Public hearing on enhanced enforcement zones draws large turnout; council continues ordinance for more review

Astoria City Council held a public hearing and first reading on June 16 of an ordinance that would establish three “enhanced enforcement zones” and an enforcement mechanism for repeat disruptive behavior. After extensive testimony from businesses, residents and service providers on both sides of the issue, the council voted to continue the item to the next regular meeting for additional review.

City Manager Marion Spence summarized the ordinance as a tool to enforce existing city code and state law in response to complaints about disruptive behavior downtown. Spence said staff’s draft creates three enforcement zones — Uniontown, downtown and Upper Town — and reorganizes offenses into three tiers, with tier 1 covering the most serious crimes (including crimes against persons) and tier 3 covering lower-level offenses such as graffiti or consuming alcohol in public. He told the council the ordinance includes a two‑year sunset clause and that only the Astoria municipal judge would be authorized to issue limited-access orders. Spence said the city was not proposing new criminal laws but a different enforcement mechanism for existing violations.

Chief Stacy Kelly outlined an intended administrative workflow if the ordinance is adopted: officers would complete a checklist-style affidavit documenting offenses and dates and email it to the municipal judge to expedite limited-access orders, rather than waiting for court calendar availability. The chief emphasized the focus is on behavioral enforcement near sensitive locations and businesses, not on a protected class: “This is designed for people right by the doors that are disrupting business,” he said.

Councilor Charles Davis led a detailed line of questioning. He praised the tiered structure but asked why tier 3 includes consuming alcohol and marijuana-related offenses, noting those behaviors are not unique to people experiencing homelessness and raising concerns about differential enforcement. Chief Kelly and Spence replied those offenses are included because businesses report smoke and other disruptive uses near doorways and parks; the tiered system allows multiple opportunities to gain compliance before issuing a limited-access order.

The public comment period drew roughly three dozen people to the lectern and many more online and by email; staff said a shared advocacy email on the topic had received over 250 responses. Supporters of the ordinance, including downtown business owners and representatives of the Astoria-Warrenton Area Chamber of Commerce, said repeated disruptive behavior, vandalism and threats to customers and employees were hurting businesses and the local economy and asked the council to give police more tools. Rochelle Stromiello, who said she helped circulate the pro‑ordinance email, said a business owner who must “clean up the mess that someone has left in their entryway before they can open the door” is facing a livability problem.

Opponents argued the ordinance would criminalize survival behavior and disproportionately affect unhoused people. Several service providers and unhoused residents urged investment in housing, shelter and behavioral-health services instead of exclusionary measures. Speakers including Lifeboat Services and housing advocates described constrained shelter capacity and complex barriers people face when navigating services; others pointed to past difficulties obtaining permits and shelter capacity as reasons the city should focus first on expanding resources.

Councilors probed due-process questions (appeals, judicial oversight), operational details (how police would track limited-access orders across three zones) and the proposed two‑year sunset. Staff explained limited-access orders would be zone‑specific (a person could be excluded from one zone but still legally camp in other areas consistent with the city’s camping ordinance) and that the judge would issue orders with written due‑process and appeal information; each order would carry a 90‑day exclusion for the individual offense sequence described in the ordinance.

After extended deliberation and more public testimony, Councilor Davis moved to continue the item to the council’s next regular meeting so the body could review additional feedback and staff could bring clarifying material; the motion passed on a roll-call vote (5–0). The council also asked staff to provide periodic reports on enforcement, municipal court filings and outcomes during the ordinance trial period.

What’s next: Council continued first reading to its next meeting for additional review and follow-up materials, including the judge’s affidavit/checklist form, proposed administrative workflow and a plan for periodic reporting to council.