Seaside council upholds planning commission on Pacifica affordable housing; asks developer to seek ODOT access

The Seaside City Council voted to deny an appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Pacifica affordable housing project, a proposed 69‑unit development planned for a roughly two‑acre city‑owned site on the North 40.

The project, proposed by Related Northwest, would be deed‑restricted at 60% of area median income for 60 years and provide a mix of studios, one‑, two‑ and three‑bedrooms. The applicant’s packet included 79 off‑street parking spaces and common facilities. Community Development Director Jeff Lohrey told the council the site is zoned industrial but allowed for affordable housing under state law (Senate Bill 8) and that the highway overlay zone review — not the underlying allowance for housing — is what required a public hearing.

Opponents at the hearing raised traffic, emergency access and tsunami evacuation concerns, and questioned whether the North Holiday neighborhood had been adequately notified. Appellant Linda Martin said she agreed Seaside needs affordable housing but opposed this location and added, “I do agree we have a dire need for affordable housing in Seaside and Clatsop County. The problem is…many or most of the units that used to be rentals have been bought up and refurbished and turned into vacation homes or vacation rentals.”

Developer representatives said the project is fully funded by an allocation of Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits and other state and philanthropic sources; Related Northwest sought permits and planned to submit for building permits in June and begin construction this autumn. A Related Northwest spokesperson said the project would deliver 15 studios, 18 one‑bedrooms, 24 two‑bedrooms and 12 three‑bedrooms and described tenant preferences that would prioritize local workers.

Astoria Housing Alliance President Andy Kipp urged the council to deny the appeal, saying regional housing shortages require action and that objections raised by appellants lacked legal basis for reversing the Planning Commission. Jeff Lohrey told councilors that the highway overlay zone requires landscape buffers and access that favors side‑street connections; he noted that a traffic impact analysis is triggered only if a development generates more than 600 daily trips under the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) methodology.

Council members discussed whether an access onto Highway 101 could be sought from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT); staff said ODOT controls highway access and must permit any right‑in/right‑out. The council appended a condition requesting Related Northwest apply to ODOT to explore a right‑in/right‑out access and emergency egress from the highway, but staff cautioned any final approval would be ODOT’s decision.

Council President Seamus Morrissey moved to adopt the Planning Commission’s findings and uphold its decision; Councilor McVay seconded. The motion passed with no recorded nays and the appeal was denied, allowing the project to proceed toward final permitting with the added request regarding ODOT access.