The Astoria City Council voted unanimously on Monday to uphold the decision of city staff to issue a grading and erosion control permit to the Northwest Oregon Housing Authority for the construction of the Owens II, a 50-unit apartment building for low-income seniors and people with disabilities.

The housing authority redesigned the project at 16th and Exchange streets next to the Owens-Adair Apartments after the city denied the grading and erosion control permit in January over landslide concerns. The agency replaced a subgrade parking garage with a utility basement requiring less excavation, clearing the way for the city to issue the permit in July.

Neighbors Brian and Margarita Colonna appealed the city’s decision to the Planning Commission, arguing that the redesigned project still does not adequately minimize the risk of landslides and damage to neighboring properties. In a 4-0 vote last month, the Planning Commission voted to reject the appeal. The Colonnas then appealed to the City Council.

Testimony

On Monday, the City Council heard testimony from attorneys for the Colonnas and the housing authority, who debated the impact construction would have on the stability of the slope.

“This is an improved design, but it still appears to us that they propose to cut in the toe of a slope where there is a long-identified historic landslide,” Jeffrey Kleinman, the Colonnas’ attorney, testified via Zoom.

Kleinman and Brian Colonna also raised several issues beyond the grading and erosion control permit, such as parking and setbacks. The housing authority’s attorney, Steven Hultberg, of Radler White Parks & Alexander LLP, emphasized that those issues were not relevant to Monday’s decision.

“Before you tonight is literally just a (grading and erosion control) permit,” Hultberg said. “Because of that, the criteria with which you have to judge this application are likewise very limited. They don’t include things like parking and views and transportation and other items that are not related to grading and erosion control. And I think it’s important to note that the only evidence in the record demonstrates that the applicant has met all the approval criteria for this application.”

The city engineer, Nathan Crater, also testified that the housing authority had met the city’s criteria, emphasizing that the proposed excavation would follow the same approach the city uses for its own construction.

“This permit would not be approved by me if I had concerns with the approach,” Crater said.

The City Council also heard public comments, all but one in opposition to the appeal. Mayor Sean Fitzpatrick insisted that comments refer only to the grading and erosion control permit, repeatedly interrupting commenters and even silencing one commenter’s microphone.

Several members of the Astoria Housing Alliance, a housing advocacy group, testified, including Andy Kipp, the alliance’s president.

“The appellants’ claims are unsubstantiated by the facts,” Kipp said. “Instead, they rely on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Sadly, history shows this is a common obstructionist tactic used by opponents of affordable housing who seek to delay and block vital projects through endless appeals and costly litigation.”

Former Mayor Arline LaMear also testified in favor of the project, which has been under review for two years.

“I believe that due diligence has been done both by the city and the northwest housing authority,” LaMear said. “It’s time now to put the appeals and the acrimony behind us.”

‘Putting trust in staff’

Fitzpatrick, who has been critical of the project at various stages, expressed some hesitation about the risk of building in landslide areas. Fitzpatrick said at the opening of the hearing that his past involvement did not constitute a conflict of interest and did not require him to recuse himself.

“None of us want to see any earth movement here, as we have seen in the past,” he said. “It concerns the living daylights out of me, to put it as kindly as possible. And so we would be putting trust in staff on this that we aren’t sitting here in six months to a year trying to explain why we approved a grading and erosion control permit that affected the toe and led to earth movement.”

Ultimately, city councilors agreed that both city staff and the Planning Commission had not erred in their decision to issue the permit. They voted 5 to 0 to reject the neighbors’ appeal.

“I feel comfortable with what I have been told,” Fitzpatrick said. “I still have reservations about the project in full, and it’s unfortunate that (the housing authority) does not work with the community and answer questions of the community, but here we are. This is about the grading and erosion control permit and I believe, personally, that they have met the criteria.”

The City Council’s decision can be appealed to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.