Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Astoria council holds heated public hearing on proposed enhanced enforcement zones, delays vote for further review
Summary
After hours of testimony both for and against, the City Council continued action on an ordinance establishing three enhanced enforcement zones and a limited‑access order process; staff described a three‑tier offense structure, a two‑year sunset clause and a proposed affidavit process to streamline judge‑issued limited‑access orders.
The Astoria City Council on June 16 held a lengthy public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to establish enhanced enforcement zones for parts of the city and to provide new administrative tools to enforce existing city code and state law.
City staff said the ordinance would not create new crimes but would reorganize enforcement into three tiers of offenses and three geographic zones (Uniontown, downtown and Upper Town) so that repeat violations within a zone could trigger a limited‑access order issued by the municipal court judge. Staff emphasized due‑process protections: the ordinance includes an appeal process, and the limited‑access order would be issued by the Astoria municipal judge; staff also proposed a standardized affidavit/checklist officers would email to the judge to speed processing and avoid waiting for municipal‑court calendar delays.
The ordinance includes a two‑year sunset clause so council can reassess effectiveness; staff said a limited‑access order would typically run for up to 90 days. Chief Stacy Kelly said enforcement would focus on disruptive behaviors that interfere with businesses and public safety, and that the policy is intended to be behavior‑based rather than targeted at a class of people.
Public comment was extensive and deeply divided. Business owners, the Astoria Warrenton Area Chamber of Commerce and many downtown merchants described vandalism, harassment and repeated nuisance behavior and urged additional tools for police. Supporters said they feared continued downtown decline without a new enforcement option. Opponents — including service providers, housing advocates and people with lived experience of homelessness — said the ordinance risks criminalizing homelessness, can produce differential enforcement against marginalized people, and would move problems to other neighborhoods without adding shelter capacity. Several speakers urged more robust shelter, navigation services and transparent reporting of enforcement outcomes to the council.
After the hearing and extended council discussion, the council voted to continue item 8(f) to the next regular meeting to allow further review, staff follow‑up and, at council request, additional court‑level reporting and clarifications.
What happens next: Staff and the municipal court judge will be asked to refine the proposed affidavit/checklist workflow, clarify whether parks are included in the zones, and provide a clearer reporting plan so the council can review enforcement data before any final reading or adoption.
