Council sends electronic-sign ordinance back to planning commission after divided public hearing

Seaside’s City Council on June 4 returned a proposed amendment to the municipal sign code to the planning commission after a lengthy public hearing that exposed deep divisions between houses of worship and residents living near proposed electronic display locations.

Andrew Myrick, the city’s housing and planning manager, summarized staff and planning-commission recommendations to allow electronic message displays for places of worship and public/private meeting facilities on local streets only under tight controls: replacement of legally established illuminated signs by right, a minor‑use permit for other new signs, a reduced maximum digital area (from 24 to 18 square feet) and a lower freestanding height (6 feet for local residential streets). The proposal would keep a 50‑foot buffer from residences, require dimming sensors and ban animations other than fade/dissolve, and require signs to be off or dimmed between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.

The hearing drew many speakers on both sides. Lighting expert Meredith Knoll told the council, “You’re opening a can of worms here,” warning that varied LED manufacturers, color choices and drivers could create a chaotic mix of brightness and color that harms residents and wildlife. Diane Nielsen, a longtime resident, said the city should preserve its character: “Seaside residents are fortunate to live in one of the most beautiful places in the world… Increasing the usage of electronic signage in more areas will have a negative impact on the environment and our neighborhoods.”

Church leaders and some business owners urged the council to allow modest, well‑regulated signage to improve outreach. Pastor Ronald Britt, who said his congregation had been an early user of illuminated messaging, urged the council to move forward and called the signs a practical communication tool for community organizations. Deja Blue’s owner also urged a case‑by‑case approach and said the existing process already requires notification and public input.

Council members raised technical questions about brightness standards (measured in foot‑candles), colors, and hours of operation. Staff noted the ordinance already includes a 0.3 foot‑candle brightness limit, downward illumination, hold times and no-flash animation; councilmembers asked staff to consider adding explicit color limits and a shorter nighttime window in residential areas.

Rather than vote to adopt the ordinance, the council unanimously voted to send it back to the planning commission for additional community input and for staff to return with clearer specifications on color, maximum brightness, timing, and other technical limitations.

The planning commission will reassess the thresholds and public-notice process; the council asked that neighborhood concerns and the possibility of a focused public listening session be included in the next review.