Seaside City Council
September 17, 2026
HRC’s Mission….
“to provide a continuum of
housing resources for
homeless prevention and
affordable housing
opportunities. ”
•Payment of Eviction(s) and outstanding utility debt(s) (collections) •Application fees, pro-rated rent, first month’s rent, security deposit •CARS Assessments
•Referrals to services provided by other organizations
•HSVP Voucher Applications
– Disabled clients who cannot work, single parents
with 3+ children, and seniors
Summary of Services
What is CARS?
• HUD mandates that homeless services be organized through a Coordinated Entry system. For Monterey and San Benito, our Coordinated Entry System is called Coordinated Assessment and Referral System or CARS.
• CARS replaces the first-come-first-serve method to waitlists/resources. – It is a consistent, County wide process to match the homelessness community to resources that are the best fit for their situation. This benefits our community because individuals are paired with services or placed on waitlists based on their needs, ensuring those with the highest needs are served first. The Coalition of Homeless Service Providers runs this referral system.
Program Title Basic Criteria Referral Process
Housing Support Program
(HSP)
CalWORKs Family
Unhoused (or at risk of)
Referred by their CalWORKs worker to the
Department of Social Services (DSS), placed on
waitlist through CARS
Family Stabilization Program
(FSP)
CalWORKs Family
Unhoused (or at risk of)
Needs of additional resources
Referred by their CalWORKs worker to the
Department of Social Services (DSS), FS worker
makes a referral to HRC
Hope Housing
Formerly Incarcerated
Unhoused (or housing causes risks to
sobriety)
Sun Street Centers Services
Referrals sent through Sun Street Centers and
Monterey County Behavioral Health
Bringing Families Home
(BFH)
Families with children in the welfare
system
Working with a CPS Social Worker
Monterey County resident
Referrals sent to Family and Children Services
from clients’ CPS Social Worker
Case Manager Roles Housing Specialist Roles
Initial Intake: household size, when they were
last on a lease, how they became homeless
Initial Intake: previous rentals, what’s
affordable for rent, where to house search
Monthly budgets and housing goals How to apply for a unit and how to speak to landlords
Identify and help eliminate housing barriers:
evictions, pets, outstanding utility payments
Unit inspections and rent negotiations with
landlords
Connecting client to community resources Ensuring client understands what is on their lease and how to make a repair order
Once Housed…
• The Housing Specialist closes
themselves from the case
•The Case Manager changes focus with
the client from “housing search” to
“maintaining housing”.
•If non-subsidized, HRC places client on
a rental plan and the client learns their
rental responsibilities for each month.
•After client pays their full rental on
their own and exhibits no foreseeable
hardship, HRC successfully closes the
client.
2025 Key Statistics
Total Served 1041 Individuals
(299 households)
Total Adults 423
Total Children 618
*Total Individuals Served in Seaside: 65 (6.24% of Total Individuals Served) – Based on the client’s ZIP code
** Seaside’s population makes up approximately 7.2% of
Monterey County’s population
The statistics demonstrate that many of the households we served are made up of single mothers with 2 or more children.
Landlord Outreach
Coordinator
David Fowler (Dave)
[email protected]
(831) 455-6322
• Co-hosting outreach events
• Leveraging funds for other indirect housing expenses
• Auto repairs
• Groceries
• Medical Expenses
• Undocumented Family Assistance
•Become an HRC Community Engagement Committee Advisor
• Refer (or become) an HRC landlord
•Save the Date for our Hops for Housing event, December 4th at Alvarado Brewery! Partnership Opportunities
For More Information
General Assistance
Juanita Ruvalcaba
Program Operations Assistant
[email protected]
Office: (831) 424-9186 X 110
Cell: (831) 596-6130
All other Inquiries
Cynthia Flores
Program Manager
[email protected]
Office: (831) 424-9186 X 250
For Landlords, Agency Leaders and
County Employees
Catherine Stihler
Executive Director
[email protected]
Office: (831) 424-9186 X 170
Everyone’s Harvest
Community Social Services
Grant Report
Presented by: Hester Parker, PhD
Executive Director
Everyone’s Harvest
The Venue: Seaside Farmers Market
Seaside Certified Farmers Market opened in June 2023
Thursdays: 3 - 7 p.m.
Laguna Grande Park
The market features the following:
Fresh produce
Artisanal food
Live performances
Free community booth spaces
A weekly community gathering place 2
The Venue: Seaside Farmers Market
The Seaside Certified Farmers Market
provides the following services:
CalFresh/Market Match
Fresh Rx Produce Prescriptions
Edible Education
Cooking Demos, Food Navigation
Bounty Cards
WIC & Senior FMNP Coupons
Free community booth space
Farms Together Produce Boxes (canceled in spring 2026)
3 The City of Seaside CSS Grant to Everyone’s Harvest
implemented at the Seaside Farmers Market:
Goal to enhance public health of Seaside
residents with low incomes by:
a.Increasing consumption of healthy produce
b.Improving food security Everyone’s Harvest’s CSS Grant Goals 4 The CSS Grant addressed goals by increasing the spending power of Seaside residents at the Seaside Farmers Market:
CalFresh (SNAP or food stamp) users received a 60% discount on fresh fruits and vegetables through Market Match.
How does it work?
$30 on EBT card + $15 Market Match + $30 CSS funds
= $75 daily total in fresh fruits and vegetables )
5 CSS Grant Activities
The Everyone’s Harvest staff advertised the Market Match program using the following methods:
1.Information table at the weekly Seaside Farmers Market
2.Signage at the weekly farmers market
3.48 food navigation activities at community events
4.Weekly social media posts
6 CSS Grant Activities
Surveys of Market Match participants before and after the grant period revealed how people heard about Market Match:
Info Table at farmers market (40.3%)
Clinics, WIC, or the EH food navigator (33.8%)
Friends and word of mouth (23.4%)
Social media was the least popular method (2.6%). CSS Grant Activities 7 CalFresh and Market Match use compared between:
a.10/16/25 - 6/30/26 (grant period)
b.10/16/25 - 6/30/25 (previous time period)
Market Match users anonymously surveyed at the
beginning and end of CSS grant period for the following:
Daily vegetable consumption
Daily fruit consumption
Food insecurity Evaluation Methodology
8 CSS Grant Objectives & Outcomes
Objective 1. Increase the number of customers using CalFresh benefits to purchase produce at the Seaside farmers’ market by 25%.
Outcome: 39% increase in the number of EBT/Market Match transactions Objective 2. Increase the number of returning customers using CalFresh benefits to purchase produce at farmers’ markets by 15%
Outcome - 11% increase in number of repeat customers
Caveat: USDA required a new system to maintain CalFresh records, making it impossible to account for all repeat customers.
9 Nutrional Incentive Goals
& Objectives Objective 3. Increase the amount of produce purchased by residents with CalFresh benefits from small-scale farmers at the Seaside Farmers Market.
Outcomes;
63% increase in the $ amount of CalFresh benefits used at the Seaside Farmers Market (all CalFresh-eligible items and produce) compared to previous year. 180% increase in the $ amount of Market Match used to purchase additional fresh fruits and vegetables at the Seaside Farmers Market. 117% increase in the combined $ amount of CalFresh benefits and Market Match used to purchase CalFresh-eligible items and produce. 10 CSS Grant Objectives & Outcomes
Nutrional Incentive Goals
& Objectives
Objective 5. Decreased food insecurity experienced by CalFresh families
14.6% more respondents sometimes or often experienced food insecurity
25.3% more respondents sometimes or often worried about food insecurity
11 CSS Grant Objectives & Outcomes
Objective 4. Increase the amount of produce consumed by residents using CalFresh benefits at the Seaside Farmers Market.
0.29 cups average increase in daily vegetable intake at end of grant period.
0.14 cups average increase in daily fruit intake (but not significant difference).
Nutrional Incentive Goals
& Objectives
12 CSS Grant Results
Conclusion ~ Significant increases in:
# of customers using CalFresh and Market Match
$ amount of produce purchased at the farmers market
Average daily vegetable intake.
Despite increases, CalFresh families still expressed greater food insecurity at the end of the grant period, possibly reflecting the overall increase in food prices that occurred during the grant period. The grant may have helped to mitigate the overall negative effects that general economic conditions were having on families.
Additional Goals
& Objectives Objective 6. To increase the confidence of Seaside residents in cooking healthy,
culturally relevant meals with fresh produce.
5 in-person cooking demos or
nutritional tastings during grant period.
99% of participants reported being
confident using more produce in food
preparation after attending cooking
demos.
13 Upcoming Projects: Expansion of Fresh Rx program with Medi-Cal and new Federal grant.
Market Match Saved: $15 million in CA 2026-27 budget!
Farms Together Saved: $15 million in CA 2026-27 budget! 14 What’s next for Seaside Farmers Market!
Thank you City of Seaside!
15 Your fruitful partnership and support helps create a healthy Seaside community, giving members access to fresh,
affordable, and local produce, and a chance to build
meaningful connections.
Thank you City of Seaside!
Contact: Hester Parker
[email protected]
831-384-6961
www.everyonesharvest.org
Questions?
16 Greater Victory Temple
Afternoon Community
Support Program
Community Social
Services
Grant Impact | FY 2025-26
City of Seaside City Council
Amanda A. Kennedy, Ed.S.
Director of Educational
Initiatives
Local students.
Stronger
support.
More access.
1 Our Reach Grew During the School Year
Students served and staff service hours reported in the grant reports Quarter 2
25 students
583 staff
hours
Quarter 3
30 students
672 staff
hours
Quarter 4
40 students
360 staff
hours
1,615 staff service hours
Enrollment grew from 25 to 40 students.
Q4 was shorter; the school year ended June 5.
2 What Students Experience After School
Whole-child support beyond the classroom
Hands-on Meals + snacks Creative time Field trips
Literacy support • Enrichment • Food • Art • Positive
relationships • Safe, structured time
The goal is simple: help students learn, grow, and connect after the school day.
3 How the Grant Support Was Used
Reported Community Social Services Grant activity, Q2-Q4 Q2 $6,480.47
Q3 $7,235.00
Q4 $1,530.00
DIRECT
STUDENT
SUPPORT
Major uses
Literacy Training Snacks Zoo trip Art
Q2 and Q3 each reported $690 of in-kind artist instruction within their totals. 4 How City Support Increased Our Reach
From limited access to more consistent service
Before grant support
• Monday-Thursday
operation
• Three students left
because families needed
five days of service
With grant support
• Tutoring expanded to
Monday-Friday
• Enrollment grew to
approximately 40
• Food stayed a priority as
participation increased
The program became more usable for working families who needed a full five-day option.
5 Enrichment Builds Confidence and Connection
Monthly art experiences gave students a positive, structured outlet Monthly art lessons supported
creative skill-building, selfexpression, and positive participation.
Educational experiences also included the Monterey Zoo and a Dennis the Menace Park excursion.
6 Key Takeaways & Next Steps
Community Social Services Grant impact, FY 2025-26
1 Expanded
Access
Monday-Friday
tutoring
2 Stronger Core
Support
Literacy, training
& food
3 Broader
Experiences
Art & field
experiences
Next steps: maintain five-day support, prioritize literacy and meals, and strengthen partnerships for educational experiences.
Thank you for investing in Seaside students!
Amanda A. Kennedy, Ed.S. | (831) 394-2774 | [email protected] 7 City of Seaside
Community Social
Services Grant Report
2025-2026
Friends of Seaside Parks
Association
(FOSPA)
1 FOSPA Mission
To foster a sense of community, unity, and civic
pride by volunteering together to improve city
parks and neighborhoods.
2 We create pollinator habitats
with California Native Plants
3 Winter 2023 Spring 2026
Why California
Native Plants?
- They take very little water, once established
- They support native pollinators like native bees, birds, butterfly and moth species - Pollinators are threatened by habitat loss, pesticide use, climate change - Pollinators are vital to healthy ecosystems that support food production and biodiversity in cities as well as in natural and agricultural areas - Beautiful, revitalizing, and educational
Aster
Buckwheat Aster
Bladderpod Black Sage
California Poppy
Ceanothus 4
We meet every Saturday, from
10am to 12 noon -
rotating between 9 parks.
Average weekly volunteer count = 25
5 We sheet mulch
for water retention
and weed
suppression!
We
plant!
We water!
6 We
weed!
We create
passive
rainwater
collection
systems!
7 We create soil sponges by
digging deep swales, and
filling them with organic
matter. The new plants are
nourished and require less
water.
Lincoln Cunningham
Park
2025
2026
In the 2025-2026 planting
season, approximately 500
native pollinator plants
were planted in FOSPA
parks and 16,500 square
feet were added! 8
Our aim with Community Social Services Grant funds was to expand our outreach so that more Monterey Peninsula residents got to know about FOSPA and the work that we do.
Our spending was divided into
several areas
- Supplying partial funding for a
Grizzly Corps Fellow
- Reaching out to local schools
and agencies
- Purchasing bulletin boards for
parks
- Hosting outreach events in
parks
9 Grizzly Corps Fellow, Sally Norman, sponsored through the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County
Worked with Green Cadre on
special projects
Created flyer/banner designs
for workdays and events
Helped coordinate outreach
events
Created an instagram account
Made presentations at CSUMB
on our behalf
10 Grizzly Corps Fellow,
Sally Norman
“Sally is an absolute ray of sunshine to work
with. She has an incredible gift for connecting
our day-to-day work to it’s real impact in the
community, reminding us why what we do
matters.”
Christine Whisler (FOSPA)
11 Through Sally’s
Norman’s outreach
to the Environmental
Science Dept. at
CSUMB, service
learners are joining
us on Saturday
workdays.
12 Similarly, new volunteers have
joined us this year from Seaside
High School, Monterey Peninsula
College, Big Sur Land Trust and
Seaside Rising.
13 Five bulletin boards
were purchased with
grant funds.
They inform neighbors about FOSPA
workdays and the work that we do. 14
Event - Rock’n the Park
January 17, 2026
Attendance
25-30 people
15 Park
Circuit
Challenge
May 2, 2026
Attendance 25 - 30
16 We took
advantage of
grant funds
to purchase
items that we
can use in
the future. Popup tent
Yard signs w/before pics Cloth frisbees
Feather flags
Seed packets w/logo
Art students
painted
background,
Monterey
Adult School
Garden
supervisor
built. 17
Art,
Blooms
and Beats!
Highland/
Otis Park
Attendance
100-120
June 20th,
2026 18
Art, Blooms
and Beats!
19 Results: Mailchimp Subscribers
From June - December 2025
Our audience grew from 347 to 370 contacts
we had a net gain of 23 contacts (6.6% increase)
From January to June 2026 Our audience grew from 379 to 420 contacts in June
we had a net gain of 44 contacts (10.8% increase in audience) 20 Lessons Learned
- Importance of one-on-one communication with neighbors and our volunteer base
- By asking the question: “How did you hear about us?” we understand that a variety of strategies are needed for our continued outreach.
- Many traditional strategies (workday signage, passing out fliers) are still effective
- Large event banners help
- Music and activities for all age groups helps
21 Plans for FOSPA 2026-2027
Build on what was learned through the CSS Grant Process Help support two Grizzly Corps Fellows (through RCDMC)
Receive assistance from three Climate Action Fellows (through RCDMC) Expand pollinator habitats - hoping to add a total of 100,000 sq. ft.
Add garden sheds to several more parks
Add interpretative signage, bulletin boards in all parks Fellows are creating an interactive multimedia presentation with interviews of park stewards… possible documentary.
Hoping to launch a new program for young people - “Empowering Seaside Youth with Outdoor Environmental Education and Opportunities” 22 23
Thank
you!
Item 10.A.
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER)
For the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program
September 17, 2026 | City Council Meeting
Haroon Noori, Administrative Analyst II
2 • Required by HUD (due each September 30th)
• Provides financial and public benefit summary
• Reports on the City's progress toward Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan goals
About CAPER
3 Program Year Highlights
TOTAL RESOURCES EXPENDED BENEFICIARIES
$466,548 $424,371 6,247 pple
4 Public Service Activities
Organization Budget Disbursed
# of
persons
Assisted
Girls, Inc. of the Central Coast $10,190 $10,190 78
Greater Victory Temple $10,190 $10,190 74
Legal Services for Seniors $10,190 $10,190 80
Meals on Wheels of the
Monterey Peninsula
$10,190 $10,190 335
Eden Council for Hope and
Opportunity
$10,190 $10,190 42
Gathering for Women -
Monterey
$10,190 $10,190 25
TOTAL $61,140 $61,140 634
5 Neighborhood Facilities
Organization Budget Disbursed
# of
persons
Assiste
d
Boys and Girls Club of
Monterey County
Seaside Clubhouse Parking Lot
Project Improvements
$50,000 $50,000 702
Community Human Services
Casa de Noche Buena Facility
Improvements – Canceled
$40,000 $0 N/A
TOTAL $90,000 $50,000 702
6 Public Infrastructure
Organization Budget Disbursed
# of
persons
Assisted
City of Seaside–Public Works
24 ADA Curb Ramps Installed
$240,000 $237,847 4,911
7 Planning and Administration
Organization Budget Disbursed
City of Seaside–Community Development $75,384 $75,384
• Ensured compliance with HUD CDBG requirements
• Managed program expenditures and IDIS reporting
• Prepared and administered CDBG agreements and activities • Administered the FY2026-2028 NOFA and RFA
• Prepared the FY2025-26 CAPER
• Achieved 100% low- and moderate-income benefit
8 • Adopt a Resolution to approve the FY2025-26 CAPER
for the CDBG program and authorize the City Manager
or designee to submit the FY2025-26 CAPER to HUD.
Recommendation
September 17, 2026 | City Council Meeting
Beth Rocha, Senior Planner
ITEM 10B. APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’s
APPROVAL OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 2026-002
&
MINOR USE PERMIT 2026-001
1828 Yosemite Street
• 7,200 SF parcel
• 1,183 SF existing single
story residence
• 465 SF detached garage
• Zone: RS-8
2 3
Attached Garages
4 Neighborhood Characteristics
5 Neighborhood Characteristics, cont’d.
6 Neighborhood Characteristics, cont’d.
7 • June 24, 2026: 6-0 vote in support of continuing the item to the next hearing to allow for the applicant to respond/modify proposal based on public comment. • July 8, 2026: 3-1-2-0 approved Architectural Review Application No. AR-2026- 002 for a second-story addition, including a balcony and deck, to an existing one-story dwelling, and Minor Use Permit No. MUP-2026-001 for the proposed first and second stories to encroach into the required side setbacks no further than the existing nonconforming setbacks at 1828 Yosemite Street (APN: 012- 621-034) in the single-family residential (RS-8) zoning district.
Planning Commission (PC) Timeline
• July 14, 2026: Erica Sabin, owner of the adjoining property at 1820 Yosemite Street, filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.
Timeline, cont’d.
8 June 24, 2026
PC Public Hearing
9 10
Proposed Site Plan
4’-7
3/8”
4’-7” 0’
Two additions to 1st floor:
Approx. 178 SF and
211SF for a total of
1,571 SF.
Addition at front would
attach home to garage
Minor Use Permit to
continue nonconforming
setbacks to second story
addition
10 Floor Plan: 1st Story
Proposed 1st Floor
Main House: 831.94
SF
Proposed ADU:
740.03 SF
11 Floor Plan: 2nd Story
Proposed Area (SF)
• 1,471 SF, for a ~2,302 SF, 4 bd primary
residence
Proposed Balcony accessed off
bedroom:
• 24'-7” W x 9’-5" D, 234.15 SF
Proposed Deck accessed off living
room:
• 13’-5” W x 21’-1”/19’-9” D, 271.49 SF
12 West Elevation
Proposed Balcony accessed off 2nd story: 24'-7”W x 9’-5"D, 234.15 Proposed Deck accessed off living room: 13’-5”W x 21’D, 271.49 8’-7” Deck setback
13 North Elevation
Proposed decking
surface:
13’- 4”
and
Top of railing:
16’-10”
14 South Elevation (adjacent to 1820 Yosemite)
15 16
East Elevation
17 Architectural Rendering
June 24, 2026 PC Decision
6-0 vote: Continued to the next meeting for the applicant to return with a revised proposal based on public comments, in part, included:
• Numerous complications associated with the attached garages, including the proposal of the primary residence to be attached to the garage. • Separating the garage structures is preferred.
• A privacy screen along the southern portion of the large deck, affording privacy to 1820 Yosemite residents. No sound systems, TV or BBQs. (Appellant’s 6.24 Public Comment p.662 – 672 of agenda packet) 20 July 8, 2026
PC Continued Public Hearing
21 Continued PC Hearing
Applicant returned with revised plans, proposing:
• to detach garage and observe required 5’ side setback • to reduce garage from 430.22 to 391.11 SF
• to increase the deck size by 65.61 square feet, from 271.49 to 337.10 SF (Appellant’s 7.8 Public Comment p.690-702)
22 Revised Site Plan
4’-7
3/8”
4’-7” 5’-0”
Two additions to 1st floor:
Approx. 178 SF and 211SF
for a total of 1,571 SF.
Addition at front would attach
home to detached garage.
Minor Use Permit to continue
nonconforming setbacks to
second story addition.
23 25
Floor Plan, 2nd Story
Proposed Area (SF)
• 1,471 SF, for a ~2,302 SF, 4 bd
primary residence
Proposed Balcony accessed off
bedroom and living room:
• 24'-7” W x 9’-5" D, 234.15 SF
Proposed Deck accessed off
living room:
• 16’-5”W x 19’- 21’-6”D, 337.10 SF
26 West Elevation
Proposed Balcony accessed off 2nd story: 24'-7”W x 9’-5"D, 234.15 SF Proposed Deck accessed off living room: 16’-5”W x 19’- 21’-6”D, 337.10 SF 8’-7” Deck setback
27 North Elevation
Proposed
decking surface:
13’- 4”
and
Top of railing:
16’-10”
28 South Elevation
29 Architectural Rendering
July 8, 2026 PC Decision
3-1-2-0 vote: to approve AR-2026-002 and MUP-2026-001
(Appellant’s 7.8 Public Comment p.690-702)
30 July 14, 2026
Appeal Filed
35 Requests of Appeal
The appellant requests that the City Council modify or impose additional requirements (eight conditions, p.568) on the approved project. The appellant's requested actions are listed and followed by staff's response to each request on the subsequent slides.
(Responses in Staff Report, p.552)
36 1. Require garage separation be a condition of the permit approval.
Staff Response:
• The approved project plans depict the garage serving 1828 Yosemite Street as separated from the adjacent garage at 1820 Yosemite Street. • Any building permit plans must be consistent with the approved project, including the approved separation of the garages.
37 2. Require a formal separation agreement.
Staff Response:
• A private agreement between adjoining property owners concerning the separation, maintenance, access, or other private interests associated with the shared garage structure is generally a private civil matter and is not a requirement of the City's Zoning Ordinance for the approved project. • Any such agreement would be a private civil matter between the affected property owners unless it is discovered that compliance with City regulations is impossible without such an agreement.
38 3. Require a structural engineering analysis of the garage separation prior to final approval of the project.
Staff Response:
• Structural design and engineering requirements associated with construction of the new garage and separation of the existing garage structure will be reviewed as part of the City's building permit process. • A Condition of Approval has been added to indicate that a property line survey and engineer-stamped plans will be required.
• The Building Division will review the construction documents for compliance with applicable provisions of the California Building Code and other applicable building and safety regulations.
39 4. Require the garage separation be done consistent with structural engineering reports and Building Code requirements for a party wall, including removal of the existing connected wall and reconstruction of the replacement wall so my garage remains enclosed and stable post construction.
Staff Response:
• The Building Division will review the construction documents submitted with the building permit application for compliance with the California Building Code and any applicable engineering requirements.
• A Condition of Approval has been added to indicate that both a property survey and Engineer-stamped plans will be required.
40 5. Require that the Owner be responsible for all costs of removing the existing connected garage wall and constructing the replacement wall so my garage remains enclosed and stable post construction.
Staff Response:
• Allocation of construction costs between neighboring property owners is a civil matter and is outside the scope of the City's land use authority. • The City will verify that the work described in the plans provided will not result in any non-compliant structures, including the remaining portion of the shared garage.
41 6. Require that the Owner assures he covers the cost of any damage to my garage during construction.
Staff Response:
• Potential liability for construction-related damages is governed by applicable civil law and is outside the City's authority through the discretionary permit process. Such matters are not appropriately addressed through conditions of approval.
42 7. Require the large 337 square foot deck be scaled back to match the existing balconies that fit the design of the elevated railed decks in the vicinity.
Staff Response:
• The proposed deck, for which the code does not establish a maximum area, was evaluated as part of the Architectural Review application, including its relationship to the existing dwelling and surrounding development. • Staff determined that the project complies with the applicable development standards, and the Planning Commission approved the Architectural Review application after considering the project's design and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
43 8. Regardless of the size of the deck, if a deck is approved, and it violates my privacy, require the Owner to construct a 6 ft. tall privacy screen along the southern boundary of the deck to protect my privacy.
Staff Response:
• The Planning Commission did not impose a privacy-screen requirement as part of its approval.
• The Zoning Code does not otherwise require a six-foot privacy screen for the proposed deck based solely on its location or configuration. 44 Adopt a resolution upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Architectural Review Application No. AR-2026-002 and Minor Use Permit No.
MUP-2026-001.
Recommendation
45 ITEM 10.C.
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
September 17, 2026 | City Council Meeting
Andrew Myrick, Housing and Planning Manager
2 • Signs are regulated by SMC Chapter 17.40.
• Presently the Ordinance includes standards for signs in residential zones by nonresidential uses, and includes
maximum sizes and other standards.
• The Zoning Ordinance does not generally apply to
governmental agencies (ie Federal, State, City, County, or public schools).
• Historically, electronic message display signs have
been prohibited.
Background
3 • Other types of signs, including illuminated signs and non-electronic changeable copy signs, are not covered
by this prohibition and are treated like any other sign.
Background
4 Background
5 • In 2017, City Council passed an amendment to the
Municipal Code to allow electronic message display
signs at public and private meeting facilities (most
commonly churches).
• These signs were allowed on most streets but were
prohibited on “local streets”
Background
6 7
• The existing Zoning Ordinance has several provisions on signs:
• May not impact traffic visibility or signage
• At least 50 feet from a residence
• Limits on animations (fade/dissolve only)
• No audio messages
• Minimum message hold time of 30 seconds
• Signs shall not be illuminated from 9 PM to 6 AM
• Illumination shall be directed downwards
• Signs automatically dim from dusk to dawn
Existing Ordinance
8 Existing Ordinance
• Staff has received an inquiry from the community
regarding potential changes to the Ordinance.
• The desire is to change out an existing sign with an
electronic message display board.
9 Community Request
• Staff brought this item to Planning Commission to
discuss whether electronic display message signs
should be allowed on local streets.
• The Planning Commission voted to recommend that
the signs be allowed provided:
• Replacement of existing illuminated signs meeting the standard criteria would be permitted with a Sign
Permit.
• All other signs would require a Minor Use Permit.
10 Planning Commission
• The City Council received extensive public comment
regarding this item.
• Most public concerns are addressed in the existing and proposed Ordinances.
• Council referred the Ordinance back to the Planning
Commission to review the following criteria:
• Sign Size
• Sign Color
• Hours of Operation
11 City Council
• The Item returned to the Planning Commission on July
22, 2026.
• The Planning Commission continued the item
requesting information on two different items:
• Locations of properties that would be impacted by the Ordinance
• Information on different types of technologies that can be used for signs.
12 Planning Commission
• A third Planning Commission hearing was held on
August 26, 2026.
• The Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval with some modifications to the Ordinance:
• Redefine the name of the signs in the Ordinance and
use the term consistently.
• Modify the proposed table to improve readability
• Prohibit these signs on one-way streets and alleys
• Clarify that inadvertent flashing is a violation
• Adjust the hours of operation on local streets to 7:00 am to 8:00 pm
13 Planning Commission
• Currently Electronic Message Display Signs may be up
to 8 feet tall by right, and up to 14 feet tall with a Minor Use Permit.
• The proposed Ordinance would now limit sign size to
that normally allowed on residential streets (six feet in height).
• Message boards could be up to 18 square feet per side on local streets (as opposed to 24 square feet on other streets).
14 Sign Size
• The City could limit signs to a specific color or, alternatively, could require signs to be monochromatic (one color).
• If limited to one color, a color would need to be selected. • Red
• Amber
• Green
• Blue
• White
• Other??
15 Sign Color
• Staff did not find any evidence that the use of particular colors would create issues.
• Most jurisdictions do not restrict sign color.
• Limiting signs to being monochromatic could interfere with graphical displays.
• The proposed Ordinance has no language that
addresses color.
16 Sign Color
• Current Ordinance requires that signs be turned off
from 9:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
• Some other Cities have similar Ordinances, although
the times vary.
• Staff also examined daylight-dependent (ie dusk-todawn) criteria. • Proposed Ordinance would require signs on local
streets to be turned off from 8:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
17 Hours of Operation
• Three Primary technology categories for changeable
copy signs:
• LED signs – utilize an LED backlight which displays
through colored pixels.
• Other illuminated-type signs (wide variety)
• Mechanical-type signs (not subject to this Ordinance). • All of these sign types have potential applications.
• Proposed Ordinance does not restrict technology, only performance.
18 Sign Technologies
• Ordinance only applies to electronic message display
signs on local streets at Public/Private Meeting
Facilities.
• There are 19 known locations of this use with at least one frontage on a local street.
• Of these, 7 facilities have frontages only on a local street.
• The Ordinance has been revised to prohibit the
installation of an electronic message display sign on a local street if another frontage is available.
19 Sign Locations
20 • The Proposed Ordinance would do the following:
• Allow for public and private meeting facilities place electronic message display signs on local streets, subject to MUP in most cases.
• Such signs must be turned off from 8:00 pm to 6:00 am. • Reduce allowable size in a residential zone to 18 square feet and limit height of freestanding signs to 6 feet.
• Clarify methods for measuring distance from signs.
21 Proposed Ordinance
• The Proposed Ordinance would not do the following:
• Change regulations for any other type of sign,
including changeable copy signs which are changed
mechanically or manually.
• Change regulations relating to illumination for any
other type of sign.
• Allow for the installation of electronic display message signs at any additional use (ie retail, theaters, etc). • Have any effect on signs not located on a local street. 22 Proposed Ordinance
• Staff Recommends that the introduce the proposed
Ordinance for adoption at its next meeting.
23 Recommendation
ITEM 11.A.
RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE SAN
PABLO PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TYPE
SELECTION REPORT AND APPROVE THE
CONCEPT DESIGN FOR THE PROJECT
September 17, 2026 | City Council
Thomas M. Korman, P.E., Public Works Director/City
Engineer
2 • Constructed in 1960
• Structural assessment in 2022 found significant structural issues • Bridge was closed in December of 2022
• Whitson Engineers contracted to design a replacement project • Foundation Assessment and Type Selection Report completed Background
3 • Abutment Memo delivered in June of 2026.
• Existing foundations do not meet current code requirements Abutment/Foundation Memo
4 • Reuse existing abutments – Infeasible
• Retrofit existing abutments – Not Recommended
• Uncertain foundation condition
• Significant work required
• New abutments – Strongly Recommended
• Lowest estimated cost
• Longest service life
• Simplified construction
Abutment/Foundation Memo
5 Structure Options
• 2 structure options presented in the report
• Connector Model – Lower price, more utility clearance • Keystone Model – More visually distinct arch
$218,900
$245,200
Connector
Keystone
6 Coating Options
Weathering
Steel
(reddish
orange finish)
Galvanized
Steel
(unpainted
metal)
Painted
Galvanized
Steel (2-coat
coastal paint)
7 Estimates are for product only and do not
include design, installation, or site work.
Estimated Cost
Base Cost
(weathering steel)
Additive Costs
(in addition to Base Cost)
Total
Cost
Model Price
Estimate Paint Galvanized Galvanized & Painted
w/Gal.
& Paint
Connector $218,900 $64,100 $74,200 $114,900 $333,800
Keystone $245,200 $77,750 $113,500 $164,400 $409,600
8 Type & Coating Recommendation
Base Cost
(weathering steel)
Additive Costs
(in addition to Base Cost)
Total
Cost
Model Price
Estimate Paint Galvanized Galvanized & Painted
w/Gal.
& Paint
Connector $218,900 $64,100 $74,200 $114,900 $333,800
Keystone $245,200 $77,750 $113,500 $164,400 $409,600
Connector
9 • Fabricated Metal Art
• Type designed to support weight
• Incorporate LED lights
Aesthetic Design Options
AI Generated rendering for discussion purposes only
10 Project Funding
Estimated Need:
• Bridge Replacement: $1.476 million
• ADA/trail/intersection modifications: $1.5 – $2 million Resources:
• CIP Allocation: $640,000
• Community Project Funding: $850,000 (Congressman Panetta) • State Budget Funding: $550,000 (State Senator Laird)
• ATP Grant: TBD
11 • Council selects a bridge product – 9/17/2026
• Design Phase – September 2026 to January 2028
• 65% PS&E complete 1/2027
• CEQA/NEPA review (1/2027 - 11/2027)***
• 100% Design completed by 1/2028
• Bidding & Contract Award (3/2028 - 6/2028)
• Demolish & Construction to begin 7/2028
• Construction - 9 months
• Pathway & Park Impr. – TBD (dependent on funding)
Project Schedule
12 Approve selection of the “Connector” bridge
superstructure with the galvanized & paint coating option, and instruct staff to proceed with full project design.
Recommendation