, and variable intensity signs, blinking, or flashing signs, or signs that emit a varying intensity of light or color (whether by design or malfunction), except time and temperature displays (which are not considered signs) and eElectronic message display Changeable Copy sSigns for places of worship and Ppublic andor pPrivate mMeeting fFacilities;

17.40.070 Zoning District Sign Standards
Each sign shall comply with the sign area, height, number, type, and other restrictions provided by this section, except as otherwise expressly provided in Section 17.40.080 (Standards for Specific Sign Types).

A. Residential zones. Each sign in a residential zone shall comply with the following requirements:

Packet Page 807
TABLE 3-15 – SIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Allowed Sign
Types
Maximum Sign
Height
Maximum
Number of Signs
Allowed per
Parcel
Maximum Sign
Area Allowed per
Parcel
Nonresidential Use
Wall or freestanding Wall signs: below
edge of roof no
higher than 12 ft
above grade
Freestanding: 6 ft
(See Figure 3-17
for sign height
measurement)
1 of either allowed
sign type
32 sf
Electronic
Changeable Copy
Signs for Public or
Private Meeting
Facility (Local
Streets)
Same as above 1 per parcel (may
be double-sided
with a maximum
cabinet depth of 24
inches)
40 sf per side with a
maximum digital
screen area of 18 sf
(maximum of two
sides)
Packet Page 808
Electronic message
displayChangeable
Copy sSigns for
private and
publicPublic or
Private mMeeting
Ffacility (Non-Local
Streets)
Same as above for
wall signs.

UFor freestanding
signs, up to 8 ft
permitted; minor
use permit for signs
up to 14 ft
1 per parcel (may
be double-sided
with a maximum
cabinet depth of 24
inches)
40 sf per side with a
maximum digital
screen area of 24 sf
(maximum of 2
sides)

17.40.080 Standards for specific sign types
I. Electronic message displaychangeable copy signs. The following standards apply to Eelectronic message displayChangeable Copy sSigns where allowed by Section 17.40.070 (Zoning District Sign Standards) (see Tables 3-15 and 3-16):

1. Definition. An Electronic Changeable Copy Sign (ECCS) shall be defined for the purposes of this Chapter as any sign with a fixed or changing display composed of a series of lights or pixels.

2. Location.
a. Signs shall be located on a either an arterial roadway or collector street in a manner that the Zoning Administrator determines will not adversely interfere with the visibility or functioning of traffic signals or traffic signage, taking into consideration physical elements of the sign and surrounding area, such as information analyzing physical obstruction issues, line of sight issues, brightness issues, and visual obstruction or impairment issues.

No electronic changeable message sign shall be permitted on a local street. b. Signs must be 50 feet or more from the nearest residence on the same street as the sign. For purposes of this Subsection I, distances shall be measured from the sign to the nearest residential building (excluding non-habitable accessory structures) using a lineof-sight analysis. c. No Electronic Changeable Copy Sign shall be displayed on a one-way street or alley.

Packet Page 809
d. If a parcel or facility is located such that it has frontages on one or more local streets and also has at least one frontage on a street that is not a local street or alley, any Electronic Changeable Copy Sign must be located such that it is located closer to a property line fronting a non-local street than to any property line fronting on a local street or alley.

32. Sign area measurement. The area of an eElectronic message displayChangeable Copy sSign does not count toward area limits for other signs in Section 17.40.070.

43. Animation. Animated messages shall be limited to fading and dissolving, with no other effect (whether by design or malfunction) to give the appearance of movement.

54. Audio. No sign shall include any audio message.

65. Duration. Signs messages shall have a minimum hold time of 30 seconds.

76. Timing. The sign will not illuminate from the message display area between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m, except that this time period shall be from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. if located on a local street (as designated by the then-current General Plan) and is within 100 feet of a residence.

87. Illumination. Electronic cChangeable messageCopy sSigns may be illuminated with continuous internal LED lighting. No sign shall be illuminated so that the primary source of the light is visible beyond the property line or in any way will cause excessive glare or brightness in excess of 0.3 foot candles. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to require and/or complete a post-installation inspection of the sign illumination. If, as a result of this inspection, it is determined that the illumination is so bright as to adversely impact adjacent properties and uses, the Zoning Administrator may require shielding or a reduction and/or adjustment in the intensity of the sign illumination, so that it is in keeping with the general level of illumination of the surrounding properties.

Such intensity restriction may vary by time of day and ambient light conditions.

Illuminated signs located adjacent to any residential area shall be shielded to direct light downward and away from adjacent properties such that there is no spillover light and shall be controlled by a rheostat or functional equivalent to avoid excessive glare to residential properties.

Packet Page 810

98. Light detector. No permit for such sign shall be issued unless the sign is installed with an automatic or a scheduled dimming time by which the sign’s light intensity will reduce when ambient light conditions darken. Such dimming feature shall reduce the light intensity from the sign from dusk to dawn to a level that does not impair the visibility on any adjacent roadway, or be directed onto a residential property.

10. Permits Required. In addition to any required Building Permits or other applicable permits, Electronic Changeable Copy Signs shall be subject to the following permit processes:
a. An Electronic Changeable Copy Sign located on a local street (as designated by the then-current General Plan) or alley may be considered subject to approval of a Sign Permit, provided that the Electronic Changeable Copy Sign replaces an existing internally illuminated sign legally established prior to July 1, 2026, occupies the same location as the existing sign, and is no larger than the existing sign. b. An Electronic Changeable Copy Sign located on a street other than a local street may be allowed with a Sign Permit.
c. All other Electronic Changeable Copy Signs shall require approval of a Minor Use Permit.

Packet Page 811
Organization Address Address Road Type Corner W/Local? Other Corner? Bethel Missionary Baptist Church 390 Elm Ave Local Yes No Breaking Bread Ministry 1760 Fremont Blvd Mixed Use Boulevard Yes No Carpenter's House 1309 Broadway Ave Neighborhood Arterial Yes Yes Christian Memorial Church of God in Christ 520 Sonoma Ave Collector Yes No Church of Christ 1310 Broadway Ave Neighborhood Arterial Yes Yes Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1024 Noche Buena St Collector No Yes Covenant Presbyterian Church 1949 Waring St Local No No Emmanuel Church of God in Christ 1450 Sonoma Ave Collector Yes No Faith Lutheran Church 1460 Hilby Ave Collector No No
Friendship Baptist Church 1440 Broadway Ave Neighborhood Arterial Yes No Greater Victory Temple 1620 Broadway Ave Neighborhood Arterial No Yes Hays CME Church 625 Elm Ave Local No Yes
Hope Presbyterian Church 1460 Hilby Ave Suite B Collector No No Islamic Society of Monterey County 405 Elm Ave Local Yes No La Iglesia de San Pablo 1092 Noche Buena St Collector Yes Yes Lighthouse Baptist Church 1030 Hilby Ave Collector Yes No Lighthouse Full Gospel Church 1153 Hamilton Ave Local No No Monterey Bay Christian Center 1184 Hilby Ave Collector No No Monterey Korean Baptist Church 601 Sonoma Ave Collector No Yes Monterey Peninsula Buddhist Temple 1155 Noche Buena St Collector No Yes Monterey Peninsula Ramayan Bhajan Mandali 1182 Waring St Local No No New Hope Baptist Church 1304 Sonoma Ave Collector Yes Yes Ocean View Baptist Church 1200 Amador Ave Local Yes No
Salvation Army 1491 Contra Costa St Local Yes No
Seaside Community Church 986 Hilby Ave Collector Yes No Seaside Community Seventh-day Adventist Church 1600 Broadway Ave Neighborhood Arterial No Yes Seaside Hilltop United Methodist Church 1340 Hilby Ave Collector No Yes St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church 1475 La Salle Ave Collector Yes No St. Seraphim Orthodox Church Laguna Grande Park / Canyon Del Rey Blvd Regional Arterial No No Bold = Local street frontage(s) only
Italic = Local street frontage(s) in addition to other street type frontages Plain Text = No local street frontages
Packet Page 812

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 11.A.

TO: City Council
FROM: Greg McDanel, City Manager
BY: Patrick Grogan, Associate Engineer
Thomas Korman, Public Works Director/City Engineer
DATE: September 17, 2026
SUBJECT: RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE SAN PABLO PEDESTRIAN

BRIDGE TYPE SELECTION REPORT AND APPROVE THE

CONCEPT DESIGN FOR THE PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the design of the "Connector" bridge superstructure with timber decking, "galvanized & paint" coating option, with new CIDH foundation.

BACKGROUND
The San Pablo Pedestrian Bridge, spanning San Pablo Avenue and connecting LincolnCunningham Park with Manzanita-Stuart Park, was assessed by a structural engineer in December 2022. Significant structural problems were observed, it was concluded that the bridge had exceeded its useful life, and required replacement due to safety issues.

The entrances to the bridge have been barricaded, and detour signs posted since the assessment was performed in December 2022. The San Pablo Pedestrian Bridge Replacement project is included in the fiscal year 2026/27 budget and capital program.

The project was intended to have a registered Structural Engineer design the demolition of the bridge and existing abutments, as well as design the replacement pedestrian bridge, and provide construction services during the project. At the December 12, 2023 regular city council meeting, council approved a contract with Whitson Engineers for the design of the demolition of the existing bridge structure, and the design of the replacement bridge foundations, abutments, structure, and ADA compliant approach pathways. Work on the design of the replacement bridge has progressed to the Type Selection Report (attachment 1), which details the feasibility of the bridge replacement and details options to move forward with the design.

Packet Page 813

Item No. 11.A. Page 2 of 3
The Type Selection Report summarizes the work performed on the bridge assessment, the existing facilities, the scope of work for the bridge replacement, and presents several options to continue the design of a steel truss bridge in place of the existing glulam beam and wood structure. The report details two bridge structure options. The "Connector" model is a steel truss bridge with a similar profile to the existing bridge.

The "Keystone" model is a steel truss bridge with an arched steel structure. These costs estimates are for the prefabricated bridge structure, and do not include foundations, abutments, ADA compliant approach pathways, or other features. The bridges are provided at the previously mentioned cost estimates in weathering steel. Weathering steel is chemically formulated to produce an oxidation layer that protects the steel from deeper corrosion, and does not require painting. Weathering steel is typically red or reddish orange in color. Other coating options are 2-Coat Coastal paint, galvanized steel, and painted galvanized steel. The costs for the various coating options are shown in the table below.

Initial Cost (weathering steel) Additives
Bridge Model Price Estimate 2-Coat Coastal
Paint
Galvanized Steel Galvanized and
Painted
Connector $218,900 $64,100 $74,200 $114,900
Keystone $245,200 $77,750 $113,500 $163,400
Factors considered for the bridge model include price and aesthetics. Either bridge product can be designed to meet the requirements of the pedestrian over crossing, and have minimal differences to the abutments and foundations. The base product is provided in weathering steel, or can also be constructed in galvanized steel. Both materials are also provided with paint options. Factors to consider for the coating options are cost, aesthetics, maintenance requirements, and repair options. Weathering steel and galvanized steel are "bare" materials. Repairs to these materials or the removal of graffiti may result in visible repair areas of differing coloration. The "bare" material options may require less maintenance over time than the coated options. Both materials may also be coated. Repair areas or areas of graffiti removal may be less obvious, and easier to blend into the surrounding painted area. The coated options have an increased initial cost, and may require reoccurring maintenance or coating on a 10 year to 20 year cycle; however, increased maintenance of the coatings may help prevent future structural corrosion.

Staff reviewed the model and coating options with the contracted consultants. Staff recommend proceeding with the design of the "connector" model in the galvanized and painted option, for a total estimated structure cost of $333,800. The connector model most closely matches the profile of the existing bridge, and the painted galvanized steel option provides the best corrosion resistance, and the ability to maintain the bridge aesthetic when performing graffiti repair.

Packet Page 814

Item No. 11.A. Page 3 of 3

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. A design contract with Whitson Engineers was previously approved by Council at the December 21st, 2023 regular council meeting. All work associated with this action is being performed under this existing contract.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY
Enhanced Physical Infrastructure & Abundant Water Supply

ATTACHMENTS

1. Type Selection Report
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:

____________________________________
Greg McDanel, City Manager
Packet Page 815
Type Selection Report
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing
BRIDGE #44C0104
Prepared For:

City of Seaside
Public Works Engineering
Prepared By:

September 2026
Packet Page 816
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026
Prepared by:
_______________________________
Gavin L. Keating, Project Engineer
Submitted by 9/11/2026 (916) 461-9069
Scott McCauley, Project Manager
Consor North America, Inc.

Date Telephone
Approved by
Patrick Grogan
City of Seaside
Associate Civil Engineer
Date
Gavin L. Keating
C91645
9/11/2026
Packet Page 817
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

2. EXISTING FACILITY .................................................................................................................. 2

3. SCOPE OF WORK – BRIDGE REPLACEMENT .......................................................................... 3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................................................... 3 NON-CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................ 3 REJECTED ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................................ 4

4. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DATA ..................................................................................... 4 PROJECT VERTICAL DATUM......................................................................................................................................... 4 BRIDGE DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................................... 4 VERTICAL CLEARANCES .............................................................................................................................................. 4 ALIGNMENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 BRIDGE LIVE LOADING ............................................................................................................................................... 5 PATHWAY CROSS SECTION ......................................................................................................................................... 6 BRIDGE WIDTH ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 BRIDGE LENGTH ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 TRAFFIC CONTROL/DETOUR ....................................................................................................................................... 6 CONTRACTOR ACCESS ................................................................................................................................................ 7 RIGHT-OF-WAY ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 AESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS......................................................................................................................................... 7 BRIDGE AND APPROACH RAILING ................................................................................................................................. 8 DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 UTILITIES ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL/PERMITS ........................................................................................................................................ 9 GEOTECHNICAL/FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 9 SEISMIC ................................................................................................................................................................ 10 FALSEWORK ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 TEMPERATURE ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 DECK PROTECTION .................................................................................................................................................. 11 CORROSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 SLOPE PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................................. 11

5. STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 12 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................ 12 SUPERSTRUCTURE OPTIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 15

6. CONSTRUCTION COSTS ............................................................................................................ 16

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 17

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A - LOCATION MAP

ATTACHMENT B - GENERAL PLAN DRAWINGS

ATTACHMENT C - CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

ATTACHMENT D - PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT

ATTACHMENT E - ABUTMENT FEASIBILITY MEMO

Packet Page 818
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 2 ends

REVISIONS
No. Description
0 Original Draft Type Selection Report Submitted July 2024 1 Updated Type Selection Report Submitted September 2026 Packet Page 819
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 1 ends

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Seaside, Department of Public Works is proposing to replace the existing Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing over San Pablo Avenue (Br. No. 44C0104), located in the City of Seaside, CA.

The existing single span timber glulam bridge serves as a pedestrian overcrossing between Stuart and Lincoln Cunningham parks over San Pablo Avenue. The City of Seaside, however, has closed the bridge to pedestrian access due to concerns about the superstructure condition.

Following a bridge inspection, completed on December 21, 2022, the bridge was classified as in “imminent failure condition” and it was recommended to keep the bridge closed to pedestrian access until corrective action is taken. The closure of the bridge impacts pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the park pathways.

The purpose of this project is to facilitate safe pedestrian and bicycle access between Lincoln Cunningham Park and Stuart Park by replacing the existing bridge with a new prefabricated steel truss bridge that meets current safety standards.

Existing Bridge

Packet Page 820
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 2 ends

2. EXISTING FACILITY
The existing timber glulam pedestrian bridge was constructed in 1960 and has been facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access between Stuart Park and Lincoln Cunnungham Park, spanning over San Pablo Avenue that carries an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 3495 (Bridge Inspection Report, 2020). The south part of Lincoln Cunningham Park is linked to International School of Monterey, which is an elementary school (K-8), making the pedestrian bridge that connects two heavily populated residential areas an important travel route for students and parents.

The bridge is single span with a length of 88’-6”, with two side mounted glulam timber girders and timber plank deck supported by reinforced concrete abutments. Asphalt concrete pathways provide access to the structure.

As a pedestrian bridge structure that does not carry vehicle traffic on a public road, the bridge is not part of the National Bridge Inventory System and does not receive a routine inspection from Caltrans. A Bridge Inspection Report dating June 2020 is available, however, only the dimensions of the bridge are provided along with confirmation that Caltrans is not responsible for Cunningham Park Bridge inspections.

Existing Bridge Closure

Packet Page 821
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 3 ends

3. SCOPE OF WORK – BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Following a bridge inspection, completed on December 21, 2022, work recommendations required a Timber Glulam Beam retrofit or bridge replacement due to significant inherent defects in the main structural member. Cracks and splits have developed along the bolt line of both glulam beams, at some locations extending through the entire beam. This poses a risk of continued failure, without redundancy in the structure. Due to the noted defects, the structure was noted to be in “imminent failure condition.”
Preferred Alternative
The existing 88’-6” Timber Glulam Beam bridge would be replaced with a new 98’-6” single span prefabricated steel truss bridge with a clear width of 8 feet. The height of the rails would be a minimum of 4 feet from the top of deck. It would be placed on the existing alignment and would have a slightly higher profile. The existing abutments would remain in place and new abutments on 24” Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles would be placed behind the existing. The proposed construction sequence is single staged construction that would require minimal road closures and detours overnight.

Example Prefabricated Truss Bridge
Non-Considered Alternatives
Other alternatives not considered for this report also include superstructure replacement using the existing foundation or retrofitting the existing foundation as expanded upon in the Structures Alternatives section.

Packet Page 822
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 4 ends

Rejected Alternatives
Repair of Superstructure
Repair of the Existing Bridge was initially estimated to cost around $340,000 and required additional bridge investigations to determine the extent of the damage and proper repairs. Due to limited extension of service life and risks associated with unknowns on the existing bridge, the repair alternative was ruled out.

4. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DATA
Project Vertical Datum
The City of Seaside uses NAVD 88 datum to reference elevations in the plans and supporting files.

Bridge Design Criteria
All alternatives must meet the
following criteria:
• Bridge Design
Final bridge design will be
performed in accordance with
“AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, 8th Edition, with
the Caltrans Amendments
preface dated April 2019” and
“LRFD Guide Specifications for
the Design of Pedestrian Bridges
dated December 2009 with 2015
Interim Revisions”.
• Seismic Design
Seismic design will be performed in accordance with the Caltrans "Seismic Design Criteria Version 2.1 January 2025" and the latest information available from Caltrans Earthquake Research.

Vertical Clearances
The pathway profile at the bridge location will be controlled by the minimum required clearances below and above the bridge. A minimum of 16-foot clearance is required between San Pablo Ave and the bottom chord of the pedestrian bridge. The proposed bridge will meet this clearance requirement.

The vertical clearance above the bridge is controlled by two layers of overhead powerlines that cross on the southwest side of the bridge. The bottom layer of powerlines, which are return common neutral lines, are approximately elevation 267.9’ and top layer of powerlines carrying 21kV are elevation 278.2’. California Code of Regulations (Title 24, Part 3, Section 3-710-85(a)) Packet Page 823
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 5 ends

requires a minimum vertical clearance of 17 feet between the bridge deck and powerlines carrying under 20kV and 25 feet for powerlines carrying over 20kV above areas accessible to pedestrians only. The proposed bridge will meet these requirements.

Final bridge elevations and the profile will be determined during the next design phase.

Alignment
Two pathway alignment alternatives were considered, the design of which will be completed by Whitson Engineers (Whitson). It is anticipated that Whitson will use a combination of local design standards supplemented with AASHTO design practices and ADA requirements as appropriate.

An alignment similar to the existing bridge alignment was selected, which will allow most of the existing grading in front of the existing abutments to remain. Additional backfill will still be necessary behind the abutments since the profile is raised. This option will still be dictated by the ADA requirements.

An alignment northwest of the current bridge was initially considered but ultimately rejected due to the additional cost it would require for path realignment and grading changes in the bridge approaches and at the face of the abutments.

Preferred Alternative Plan View
Bridge Live Loading
The bridge design live loading will be 90 pounds per square foot or a H5 design vehicle per guidance set forth in the LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges. The H5 design vehicle is shown below.

H5 Design Vehicle Loading
Packet Page 824
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 6 ends

Pathway Cross Section
AASHTO recommends a 10-foot paved width but also cites that an 8-foot width can be appropriate in some instances. Whitson has proposed an 8-foot-wide paved pathway for twoway travel. This satisfies the minimum width specified in the Caltrans Highway Design manual.

The clear width of 8 feet for the bridge will support the 8-foot paved width of the pathway.

Bridge Width
The pedestrian bridge will provide a clear width of 8-feet. This is an adequate width according to AASHTO and allows for passing between pedestrians and bicyclists.

Preferred Alternative Typical Section
Bridge Length
The pedestrian bridge length will be approximately 98’-6”. Final bridge length may be greater than 98’-6”, this will be determined in coordination with the pathway approaches and final grading during final design.

Preferred Alternative Elevation View
Traffic Control/Detour
Although the construction of the foundations for the new pedestrian bridge is expected to remain outside of San Pablo Avenue, partial road closure and traffic control may be required for partial demolition activities of existing abutments. A full road closure and a detour will be required for the erection of the new bridge. Access to residential properties will be available during the partial or full road closures.

Packet Page 825
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 7 ends

Contractor Access
Contractor staging is expected to occur within the City right of way. No Temporary Construction Easements are expected for contractor staging.

Right-of-Way
No right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to be needed for this project.

Aesthetic Requirements
The steel truss bridge, that will replace an existing Timber Glulam Beam bridge with a polished appearance, will add an appealing aesthetic look to the area. Three coating options are offered by the bridge manufacturers: weathering steel, painted steel, and galvanized steel. Although weathering steel is significantly cheaper than the other options, the City prefers galvanized and painted steel so that is the preferred option.

The City of Seaside has requested attachment points on the trusses be available for hanging banners. This will also allow the possibility of architectural enhancements in the future such as permanent signs. The cost of such attachment points and signs was included in the cost estimates under Architectural Treatment. Additionally, the Architectural Treatment cost also includes the potential architectural river rock used on the barriers.

The Connector Bridge Model is preferred over the Keystone model due to lower cost. However, the Keystone model provides a unique arched top chord in case that aesthetic is chosen during final design.

Prefabricated Steel Truss bridge: Connector (Galvanized and Painted) Prefabricated Steel Truss bridge: Keystone (Galvanized and Painted) Packet Page 826
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 8 ends

Connector (left) and Keystone (right) Typical Sections
Due to the location of the bridge, with the ocean approximately 1.5 miles from the project site, rust has been considered as a risk for weathering steel. Manufacturers reviewed prior bridges that were installed near the ocean, and noted that rust, beyond that expected from weathering steel, is generally a concern at a much closer proximity to the water. Even so, galvanizing the bridge will make rust no longer a concern.

Example Connector Bridge with Timber Deck
Bridge and Approach Railing
The prefabricated steel truss bridge will include ADA safety rails that will provide adequate height for bridge railing.

Existing approach barriers are concrete, with architectural river rock. Barriers for the proposed bridge may be consistent with this river rock aesthetic and are included in the architectural treatment cost. Alternative cable railing was considered and implemented in the preliminary cost estimate as well. The cable railing has a more minimalist aesthetic look to blend in with the adjacent bridge. The City of Seaside is also considering adding lighting fixtures to the bridge.

Packet Page 827
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 9 ends

Drainage
The proposed 1.5% bridge cross slope and 2.2% or larger bridge camber (longitudinal slope) at midspan will provide a sufficient gradient for drainage of bridge surfaces. Since the proposed railings are open faced, the water will sheet flow off the bridge deck on to the bridge approach paved paths and San Pablo Avenue below the bridge.

Utilities
Two layers of overhead electrical lines (PG&E) cross the southern side of the proposed bridge.

Crane work will also be limited below and around the lines. Construction activities must maintain a 10’ clearance from high voltage overhead lines, as stated by the California Code of Regulations.

Underground utilities that pass underneath the pedestrian bridge along San Pablo Ave include PG&E (gas), AT&T, COMCAST, and City of Seaside water and sewer pipes.

For Alternatives B and C, which includes the preferred alternative, existing utilities may need to be altered. Because the bridge profile would be raised and grading modifications would be required at both bridge approaches, the utilities located adjacent to the bridge, including utility poles and manholes, may need to be adjusted to match the proposed finished grades or relocated to accommodate the revised approach geometry.

Environmental/Permits
An initial study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is anticipated to be the appropriate CEQA document. Federal funding procured for this project necessitates the requirement for NEPA clearance. NEPA Categorical Exclusion is anticipated and further scope will be developed during the next design phase.

Geotechnical/Foundations
A geotechnical subsurface investigation was conducted and two borings were drilled, one behind each abutment. Results of the borings indicate subsurface materials consist of medium dense silty sand, sand with silt, and silty sand. Based on these findings, deep foundations are recommended. Two suitable options are considered: driven piles (precast concrete or steel pipe piles) and CIDH piles. Spread footing foundations are deemed unsuitable due to the high seismic area and the classification of the soil up to 25 feet deep as Class 2, which is noncompetent.

Given the project's location in a densely populated residential area, the vibration and noise associated with pile driving are significant concerns. Due to the soil type, temporary casings are expected for CIDH piles. Without these casings, CIDH piles would result in significantly lower noise and vibration impacts on the surrounding communities. However, with the casings the CIDH piles are still less noisy than driven piles. Due to vibration and noise concerns, CIDH piles are preferred.

Packet Page 828
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 10 ends

Seismic
Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria version 2.1 (January 2025) will be utilized for the design.

The site is in a seismically active area, with a peak ground acceleration of 0.51g.

Design Acceleration Response Spectrum
Falsework
Since the proposed structure type will be a prefabricated steel truss, the use of falsework is not anticipated. The bridge will be delivered in two or more sections to the project site. Once the bridge is delivered to the site, it will be assembled and set in place with a crane.

Example Bridge Assembly with Crane
Temperature
Maximum Temperature: 104° F
Minimum Temperature: 20° F
Packet Page 829
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 11 ends

Deck Protection
Several decking options are offered by the bridge manufacturers for prefabricated steel truss bridges, concrete decking (by others) and IPE Select timber decking being most common.

The initial cost of IPE Select timber decking is lower, but a concrete decking will provide a cheaper overall solution when maintenance costs and lifecycle replacement costs are considered. Even so, timber decking is often preferred due to aesthetic preference.

Timber decking is the preferred option by the City however final determination will be made during final design.

Example Connector Bridge with Timber Deck
Corrosion
For structural elements, Caltrans considers a site to be corrosive if one or more of the following conditions exist for the representative soil and/or water samples taken at the site:
• Chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater, sulfate concentration is 1500 ppm or greater, or the pH is 5.5 or less.

The soils at the project site do not exceed those values noted above, therefore the soils are not considered corrosive.

As noted previously, the proposed bridge location is influenced by the marine atmosphere. This may lead to an increase in the oxidation rate of weathering steel, although it does not appear to be a significant concern after discussions with the manufacturers. Even so, moving forward with the preferred option of galvanizing the steel greatly mitigates the corrosion concern.

Slope Protection
Since the bridge spans over a residential street and there is no scour or erosion concern, there is no need for rock slope protection. The existing slope in front of the abutments is approximately 1:1 and is protected by cobblestones laid in cement. Grading in front of the abutments and existing rock slope protection is anticipated to remain in place.

Packet Page 830
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 12 ends

Existing Slope Protection

5. STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
Bridge Replacement Alternatives
Three alternatives were evaluated as potential solutions to reopen the pedestrian overcrossing.

Because the superstructure is classified as bridge in an “imminent failure condition,” all alternatives assume replacement of the existing timber bridge with a new prefabricated steel truss bridge with either a concrete or timber (2x8 IPE Select) deck. The proposed superstructure dimensions vary by alternative and are discussed in the applicable sections.

Since the existing substructures were reported to be in fair condition, several substructure alternatives were evaluated to determine whether reuse of the existing abutments and foundations would be feasible.

Example of Proposed Prefabricated Truss
Evaluated Bridge Replacement Alternatives
Alternative Substructure Superstructure
A Existing Abutments and Footings New Superstructure, Existing Span Length B Retrofit Existing Abutments and
Footings
New Superstructure, Existing Span Length
Packet Page 831
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 13 ends

C New Abutments on CIDH Piles New Superstructure, Increased Span Length, Increased Width
Alternative “A” (Not Recommended) - New Superstructure on Existing Abutments:

Alternative A evaluated replacing the existing glulam timber superstructure with a new prefabricated steel truss superstructure supported by the existing reinforced concrete abutments.

Elevation View of Bridge Alternative A
The existing substructure geometry documented in the available as-built plans was used to develop a structural model. Analyses included structural capacity, sliding, bearing, and overturning checks and assumed that the as-built information accurately reflects existing conditions.

Analyses found that the existing abutments satisfy structural, sliding, and overturning requirements, however the existing footing system does not provide adequate bearing capacity to support the proposed steel truss replacement bridge. The following issues were encountered:
• Insufficient bearing capacity of the existing foundations • Insufficient development length of the abutment stem reinforcement within the footing • Insufficient temperature and shrinkage reinforcement within the footing To maintain a minimum vertical clearance of 16 feet between the bottom chord and San Pablo Avenue, the replacement bridge was assumed to have a larger camber corresponding to an approximate longitudinal slope of approximately 3.75 percent.

Based on the deficiencies identified, Alternative A is not considered feasible and is not recommended for further consideration.

Alternative “B” (Not Preferred) - New Superstructure on Retrofitted Existing Abutments:

Alternative B evaluates retaining the existing abutments and spread footings while completing specific retrofits to abutments and footings to provide sufficient structural and geotechnical capacity for a replacement bridge. This alternative was developed to avoid complete replacement of the existing foundations while addressing the deficiencies identified in Alternative A.

Packet Page 832
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 14 ends

Elevation View of Bridge Alternative B
The retrofitted abutments and footings were evaluated for structural capacity and overall stability. Alternative B is technically feasible and can provide sufficient structural and geotechnical capacity for the replacement bridge. However, implementation would require significant excavation, footing and abutment modifications, grading improvements, and utility adjustments.

The existing abutments would remain in place but would require modifications to accommodate the new bridge profile and superstructure geometry.

To keep a standard camber in the new superstructure, the abutment seats would need to be raised approximately 9¼ inches. In addition, the abutment backwalls would require extensions of approximately 1 foot 7½ inches.

The increased bridge elevation would require placement of additional backfill behind the abutments and construction of new approach slabs to transition from the bridge deck to the existing ground surface. Similar to Scenario A, limited concrete removal may be required to facilitate construction of the abutment extensions and provide adequate connection between new and existing concrete.

Because the timber and concrete deck alternatives produce substantially different dead loads, the extent of footing modifications varies between the two options. In both cases, the footing would be extended at the heel and along both sides of the footing. The concrete deck alternative would also require an increase in footing thickness.

In addition, several uncertainties remain, including:
• Unknown existing footing conditions below grade.
• Service life of the existing foundations.
• Potential need for larger footing extensions if a wider bridge is desired. • Construction complexity associated with tying new concrete and reinforcement into the existing foundations.

Packet Page 833
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 15 ends

While Alternative B can be successfully implemented, the extent of required modifications, construction risks, and uncertainties associated with the existing foundation system make it a less desirable alternative. Therefore, Alternative B is considered feasible but is not the preferred alternative.

ALTERNATIVE “C” (Preferred): New Superstructure on New Abutments Supported by CIDH Piles
Alternative C evaluates installing a new superstructure supported on new reinforced concrete abutments founded on CIDH piles. To maintain the required minimum vertical clearance between the bottom chord and San Pablo Avenue, the replacement bridge profile would be raised relative to the existing structure.

This alternative assumes that the existing abutments would remain in place and would not be incorporated into the new bridge support system.

To accommodate the revised bridge profile and new abutment locations, the proposed bridge length would be increased to 98 feet 6 inches.

Alternative C presents the fewest construction challenges and the lowest level of uncertainty among the alternatives evaluated. By utilizing new abutments supported on CIDH piles, this alternative eliminates reliance on the existing foundation system while providing greater flexibility for future bridge width and span configurations.

Compared to the other feasible alternatives, Alternative C offers the following advantages:
• Lowest estimated construction cost for both timber and concrete deck options. • Minimal excavation and disturbance to existing soils and rock slope embankment. • Smallest foundation footprint among the feasible alternatives. • Longest anticipated service life.
• Reduced construction risk and uncertainty associated with existing foundation conditions.
• Simplified construction and improved constructability. • Ability to accommodate future bridge widening with relatively minor modifications. • All structural components can be designed to fully satisfy current design standards.

Based on the structural analyses, constructability review, and cost evaluation, Alternative C is considered feasible and is the preferred alternative.

Superstructure Options
Two prefabricated steel truss models have been selected as superstructure replacement options: Connector and Keystone. The Connector model is preferred due to cost effectiveness.

It is significantly less expensive than the Keystone model by about $100,000 including the galvanize and painted finish.

Packet Page 834
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 16 ends

Both the Connector and Keystone designs can accommodate the desired camber but the Connector is slightly lighter than the Keystone. Both models can also accommodate bridge lighting options. Both models are shipped by the manufacturer to the project site in two or more pieces, assembled on site and placed on abutments with a crane and followed by deck installation.

6. CONSTRUCTION COSTS
A 10% mobilization, 25% contingency, and escalation of 3 years at 6.19% per year are included in the total costs of the structure estimate. These estimates do not include costs associated with environmental mitigation, utility coordination/relocation, or construction engineering. The anticipated bridge only construction cost estimate is shown below. The Connector bridge model was assumed with costs provided by fabricator Contech. A breakdown of the estimates is located in Attachment C.

Structure Estimate:

Alternative Total Cost
Alternative B (Timber) $1,477,000
Alternative B (Concrete) $1,677,000
Preferred: Alternative C (Timber) $1,476,000
Alternative C (Concrete) $1,489,000
The total estimated costs presented above assume weathering steel option, which is the most economic alternative. If enhanced corrosion protection is desired, painted or galvanized coatings may be selected and added to the preliminary construction cost. Coating options for Connector and Keystone are shown below:

Coating Options Available as Adders to Prelim Construction Cost:

Model Length Width Adder Option 1: 2-coat
Coastal Paint System
Adder Option
2: Galvanized
Adder Option 3:

Galvanized &
Painted
Connector 98’-6” 8’-0” $64,100 $74,200 $114,900
Keystone 98’-6” 8’-0” $77,750 $113,500 $163,500
The site subtotal was provided by Whitson in their Engineer’s Estimate, located in Attachment C. Bridge costs shown in Whitson’s original estimate have been superseded by the structure estimate provided in this report. Similarly to the structure estimate, the total trail cost does not include costs associated with environmental mitigation, utility coordination/relocation, or construction engineering.

Packet Page 835
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

Page 17 ends

Trail Costs:

Trail Cost Total Cost
Site Cost Subtotal (remove curb, paving,
hydroseed, etc) Including 50% for
Contingency and Minor Items
$682,000
Escalation (3 years at 6.19%) $135,000
Total Trail Cost $817,000
Combining the preferred alternative bridge costs with the trail costs and adjusting for inflation, gives a total estimated construction cost of $2,293,000 as shown in the table below. Support costs which include project management, preconstruction, and construction support, are not included in this cost.

Structure and Trail Combined Cost:

Item Total Cost
Preferred Alternative Structure Cost $1,476,000
Total Trail Cost $817,000
Total Construction Cost $2,293,000

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternative C, the prefabricated truss alternative Connector model with a galvanized and painted finish, timber deck, and new CIDH pile foundations is the recommended alternative.

The total anticipated bridge construction cost for the bridge alternative on new pile foundations is estimated to be approximately $1,476,000. The total anticipated construction cost for the project including pathways and trails will be approximately $2,293,000.

Packet Page 836
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

ATTACHMENT A
Location Map
Packet Page 837
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

ATTACHMENT B
General Plan Drawings
Packet Page 838

PLAN ELEVATION TYPICAL SECTION GENERAL PLAN - ALTERNATIVE A SAN PABLO AVE POC CITY OF SEASIDE CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE Packet Page 839

PLAN ELEVATION ABUTMENT EXTENSION DETAIL GENERAL PLAN - ALTERNATIVE B (TIMBER) SAN PABLO AVE POC CITY OF SEASIDE CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE FOOTING EXTENSION DETAIL - ELEVATION FOOTING EXTENSION DETAIL - PLAN Packet Page 840

PLAN ELEVATION ABUTMENT EXTENSION DETAILGENERAL PLAN - ALTERNATIVE B (CONC) SAN PABLO AVE POC CITY OF SEASIDE CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE FOOTING EXTENSION DETAIL - ELEVATION FOOTING EXTENSION DETAIL - PLAN Packet Page 841

PLAN ELEVATION GENERAL PLAN - ALTERNATIVE C (TIMBER) SAN PABLO AVE POC CITY OF SEASIDE CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE ABUTMENT TYPICAL SECTION Packet Page 842

PLAN ELEVATION GENERAL PLAN - ALTERNATIVE C (CONC) SAN PABLO AVE POC CITY OF SEASIDE CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE ABUTMENT TYPICAL SECTION Packet Page 843
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

ATTACHMENT C
Construction Cost Estimate
Packet Page 844
Date 7/17/2026
San Pablo Ave POC Replacement - SCENARIO B (TIMBER) Cost Year 2029 30% Construction Cost Estimate Project. No. D232079CA
Project Manager Scott McCauley
Item No. Item Code Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 153121 REMOVE CONCRETE (CY) CY 1 $ 2,300 $ 2,300
2 F 192003 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 50 $ 385 $ 19,250 3 F 193003 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 190 $ 385 $ 73,150 4 F 510051 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 8 $ 3,800 $ 30,400 5 F 510053 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 16 $ 3,800 $ 60,800 6 511111 DRILL AND BOND DOWEL (CHEMICAL ADHESIVE)(LF) LF 165 $ 160 $ 26,400 7 F 520102 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 3890 $ 3 $ 9,725 8 ### 550200 FURNISH PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 316,000 $ 316,000 9 550201 ERECT PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 10 600097 BRIDGE REMOVAL LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 11 780400 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT (VENEER) LS LUMP SUM $ 75,000 $ 75,000 12 F 839521 CABLE RAILING LF 52 $ 500 $ 26,000
13 870200 LIGHTING SYSTEM LS LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50,000 14 $ -
15 $ -
16 999990 MOBILIZATION LS LUMP SUM $ - $ 97,793
986,818$
17 $ -
18 $ -
19 $ -
-$
Bridge Quantities By: A. Zubarev 986,818$
Bridge Check By: CONTINGENCY 25% 246,704$
Road Quantities By: ESCALATION 3 Years at
Road Check By: 6.19% Per Year
TOTAL 1,477,100$

PROJECT SUBTOTAL
243,537$

SUBTOTAL CONTRACT

SUPPLEMENTAL WORK

SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
1 Packet Page 845
Date 7/17/2026
San Pablo Ave POC Replacement - SCENARIO B (CONC) Cost Year 2029 30% Construction Cost Estimate Project. No. D232079CA
Project Manager Scott McCauley
Item No. Item Code Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 153121 REMOVE CONCRETE (CY) CY 3 $ 2,300 $ 6,900
2 F 192003 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 76 $ 385 $ 29,260 3 F 193003 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 195 $ 385 $ 75,075 4 F 510051 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 31 $ 3,800 $ 117,800 5 F 510053 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 29 $ 3,800 $ 110,200 6 511111 DRILL AND BOND DOWEL (CHEMICAL ADHESIVE)(LF) LF 181 $ 160 $ 28,960 7 F 520102 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 12830 $ 3 $ 32,075 8 ### 550200 FURNISH PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 258,200 $ 258,200 9 ### 550201 ERECT PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 10 600097 BRIDGE REMOVAL LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 11 780400 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT (VENEER) LS LUMP SUM $ 75,000 $ 75,000 12 F 839521 CABLE RAILING LF 52 $ 500 $ 26,000
13 870200 LIGHTING SYSTEM LS LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50,000 14 $ -
15 $ -
16 999990 MOBILIZATION LS LUMP SUM $ - $ 111,042
1,120,512$
17 $ -
18 $ -
19 $ -
-$
Bridge Quantities By: A. Zubarev 1,120,512$
Bridge Check By: CONTINGENCY 25% 280,128$
Road Quantities By: ESCALATION 3 Years at
Road Check By: 6.19% Per Year
TOTAL 1,677,200$

PROJECT SUBTOTAL
276,531$

SUBTOTAL CONTRACT

SUPPLEMENTAL WORK

SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
1 Packet Page 846
Date 7/17/2026
San Pablo Ave POC Replacement - SCENARIO C (TIMBER) Cost Year 2029 30% Construction Cost Estimate Project. No. D232079CA
Project Manager Scott McCauley
Item No. Item Code Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 $ -
2 F 192003 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 24 $ 285 $ 6,840 3 F 193003 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 190 $ 285 $ 54,150 4 490603 24" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 182 $ 420 $ 76,440 5 F 510053 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 16 $ 3,800 $ 60,800 6 F 520102 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 2230 $ 3 $ 5,575 7 550200 FURNISH PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 333,800 $ 333,800 8 550201 ERECT PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 9 600097 BRIDGE REMOVAL LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 10 780400 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT (VENEER) LS LUMP SUM $ 75,000 $ 75,000 11 F 839521 CABLE RAILING LF 52 $ 500 $ 26,000
12 870200 LIGHTING SYSTEM LS LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50,000 13 $ -
14 $ -
15 999990 MOBILIZATION LS LUMP SUM $ - $ 97,747
986,352$
16 $ -
17 $ -
18 $ -
-$
Bridge Quantities By: A. Zubarev 986,352$
Bridge Check By: CONTINGENCY 25% 246,588$
Road Quantities By: ESCALATION 3 Years at
Road Check By: 6.19% Per Year
TOTAL 1,476,400$

PROJECT SUBTOTAL
243,422$

SUBTOTAL CONTRACT

SUPPLEMENTAL WORK

SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
1 Packet Page 847
Date 7/17/2026
San Pablo Ave POC Replacement - SCENARIO C (CONC) Cost Year 2029 30% Construction Cost Estimate Project. No. D232079CA
Project Manager Scott McCauley
Item No. Item Code Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 $ -
2 F 192003 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 24 $ 285 $ 6,840 3 F 193003 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 190 $ 285 $ 54,150 4 490603 24" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 182 $ 420 $ 76,440 5 F 510053 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 30 $ 3,800 $ 114,000 6 F 520102 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 6050 $ 3 $ 15,125 7 550200 FURNISH PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 278,600 $ 278,600 8 550201 ERECT PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 9 600097 BRIDGE REMOVAL LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 10 780400 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT (VENEER) LS LUMP SUM $ 75,000 $ 75,000 11 839521 CABLE RAILING LF 52 $ 500 $ 26,000
12 870200 LIGHTING SYSTEM LS LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50,000 13 $ -
14 $ -
15 999990 MOBILIZATION LS LUMP SUM $ - $ 98,577
994,732$
16 $ -
17 $ -
18 $ -
-$
Bridge Quantities By: A. Zubarev 994,732$
Bridge Check By: CONTINGENCY 25% 248,683$
Road Quantities By: ESCALATION 3 Years at
Road Check By: 6.19% Per Year
TOTAL 1,489,000$

PROJECT SUBTOTAL
245,490$

SUBTOTAL CONTRACT

SUPPLEMENTAL WORK

SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
1 Packet Page 848
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE UNIT COST TOTAL COST
1 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS 24,000.00$ 24,000$
2 Temporary Traffic Control 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000$
3 Temporary Tree and Plant Protection 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$ 4 Construction Staking 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000$
5 Temporary Water Pollution Control 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000$ 6 Earthwork (excluding Structure) 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 7 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 200 LF 20.00$ 4,000$
8 Remove Asphalt Concrete and Base Rock 3,000 SF 7.00$ 21,000$ 9 Remove Concrete Sidewalk and Curb Ramp 1,000 SF 7.00$ 7,000$ 10 Concrete Curb and Gutter 200 LF 80.00$ 16,000$
11 Concrete Pedestrian Paving 5,000 SF 15.00$ 75,000$
12 Concrete Curb Ramp 250 SF 20.00$ 5,000$
13 Concrete Staircase 1 LS 3,000.00$ 3,000$
14 Concrete Retaining Wall 50 LF x 4' 200 SF 200.00$ 40,000$ 15 Handrails 700 LF 80.00$ 56,000$
16 Detectable Warning Surface 80 SF 80.00$ 6,400$
17 Hot Mix Asphalt Paving 2,000 SF 20.00$ 40,000$
18 Signage and Striping 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$
19 Soil Preparation 15,000 SF 0.50$ 7,500$
20 Hydroseed 15,000 SF 1.00$ 15,000$
21 Plant Establishment Period (60 days) 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000$ Contingency and Minor Items: 50% 227,450$
Site Subtotal 682,350$
19 Structure Demolition 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$
20 Cunningham Park POC (8'-Wide x 95'-Long Prefab Steel Truss) 1 LS 840,000$ 840,000$ Contingency and Minor Items: 25% 216,250$
Structure Subtotal 1,081,250$
Required Bid Contingency: 10% $ 176,360
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ($2026): 1,940,000 $
Inflation (3yrs at 7%): 23% $ 446,200
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ($2029): 2,390,000 $
Support Costs
Project Management: 3% 71,700$
Preconstruction: 25% 597,500$
Construction Support: 15% $ 358,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT SUPPORT COST: 1,028,000$
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ($2029): 3,418,000$

BRIDGE COSTS

SITE COSTS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST 2071.37
NM
06/17/26

SAN PABLO PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING REPLACEMENT
Project
Job No.

Estimator
Date
2071.37 Phase 2 Engrs_Est for grant appl.xlsx 1 of 1 Printed on: 7/17/20262:08 PM Packet Page 849
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

ATTACHMENT D
Preliminary Foundation Report

Packet Page 850
Main:
(916) 455-4225
Corporate Office:
4701 Freeport Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95822
www.crawford-inc.com
June 12, 2024
Crawford File No. 24-1052.1
To: Scott McCauley, P.E.

Consor Engineering
From: Keiko Lewis, P.E. and Eric Nichols, P.E., C.E.G.

Subject: Preliminary Foundation Recommendations
Cunningham POC Bridge Replacement
City of Seaside, California
The following summarizes subsurface foundation conditions and provides preliminary foundation data for your consideration in bridge type selection.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on borings completed for this project, subsurface materials are separated into two general soil units considered significant to the new bridge foundations.

Unit 1 materials generally consist of medium dense silty sand and sand with silt. These materials were encountered from the ground surface to depths of 23.5 ft (elev. 218.0 ft) in the south abutment boring and 13.0 ft (elev. 228.2 ft) in the north abutment boring. Existing fill material was encountered in the upper 16± ft and 13± ft of those borings, respectively.

Unit 2 materials generally consist of dense to very dense sand, sand with silt, and silty sand.

These materials were encountered below Unit 1 in the exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored (86.5±ft; lowest elev. 154.7 ft).

No groundwater was encountered in the borings completed for this study.

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the boring data generated for this study as summarized above, site conditions are considered suitable for structure support by means of driven piles (precast concrete or steel pipe piles) and cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) piles. However, vibration and noise associated with driven piles may impact nearby residences and restrict their use at the project location. Spread footing foundations for new bridge support are not considered suitable since the project site is in a high seismic area and soils to as deep as 25 ft are classified as Class 2 (non-competent soils). Caltrans precludes the use of shallow foundations in Class 2 soils unless an exception is granted.

Liquefaction potential and associated secondary seismic affects (e.g., settlement, downdrag) are not design considerations for this site/project based on the boring data.

Preliminary bridge foundation alternatives are discussed below.

Packet Page 851
Preliminary Foundation Recommendations Crawford
Cunningham POC Bridge Replacement File: 24-1052.1
Seaside, California June 12, 2024

DRIVEN PILES
The use of Caltrans Standard Class 90, 140, and 200 displacement type piles such as concrete (Alt. X) and closed-end steel pipe (Alt. V) piles are considered suitable for use at this site. Such piles are expected to readily achieve bearing within the underlying dense and very dense Unit 2 soils. Very dense soils are indicated below about elev. 210 ft at the south abutment and about elev. 200 ft at the north abutment. Therefore, such piles would be expected to experience hard driving within Unit 2 soils above specified tip elevation that could result in short piles and/or pile damage. Undersize drilling to assist pile driving might be necessary, particularly for concrete piles at the south abutment, in order to achieve design pile tip elevation.

For driven open-ended steel pipe piles, the use of Caltrans Standard Class 90, 140, and 200 piles are considered feasible for use at this site and would likely plug during driving, essentially acting like displacement type piles. Based on our past project experience, the drivability of Caltrans’ Standard Plan open-ended steel pipe piles is not a concern where the soil blow count (N60 value) is less than 60 bpf. Boring data generated for this site/project indicate N60 values greater than 60 bpf were encountered below about elev. 210 at the south abutment and about elev. 200 ft at the north abutment. Therefore, such piles would be expected to experience some hard driving within Unit 2 soils above specified tip with the option of center relief drilling to achieve specified tip if needed. Conversely, steel pipe piles (both open and closed end) could be cut-off in the event of hard driving and essential pile refusal.

Steel H-sections are also considered technically feasible at this site; however, as nondisplacement piles, they would likely require greater penetration than concrete and steel displacement-type piles of the same load capacity. H-Piles also typically exhibit greater driving variability that make prediction of pile tip elevations difficult.

Preliminary estimated pile tip elevations and pile lengths are provided in the table below. The pile tip elevations would vary depending on actual loading and pile cut-off elevation.

Pile Type
Nominal Pile
Resistance
(Axial)
kips
Estimated
Pile Tip
Elevation
feet
Estimated
Pile
Length
feet
Class 90
(Alt. X, T=14" or Alt. V) 180
215 - 210 20 - 25
Class 90
(Alt. W) 195 - 190 45 - 50
Class 140
(Alt. X, T=14" or Alt. V) 280
210 - 205 25 - 30
Class 140
(Alt. W) 180 - 175 60 - 65
Class 200
(Alt. X) 400
205 - 200 30 - 35
Class 200
(Alt. W) 175 - 170 65 - 70
Packet Page 852
Preliminary Foundation Recommendations Crawford
Cunningham POC Bridge Replacement File: 24-1052.1
Seaside, California June 12, 2024

CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE PILES
If noise and vibration restrictions preclude the use of driven piles at this site, then CIDH piles can provide adequate axial geotechnical resistance and minimize construction noise and vibration. Such piles would achieve support within the underlying dense soil through side friction. Since no groundwater was encountered in the borings completed for this study, the use of Caltrans Standard 16-inch diameter CIDH piles installed in “dry” holes is considered acceptable. Use of 24-inch diameter CIDH piles could also be used. Granular soils susceptible to caving are identified in the borings and the use of temporary casing will likely be required for ground control during construction. Temporary casing could be installed by oscillation/rotation to limit noise/vibration. Preliminary estimated tip elevations and lengths for CIDH piles are provided in the table below. The pile tip elevations would vary depending on actual loading and pile cut-off elevation.

Pile Type
Nominal Pile
Resistance
(Axial)
kips
Estimated
Pile Tip
Elevation
feet
Estimated
Pile
Length
feet
16-inch CIDH 280 195 - 200 35 - 40
24-inch CIDH 400 195 - 200 35 - 40
Packet Page 853
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing Type Selection Report September 2026

ATTACHMENT E
Abutment Feasibility Memo
Packet Page 854
Draft
Abutment Feasibility Memo
Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing
BRIDGE #44C0104
Prepared For:

City of Seaside
Public Works Engineering
Prepared By:

June 2026
Packet Page 855
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Seaside Department of Public Works is proposing to replace the Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing in Seaside, CA. The bridge spans San Pablo Ave and provides pedestrian and bicycle access between Stuart Park and Lincoln Cunningham Park. The existing glulam timber pedestrian bridge has been closed after being classified as being in an “imminent failure condition.” The purpose of this Memo is to evaluate alternatives for restoring pedestrian and bicycle access across San Pablo Avenue. Three scenarios were evaluated to identify the most feasible alternative for replacing the Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing.

Scenario A evaluated reuse of the existing abutments and spread footings without modification. Although the existing abutments were found to have adequate structural capacity, the existing footing system does not provide sufficient bearing resistance to support the proposed replacement bridge. In addition, several reinforcement detailing deficiencies were identified. As a result, Scenario A was determined to be infeasible and was eliminated from further consideration.

Scenario B evaluated retaining the existing abutments and footings while implementing structural and geotechnical retrofits to address the deficiencies identified in Scenario A. Analyses indicated that adequate capacity could be achieved through footing enlargements and abutment modifications. However, this alternative would require substantial excavation, reconstruction of portions of the existing foundations, and extensive grading improvements. In addition, uncertainties related to the condition and long-term performance of the existing foundations remain. While feasible, Scenario B presents greater construction complexity, risk, and cost compared to other alternatives.

Scenario C evaluated construction of new reinforced concrete abutments supported on CIDH piles while leaving the existing abutments in place. Structural and stability analyses indicate that the proposed foundation system provides adequate capacity for the replacement bridge while not relying on existing structures. This alternative offers the greatest flexibility with new bridge length and width, requires the least amount of excavation and eliminates many of the uncertainties associated with reuse of the existing foundations.

Packet Page 856
3 BACKGROUND
The existing Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing (Br. No. 44C0104) spans over San Pablo Avenue in Seaside, CA. The bridge was constructed in 1960 and facilitated pedestrian and bicycle access between Stuart Park and Lincoln Cunningham Park until it was closed in 2022. The bridge consists of a single 87- foot-6-inch span with two side mounted glulam timber girders and a timber plank deck supported by reinforced concrete abutments on spread footings. Asphalt concrete pathways provide access to the structure.

The City of Seaside, Department of Public Works is proposing to replace the existing pedestrian bridge as it has been classified to be in “imminent failure condition.” During the inspection performed by Consor in December of 2022, the existing superstructure had critical findings. A bolt line split was found on both glulam beams with varying depth, approximately 0” to 9” in depth.

The recommendations given by the inspectors were to keep the bridge closed until rehabilitation or replacement is completed. The existing abutments on spread footings were observed to be in fair condition, with no visible defects. The spread footings were not evaluated because access was unavailable at the time of inspection. In addition, the existing bridge approaches are not expected to meet current ADA requirements due to their steep approach grades.

The existing slope in front of the abutments is approximately 1H:1V and is protected by cobblestones laid in cement. Minor erosion was observed near the north abutment.

Packet Page 857
4 EVALUATED ABUTMENT SCENARIOS
Three alternatives were evaluated as potential solutions to reopen the pedestrian overcrossing. Because the superstructure is classified as bridge in an “imminent failure condition,” all alternatives assume replacement of the existing timber bridge with a new prefabricated steel truss bridge with either a concrete or timber (2x8 IPE Select) deck. The proposed superstructure dimensions vary by alternative and are discussed in the applicable sections.

Table 1: Evaluated Bridge Replacement Alternatives
Scenario Substructure Superstructure
A Existing Abutments and Footings New Superstructure, Existing Span Length B Retrofit Existing Abutments and
Footings
New Superstructure, Existing Span Length
C New Abutments on CIDH Piles New Superstructure, Increased Span Length, Increased Width
SCENARIO A - New Superstructure on Existing Abutments
Scenario A evaluated replacing the existing glulam timber superstructure with a new prefabricated steel truss superstructure supported by the existing reinforced concrete abutments.

Figure 1: Elevation View of Scenario A Bridge Alternative The existing substructure geometry documented in the available as-built plans was used to develop a structural model. Analyses included structural capacity, sliding, bearing, and overturning checks and assumed that the as-built information accurately reflects existing conditions.

Proposed Superstructure
To allow reuse of the existing abutments, the replacement bridge was assumed to maintain the existing span length of 87 feet 6 inches. An 8-foot-wide bridge was assumed for evaluation purposes.

Table 2: Assumed Superstructure Parameters for Scenario A Model Deck Length Width Total Weight
Connector Timber 87’-6” 8’-0” 29,660 lb
Connector Concrete 87’-6” 8’-0” 75,690 lb
Packet Page 858
5 Deck
The timber deck alternative (2x8 IPE Select) was assumed for evaluation because it represents the lightest available deck option and minimizes loading on the existing substructure.

Abutment Details
The existing abutments were assumed to remain in place with no modifications affecting their structural capacity or stability. Minor concrete removal may be required to accommodate installation of the new superstructure; however, the extent of removal is not expected to affect the structural performance of the abutments.

Figure 2: Minor Concrete Removal Potentially Required for Superstructure Installation (Highlighted in Red) Footing Details
The existing spread footings were assumed to remain unchanged.

Other Considerations
To maintain a minimum vertical clearance of 16 feet between the lowest steel members and San Pablo Avenue, the replacement bridge was assumed to have a larger camber corresponding to an approximate longitudinal slope of approximately 3.75 percent.

Analysis
The existing abutments and footings were evaluated to assess both structural capacity and overall stability.

Structural Capacity
Structural analyses indicated that the existing abutments and spread footings have adequate structural capacity to support the proposed replacement bridge loads, assuming the as-built dimensions and reinforcement details accurately represent existing conditions.

Figure 3: Structural Capacity Results
Packet Page 859
6 Structural Deficiencies
Although the existing abutments have sufficient structural capacity to support the proposed superstructure loads, several detailing deficiencies were identified.

The vertical reinforcement extending from the abutment stem into the footing, shown in Figure 4, does not provide sufficient development length (Ɩd). Because the footing is only 12 inches thick and requires 3 inches of bottom clear cover, a maximum embedment length of approximately 9 inches is available. Calculations indicate that a minimum development length of 14 inches is required.

Figure 4: Stability Analysis Results
In addition, the footing does not contain sufficient temperature and shrinkage reinforcement at the top of the toe or the bottom of the heel.

Stability Evaluation
Stability analyses included overturning, sliding, and bearing resistance checks. While the overturning and sliding evaluations met the required criteria, the bearing evaluation indicated insufficient capacity, with a calculated capacity-to-demand ratio (C/D) of 0.89 under Service loading and 0.56 under Strength loading.

These results indicate that the existing footing system does not provide sufficient bearing capacity to support the proposed replacement bridge.

Packet Page 860
7 Figure 5: Stability Analysis Results
According to the Geotechnical Spread Footing Evaluation dated May 20, 2026, the factored nominal bearing resistance of the foundation soil is 5.1 ksf. Due to the increased loading associated with the proposed steel truss superstructure and the relatively small footing dimensions, the existing footing and supporting soil do not provide sufficient bearing resistance for the replacement bridge.

Cost Estimate
Because this alternative was determined to be infeasible due to inadequate foundation bearing capacity, a construction cost estimate was not developed.

Determination
Although the existing abutments satisfy structural, sliding, and overturning requirements, the existing footing system does not provide adequate bearing capacity to support the proposed steel truss replacement bridge. The following issues were encountered:
• Insufficient bearing capacity of the existing foundations • Insufficient development length of the abutment stem reinforcement within the footing • Insufficient temperature and shrinkage reinforcement within the footing Based on the analysis performed and deficiencies identified, Scenario A is not considered feasible and is not recommended for further consideration.

SCENARIO “B”: New Superstructure on Retrofitted Existing Abutments Scenario Description
Scenario B evaluates retaining the existing abutments and spread footings while completing specific retrofits to abutments and footings to provide sufficient structural and geotechnical capacity for a replacement bridge. This alternative was developed to avoid complete replacement of the existing foundations while addressing the deficiencies identified in Scenario A.

Packet Page 861
8 Because the replacement bridge must maintain the required minimum vertical clearance over San Pablo Avenue, the bridge profile would be raised relative to the existing structure. As a result, new bridge approaches would be required on both sides of the crossing.

Figure 6: Elevation View of Scenario B Bridge Alternative. (Abutment 1 shown, Abutment 2 similar) Proposed Superstructure
Similar to Scenario A, the replacement bridge was assumed to maintain the existing span length of 87 feet 6 inches in order to utilize the existing abutment locations. An 8-foot-wide bridge was assumed for evaluation purposes.

Table 3: Assumed Superstructure Parameters for Scenario B Model Deck Length Width Total Weight
Connector Timber 87’-6” 8’-0” 29,660 lb
Connector Concrete 87’-6” 8’-0” 75,690 lb
Deck
The timber deck alternative was assumed for Scenario B evaluation.

Abutment Modifications
The existing abutments would remain in place but would require modifications to accommodate the new bridge profile and superstructure geometry.

To keep the a standard camber in the new superstructure, the abutment seats would need to be raised approximately 9¼ inches. In addition, the abutment backwalls would require extensions of approximately 1 foot 7½ inches.

Packet Page 862
9 Figure 7: Typical Abutment Extension Details (Green), Concrete Removal Limits (Hatched) Footing Modifications
The existing spread footings would require extensions to accommodate the bearing demand.

Figure 8: Plan View of Typical Footing Extension Details (Green) Table 4: Proposed Footing Extension Dimensions
Model Deck L “W” “D” “w” “x”
Connector Timber 20’-0” 8’-0” 1’-0” 5’-6” 3’-0”
Connector Concrete 24’-0” 10’-0” 2’-0” 7’-6” 5’-0”
Packet Page 863
10 The footing extensions would be connected to the existing footing using drilled and bonded dowels to transfer shear forces between the new and existing concrete.

To provide adequate moment transfer, a portion of the existing footing would need to be removed to expose the reinforcing steel and allow installation of mechanical couplers for positive reinforcement splices.

Figure 9: Elevation View of Typical Footing Extension Details (Green) Other Considerations
Because the bridge profile would be raised and grading modifications would be required at both bridge approaches, the utilities located adjacent to the bridge, including utility poles and manholes, may need to be adjusted to match the proposed finished grades or relocated to accommodate the revised approach geometry.

Analysis
The retrofitted abutments and footings were evaluated for structural capacity and overall stability.

Structural Capacity
Structural analyses indicate that the existing abutments, together with the proposed footing enlargements, provide adequate capacity to support both the timber and concrete deck alternatives.

Structural Deficiencies
The structural detailing deficiencies identified in Scenario A remain applicable because the existing abutment stems would remain in place. These deficiencies include:
• Insufficient development length (Ɩd) of the vertical reinforcement extending from the abutment stem into the footing.
• Insufficient temperature and shrinkage reinforcement within the footing.

Stability Evaluation
With the proposed footing enlargements, the existing foundations satisfy the required overturning, sliding, and bearing resistance criteria. Stability analyses indicate that adequate capacity can be achieved through the proposed rehabilitation measures.

Cost Estimate
Preliminary construction quantities were developed for the 8-foot-wide bridge alternative.

Construction costs vary depending on the selected deck type. Although the timber deck was used for structural evaluation because it minimizes foundation demands, the concrete deck alternative may be Packet Page 864
11 preferred due to its reduced long-term maintenance requirements. However, the additional dead load associated with a concrete deck necessitates larger footing modifications.

Only the 8-foot-wide bridge option was evaluated for this scenario. A wider bridge would require substantially larger foundation retrofits, resulting in significantly higher construction costs for Scenario B.

An 8-foot bridge width is considered adequate to meet the current needs of the project.

The cost includes a 25% contingency and escalation of 6.19% per year. Detailed Construction Cost Estimate is included in the Appendix.

Table 5: 30% Construction Cost Estimates for Scenario B Deck Length Width Prelim
Construction
Cost
Mobilization
(10%)
Contingency
(25%)
Escalation
(6.19%)
Total
Estimated
Cost
Timber 87’-6” 8’-0” $617,425 $67,917 $171,335 $53,028 $909,800 Concrete 87’-6” 8’-0” $737,870 $81,166 $204,759 $63,373 $1,087,200 Steel truss bridge manufacturers offer three coating options: weathering steel, painted steel, and galvanized steel. The total estimated costs presented in Table 5 assume the weathering steel option, which is the most economical alternative. If enhanced corrosion protection is desired, painted or galvanized coatings may be selected and added to the preliminary construction cost as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Coating Options Available as Adders to Prelim Construction Cost Model Length Width Adder Option 1:
2-coast Coastal
Paint System
Adder Option 2:

Galvanized
Adder Option 3:

Galvanized &
Painted
Connector 87’-6” 8’-0” $46,700 $58,300 $96,600
The final bridge coating selection should consider initial construction cost, anticipated maintenance requirements, and the project's long-term durability objectives.

Determination
Scenario B is technically feasible and can provide sufficient structural and geotechnical capacity for the replacement bridge. However, implementation would require significant excavation, footing and abutment modifications, grading improvements, and utility adjustments.

While Scenario B can be successfully implemented, the extent of required modifications, construction risks, and uncertainties associated with the existing foundation system make it a less desirable alternative.

Therefore, Scenario B is considered feasible but is not the preferred alternative.

Packet Page 865
12 SCENARIO “C”: New Superstructure on New Abutments Supported by CIDH Piles Scenario Description
Scenario C evaluates installing a new superstructure supported on new reinforced concrete abutments founded on Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles. To maintain the required minimum vertical clearance between the lowest steel member and San Pablo Avenue, the replacement bridge profile would be raised relative to the existing structure.

This alternative assumes that the existing abutments would remain in place and would not be incorporated into the new bridge support system.

Figure 10: Elevation View of Scenario C Bridge Alternative Proposed Superstructure
To accommodate the revised bridge profile and new abutment locations, the proposed bridge span would be increased to 95 feet 6 inches. An 8-foot-wide pedestrian bridge was assumed for evaluation purposes; however, a 10-foot-wide alternative could also be accommodated with additional design evaluation.

Table 7: Assumed Superstructure Parameters for Scenario C Model Deck Length Width Total Weight
Connector Timber 95’-6” 8’-0” 33,500 lb
Connector Concrete 95’-6” 8’-0” 84,210 lb
Deck
The timber deck alternative was assumed for Scenario C evaluation.

Figure 11: Plan View of Scenario C Bridge Alternative
Packet Page 866
13 Abutments
The proposed abutments for the 8-foot-wide bridge alternative would be approximately 10 feet 10 inches long. The backwall would be approximately 1 foot 7½ inches high and 1 foot thick to accommodate the depth of the superstructure, bearing assembly, and required bridge profile.

The abutment stem would be approximately 3 feet 1 inch high, providing sufficient embedment length for the reinforcement extending from the 24-inch CIDH piles into the abutment. The abutment seat would be approximately 2 feet wide, resulting in an overall abutment width of approximately 3 feet.

New abutments would be constructed behind the existing abutments on both sides of the crossing. The existing abutments would remain in place to avoid demolition costs and minimize grading and slope restoration requirements in front of the existing structures.

Figure 12: Abutment Typical Section for Scenario C
Pile Details
A deep foundation system consisting of 24-inch CIDH piles was one of the recommendations provided by Crawford in the Preliminary Foundation Report dated June 12, 2024. Each abutment would be supported by a single row of two CIDH piles.

Other Considerations
Because the bridge profile would be raised and grading modifications would be required at both bridge approaches, the utilities located adjacent to the bridge, including utility poles and manholes, may need to be adjusted to match the proposed finished grades or relocated to accommodate the revised approach geometry.

Analysis
The proposed abutments and deep foundations were evaluated for structural capacity and overall stability.

Structural Capacity
Structural analyses indicate that the proposed abutments and CIDH pile foundations provide adequate capacity to support both the timber and concrete deck alternatives for the 8-foot-wide bridge configuration.

Additional analysis would be required to evaluate a future 10-foot-wide bridge alternative.

Packet Page 867
14 Stability Evaluation
Stability analyses indicate that the proposed deep foundations satisfy the required stability criteria and provides adequate capacity for the 8-foot-wide bridge alternative.

Cost Estimate
Construction costs will vary depending on the selected deck type. Although a 10-foot-wide bridge remains a viable option, the 8-foot-wide alternative was used for cost comparison purposes because it satisfies the current project needs.

Unlike Scenarios A and B, this alternative can accommodate a future 10-foot-wide bridge with relatively minor modifications to the overall bridge layout and foundation system.

The cost includes a 25% contingency and escalation of 6.19% per year. Detailed Construction Cost Estimate is included in the Appendix.

Table 8: 30% Construction Cost Estimates for Scenario C Deck Length Width Prelim
Construction
Cost
Mobilization
(10%)
Contingency
(25%)
Escalation
(6.19%)
Total
Estimated
Cost
Timber 95’-6” 8’-0” $608,105 $66,892 $168,749 $52,228 $896,000 Concrete 95’-6” 8’-0” $610,755 $67,183 $169,485 $52,455 $899,900 The total estimated costs presented in Table 8 assume the weathering steel option, which is the most economical alternative. If enhanced corrosion protection is desired, painted or galvanized coatings may be selected and added to the preliminary construction cost as shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Coating Options Available as Adders to Prelim Construction Cost Model Length Width Adder Option 1:
2-coast Coastal
Paint System
Adder Option 2:

Galvanized
Adder Option 3:

Galvanized &
Painted
Connector 95’-6” 8’-0” $51,000 $63,700 $105,500
The final bridge coating selection should consider initial construction cost, anticipated maintenance requirements, and the project's long-term durability objectives.

Determination
Scenario C presents the fewest construction challenges and the lowest level of uncertainty among the alternatives evaluated. By utilizing new abutments supported on CIDH piles, this alternative eliminates reliance on the existing foundation system while providing greater flexibility for future bridge width and span configurations.

Compared to the other feasible alternatives, Scenario C offers the following advantages:
• Lowest estimated construction cost for both timber and concrete deck options. • Minimal excavation and disturbance to existing soils. • Smallest foundation footprint among the feasible alternatives. • Longest anticipated service life.

Packet Page 868
15 • Reduced construction risk and uncertainty associated with existing foundation conditions. • Simplified construction and improved constructability. • Ability to accommodate future bridge widening with relatively minor modifications. • All structural components can be designed to fully satisfy current design standards.

Based on the structural analyses, constructability review, and cost evaluation, Scenario C is considered feasible and is the preferred alternative.

CONCLUSION
Three alternatives were evaluated to determine the most feasible approach for replacing the Cunningham Park Pedestrian Overcrossing and restoring pedestrian access across San Pablo Avenue.

Scenario B evaluated retaining the existing abutments and footings while implementing structural and geotechnical retrofits to address the deficiencies identified in Scenario A. Analyses indicated that adequate capacity could be achieved through footing enlargements and abutment modifications. However, this alternative would require substantial excavation, reconstruction of portions of the existing foundations, utility adjustments, and extensive grading improvements. In addition, uncertainties related to the condition and long-term performance of the existing foundations remain. While feasible, Scenario B presents greater construction complexity, risk, and cost compared to other alternatives.

Scenario C evaluated construction of new reinforced concrete abutments supported on CIDH piles while leaving the existing abutments in place. Structural and stability analyses indicate that the proposed foundation system provides adequate capacity for the replacement bridge while not relying on existing structures. This alternative offers the greatest flexibility with new bridge width length, requires the least amount of excavation and eliminates many of the uncertainties associated with reuse of the existing foundations.

Based on the structural analyses, constructability review, and comparative cost evaluation, Scenario C is the preferred alternative for the following reasons:
• Lowest overall estimated construction cost for both timber and concrete deck options. • Longest anticipated service life.
• Least dependence on unknown existing foundation conditions. • Simplified construction and reduced construction risk. • Minimal excavation and soil disturbance.
• Ability to accommodate either an 8-foot-wide or 10-foot-wide bridge configuration with relatively minor design modifications.
• New structural elements can be designed to fully satisfy current design standards.

Based on the evaluation performed, Scenario C is recommended for final design and implementation.

Packet Page 869

APPENDIX A
Packet Page 870
GENERAL PLAN – SCENARIO A
Packet Page 871

PLAN ELEVATION TYPICAL SECTION GENERAL PLAN - SCENARIO A SAN PABLO AVE POC CITY OF SEASIDE CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE Packet Page 872
GENERAL PLAN – SCENARIO B (TIMBER)
Packet Page 873

PLAN ELEVATION ABUTMENT EXTENSION DETAIL GENERAL PLAN - SCENARIO B (TIMBER) SAN PABLO AVE POC CITY OF SEASIDE CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE FOOTING EXTENSION DETAIL - ELEVATION FOOTING EXTENSION DETAIL - PLAN Packet Page 874
GENERAL PLAN – SCENARIO B (CONC)
Packet Page 875

PLAN ELEVATION ABUTMENT EXTENSION DETAILGENERAL PLAN - SCENARIO B (CONC) SAN PABLO AVE POC CITY OF SEASIDE CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE FOOTING EXTENSION DETAIL - ELEVATION FOOTING EXTENSION DETAIL - PLAN Packet Page 876
GENERAL PLAN – SCENARIO C (TIMBER)
Packet Page 877

PLAN ELEVATION GENERAL PLAN - SCENARIO C (TIMBER) SAN PABLO AVE POC CITY OF SEASIDE CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE ABUTMENT TYPICAL SECTION Packet Page 878
GENERAL PLAN – SCENARIO C (CONC)
Packet Page 879

PLAN ELEVATION GENERAL PLAN - SCENARIO C (CONC) SAN PABLO AVE POC CITY OF SEASIDE CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE ABUTMENT TYPICAL SECTION Packet Page 880

APPENDIX B
Packet Page 881
COST ESTIMATE – SCENARIO B (TIMBER)
Packet Page 882
Date 6/10/2026
San Pablo Ave POC Replacement - SCENARIO B (TIMBER) Cost Year 2027 30% Construction Cost Estimate Project. No. D232079CA
Project Manager Scott McCauley
Item No. Item Code Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 153121 REMOVE CONCRETE (CY) CY 1 $ 2,300 $ 2,300
2 F 192003 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 50 $ 385 $ 19,250 3 F 193003 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 190 $ 385 $ 73,150 4 F 510051 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 8 $ 3,800 $ 30,400 5 F 510053 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 16 $ 3,800 $ 60,800 6 511111 DRILL AND BOND DOWEL (CHEMICAL ADHESIVE)(LF) LF 165 $ 160 $ 26,400 7 F 520102 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 3890 $ 3 $ 9,725 8 ### 550200 FURNISH PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 219,400 $ 219,400 9 550201 ERECT PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 10 F 839521 CABLE RAILING LF 52 $ 500 $ 26,000
11 870200 LIGHTING SYSTEM LS LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50,000 12 $ -
13 $ -
14 $ -
15 999990 MOBILIZATION LS LUMP SUM $ - $ 67,917
685,342$
16 $ -
17 $ -
18 $ -
-$
Bridge Quantities By: A. Zubarev 685,342$
Bridge Check By: CONTINGENCY 25% 171,335$
Road Quantities By: ESCALATION 1 Years at
Road Check By: 6.19% Per Year
TOTAL 909,800$

PROJECT SUBTOTAL
53,028$

SUBTOTAL CONTRACT

SUPPLEMENTAL WORK

SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
1 Packet Page 883
COST ESTIMATE – SCENARIO B (CONC)
Packet Page 884
Date 6/10/2026
San Pablo Ave POC Replacement - SCENARIO B (CONC) Cost Year 2027 30% Construction Cost Estimate Project. No. D232079CA
Project Manager Scott McCauley
Item No. Item Code Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 153121 REMOVE CONCRETE (CY) CY 3 $ 2,300 $ 6,900
2 F 192003 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 76 $ 385 $ 29,260 3 F 193003 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 195 $ 385 $ 75,075 4 F 510051 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 31 $ 3,800 $ 117,800 5 F 510053 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 29 $ 3,800 $ 110,200 6 511111 DRILL AND BOND DOWEL (CHEMICAL ADHESIVE)(LF) LF 181 $ 160 $ 28,960 7 F 520102 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 12830 $ 3 $ 32,075 8 ### 550200 FURNISH PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 161,600 $ 161,600 9 550201 ERECT PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 10 F 839521 CABLE RAILING LF 52 $ 500 $ 26,000
11 870200 LIGHTING SYSTEM LS LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50,000 12 $ -
13 $ -
14 $ -
15 999990 MOBILIZATION LS LUMP SUM $ - $ 81,166
819,036$
16 $ -
17 $ -
18 $ -
-$
Bridge Quantities By: A. Zubarev 819,036$
Bridge Check By: CONTINGENCY 25% 204,759$
Road Quantities By: ESCALATION 1 Years at
Road Check By: 6.19% Per Year
1,087,200$
63,373$

SUBTOTAL CONTRACT

SUPPLEMENTAL WORK

SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
TOTAL

PROJECT SUBTOTAL
1 Packet Page 885
COST ESTIMATE – SCENARIO C (TIMBER)
Packet Page 886
Date 6/10/2026
San Pablo Ave POC Replacement - SCENARIO C (TIMBER) Cost Year 2027 30% Construction Cost Estimate Project. No. D232079CA
Project Manager Scott McCauley
Item No. Item Code Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 $ -
2 F 192003 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 24 $ 285 $ 6,840 3 F 193003 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 190 $ 285 $ 54,150 4 490603 24" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 182 $ 420 $ 76,440 5 F 510053 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 16 $ 3,800 $ 60,800 6 F 520102 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 2230 $ 3 $ 5,575 7 550200 FURNISH PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 228,300 $ 228,300 8 550201 ERECT PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 9 839521 CABLE RAILING LF 52 $ 500 $ 26,000
10 870200 LIGHTING SYSTEM LS LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50,000 11 $ -
12 $ -
13 $ -
14 999990 MOBILIZATION LS LUMP SUM $ - $ 66,892
674,997$
15 $ -
16 $ -
17 $ -
-$
Bridge Quantities By: A. Zubarev 674,997$
Bridge Check By: CONTINGENCY 25% 168,749$
Road Quantities By: ESCALATION 1 Years at
Road Check By: 6.19% Per Year
896,000$
52,228$

SUBTOTAL CONTRACT

SUPPLEMENTAL WORK

SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
TOTAL

PROJECT SUBTOTAL
1 Packet Page 887
COST ESTIMATE – SCENARIO C (CONC)
Packet Page 888
Date 6/10/2026
San Pablo Ave POC Replacement - SCENARIO C (CONC) Cost Year 2027 30% Construction Cost Estimate Project. No. D232079CA
Project Manager Scott McCauley
Item No. Item Code Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 $ -
2 F 192003 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 24 $ 285 $ 6,840 3 F 193003 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 190 $ 285 $ 54,150 4 490603 24" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 182 $ 420 $ 76,440 5 F 510053 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 30 $ 3,800 $ 114,000 6 F 520102 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 6050 $ 3 $ 15,125 7 550200 FURNISH PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 168,200 $ 168,200 8 550201 ERECT PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS (BRIDGE) LS LUMP SUM $ 100,000 $ 100,000 9 839521 CABLE RAILING LF 52 $ 500 $ 26,000
10 870200 LIGHTING SYSTEM LS LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50,000 11 $ -
12 $ -
13 $ -
14 999990 MOBILIZATION LS LUMP SUM $ - $ 67,183
677,938$
15 $ -
16 $ -
17 $ -
-$
Bridge Quantities By: A. Zubarev 677,938$
Bridge Check By: CONTINGENCY 25% 169,485$
Road Quantities By: ESCALATION 1 Years at
Road Check By: 6.19% Per Year
899,900$
52,455$

SUBTOTAL CONTRACT

SUPPLEMENTAL WORK

SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
TOTAL

PROJECT SUBTOTAL
1 Packet Page 889

APPENDIX C
Packet Page 890

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION

RECOMMENDATIONS
Packet Page 891
Main:
(916) 455-4225
Corporate Office:
4701 Freeport Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95822
www.crawford-inc.com
June 12, 2024
Crawford File No. 24-1052.1
To: Scott McCauley, P.E.

Consor Engineering
From: Keiko Lewis, P.E. and Eric Nichols, P.E., C.E.G.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on borings completed for this project, subsurface materials are separated into two general soil units considered significant to the new bridge foundations.

Unit 2 materials generally consist of dense to very dense sand, sand with silt, and silty sand.

These materials were encountered below Unit 1 in the exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored (86.5±ft; lowest elev. 154.7 ft).

No groundwater was encountered in the borings completed for this study.

Liquefaction potential and associated secondary seismic affects (e.g., settlement, downdrag) are not design considerations for this site/project based on the boring data.

Preliminary bridge foundation alternatives are discussed below.

Packet Page 892
Preliminary Foundation Recommendations Crawford
Cunningham POC Bridge Replacement File: 24-1052.1
Seaside, California June 12, 2024

Preliminary estimated pile tip elevations and pile lengths are provided in the table below. The pile tip elevations would vary depending on actual loading and pile cut-off elevation.

Pile Type
Nominal Pile
Resistance
(Axial)
kips
Estimated
Pile Tip
Elevation
feet
Estimated
Pile
Length
feet
Class 90
(Alt. X, T=14" or Alt. V) 180
215 - 210 20 - 25
Class 90
(Alt. W) 195 - 190 45 - 50
Class 140
(Alt. X, T=14" or Alt. V) 280
210 - 205 25 - 30
Class 140
(Alt. W) 180 - 175 60 - 65
Class 200
(Alt. X) 400
205 - 200 30 - 35
Class 200
(Alt. W) 175 - 170 65 - 70
Packet Page 893
Preliminary Foundation Recommendations Crawford
Cunningham POC Bridge Replacement File: 24-1052.1
Seaside, California June 12, 2024

Pile Type
Nominal Pile
Resistance
(Axial)
kips
Estimated
Pile Tip
Elevation
feet
Estimated
Pile
Length
feet
16-inch CIDH 280 195 - 200 35 - 40
24-inch CIDH 400 195 - 200 35 - 40
Packet Page 894

APPENDIX D
Packet Page 895

SPREAD FOOTING EVALUATION
Packet Page 896
1 Project: Cunningham POC Bridge Replacement
Job No.: 24-1052.1
Date: 5/20/26
Subject: Abutment 1 and 2 Spread Footing Evaluation Results

BEARING RESISTANCE
Table 1: As-Built Foundation Data and Bearing Resistance Support
Location
Footing Size
(ft) Bottom of
Footing
Elevations
(ft)
Estimated
Footing
Embedment
Depth
(ft)
Strength Limit
State
𝝋b = 0.45
Extreme Event
Limit State
𝝋b = 1.00
B L
Factored Gross
Nominal Bearing
Resistance3
(ksf)
Factored Gross
Nominal Bearing
Resistance3
(ksf)
Abut 1 & 2 4.0 14.0 234.5 3.0 2.2 5.1
Based on 1965 As-Built plans, existing footing width of 4 feet was used for our evaluation. The minimum footing embedment depth of 3.0 feet was assumed based on our observations at the site. The soil parameters were developed based on our 2024 field exploration including borings A-24-001 and R-24-002 at the abutment location.

The nominal bearing resistance was determined using the theoretical method formula (Munfakh, et al., 2001) presented in Section 10.6.3.1.2 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications assuming no eccentricity for the Strength and Extreme Limit States. The theoretical method (Meyerhof, 1957) presented in Section 10.6.3.1.2c of the California Amendments to AASHTO BDS was used for the spread footings bearing on a slope at Abutment 1 and 2.

The bearing materials are expected to be medium dense silty sand and were modeled as a cohesionless soil with a friction angle of 32° without cohesion. The bottom of footing was modeled at 7 feet below existing grade (elev. 234.5 ft). The groundwater level was not used in our analysis due to the depth of groundwater (>86 ft deep based on boring data generated for this study). We used a resistance factor (𝝋b) of 0.45 in our analysis to determine the factored gross nominal bearing resistance (strength).

Packet Page 897
2 SLIDING RESISTANCE
To evaluate spread footing foundation sliding resistance for Strength and Extreme Limit State load combinations consistent with Section 10.6.3.4 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and current Caltrans procedures we recommend the following:
• For cast-in-place concrete foundations bearing on granular soils, it is recommended use a friction angle (ff) equal to 32° corresponding to a friction factor (tan δ = tan ff) of 0.62.

For Strength Limit State evaluation, a resistance factor (𝜑t) of 0.8 is recommended for shear resistance between the bottom of the cast-in-place concrete footing and intact decomposed sandstone.
• Due to proximity of footing to the slope face, we recommend to neglect the passive pressure.

Packet Page 898

Seaside City CouncilSeptember 17, 2026

Seaside City Council
September 17, 2026