Seaside council unanimously authorizes exclusive negotiations with KB Bakewell for Main Gate site
Loading...
Summary
The Seaside City Council on Feb. 19 unanimously approved an exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with KB Bakewell Seaside Venture 2 to negotiate potential development of the Main Gate property; the ENA is time-limited and does not transfer land or grant entitlements. Public comments pressed for living-wage jobs and community benefits.
SeasideCity Council voted unanimously on Feb. 19 to authorize an exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with KB Bakewell Seaside Venture 2 to begin structured negotiations over the property commonly referred to as Main Gate.
The city manager told the council the ENA establishes a one-year, milestone-driven negotiation period (with limited extensions) that permits the city and the selected developer to conduct due diligence, advance planning and public engagement; approving the ENA does not convey land, grant project entitlements, or commit city funds beyond the negotiation framework.
Why it matters: Main Gate is one of Seasidemost prominent publicly owned opportunity sites in the city; the ENA begins a negotiated path toward a potential mixed-use development that city staff said aims to advance housing, jobs and a coordinated approach with adjacent Campus Town infrastructure.
Public input: More than a dozen residents and representatives addressed the council. Hector Espelqueta of Unite Here Local 19 urged guarantees for good local jobs, saying the ENAshould include protections beyond construction-era prevailing wages: "Future permanent workers at the hotel's amenities should also be guaranteed a living wage and good benefits," he said. Other speakers from labor and community groups pressed the council to secure enforceable community benefits, local-hire provisions and transparency during negotiations. Several residents and community leaders supported the selection of KB Bakewell for its long record of local projects and ongoing presence in Seaside.
Council discussion and vote: Council members asked how the ENA balances exclusivity and public oversight. The city manager and city attorney stressed the ENA is time-limited, milestone-driven and that any final project, entitlements and land transfers would require future council action and additional public hearings. Mayor Pro Tem Pacheco moved to approve the resolution authorizing execution of the ENA; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
What the ENA requires next: Staff said the ENA would fund appraisal work, planning and financial analysis, and require developer coordination on consultant contracts and monthly CEQA-status reports; the council emphasized that those deliverables and any community benefits will be considered in subsequent public phases. The city manager noted that extensions are permitted under the ENA only if the developer is not in default and milestones are met; councilmembers said they expect regular public engagement during negotiations.
Outlook: Approval of the ENA starts a negotiation period rather than a project approval. Any development agreement, land conveyance or entitlement would return to the council for separate hearings and votes. The city manager said staff will pursue due diligence and report back as milestones are completed.
