Proposed Homekey project in Seaside dies for lack of support and planning.

A potential Homekey project in Seaside, which was proposing to convert the Sand Dollar Inn motel on Fremont Boulevard into 43 supportive housing units for people experiencing chronic homelessness, died on the vine at the Seaside City Council meeting Thursday night, May 15.

The council, Seaside staff and the majority of residents who chimed in expressed concerns about the rushed nature of the proposal, and lack of time Seaside staff were given to vet the project and ensure it wouldn’t become a long-term liability to the city. 

Homekey projects, which are subsidized by the state to offer permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness who have behavioral health needs, require a municipal co-applicant, which in this case would have been Seaside. The proposed project’s developer, Anabasis—which was asking Seaside to be its co-applicant—had until May 30 to apply to the state to be eligible for a piece of the approximately $33.7 million of Homekey funding available in the Central Coast region.

In order to be eligible for the funding, an applicant must show proof, among other things, of operational funding for at least three years.

The tenor of the Seaside City Council meeting changed markedly after City Attorney Sheri Damon noted that in order for the project to qualify for the state and federal housing funds that would subsidize its ongoing operations, the property would have to be deed-restricted for 55 years to only allow for affordable housing uses, and that the city would potentially shoulder all of the liability if the project were to fail in some way. 

But the project’s fate was likely sealed well before that moment. After a short presentation by Anabasis CEO Adam Conour, the hearing was opened up to questions from the council. Councilmember Dave Pacheco asked Conour a series of pointed questions about why he'd first received a copy of the presentation at 9:30pm on the previous night, May 14, given the significance of the proposal and the ask being made of the city. 

Conour apologized for the lack of communication, and said a consultant working with Anabasis had been responsible for reaching out to the city. “That’s why the city was notified later than it should have,” Conour said. (Anabasis had retained KATMO LLC as a consultant, which is led by Kurt Overmeyer, Seaside’s former economic development director.)

Pacheco also expressed concerns about the impact on neighboring businesses—Conour said Anabasis had not yet reached out to them—and generally, about the lack of information he or anyone from the city had been given until very recently. 

Other councilmembers largely echoed Pacheco’s concerns, all while recognizing the project’s aims were laudable. 

In response Pacheco’s questions about whether the county Board of Supervisors had already approved the approximate $5 million in funding required to support the project, District 4 County Supervisor Wendy Askew—whose district includes Seaside—said it had not, but noted that the county’s 4H Committee, which she serves on, has expressed support. The County Budget Committee, which Askew also sits on, was scheduled to consider the proposal next week. 

As for the impact on city staff should the council express support for the last-minute proposal, City Manager Greg McDanel said that, from the city’s perspective, “conversations regarding this opportunity should have started months ago” to allow sufficient time for Seaside staff to vet it.

Even those in the public inclined to support the ask being made to council—signing on as a co-applicant, allowing Anabasis to meet the May 30 deadline—conceded that given the rush, they could understand the council’s concerns, and instead appealed to the council to consider supporting similar proposals going forward. 

There was no vote taken about the proposal, which appeared on the agenda as a presentation, not an action item requiring a vote. As the discussion wrapped up, Mayor Ian Oglesby indicated that if a majority of the council had expressed support for the rushed proposal—none had—it could be brought back for a vote before the deadline.   

Absent that council support, Anabasis' proposal was dead on arrival.