Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Astoria council denies appeal, upholds staff findings for Owens 2 grading permit
Summary
The Astoria City Council on Oct. 7 denied appeal AP24‑04 from neighbors of the Owens 2 project, adopting Planning Commission/staff findings and supplementing them with the applicant’s Oct. 2 letter; the decision was unanimous and may be appealed to LUBA within 21 days.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Astoria City Council voted unanimously on Oct. 7 to deny appeal AP24‑04 and uphold the Planning Commission and staff approval of a grading and erosion control permit for Owens 2, a proposed three‑story, 50‑unit multifamily project at 1596 Exchange Street.
Attorney for the appellants, Kleinman, argued the Planning Commission failed to adopt written findings and raised geotechnical concerns, citing a memo by structural engineer David Horne that “we are still concerned that ground movement caused by the installation of the proposed auger piles... could potentially damage the basement walls of the historic houses located across Exchange Street.” City staff, the applicant’s counsel and the city’s consulting engineers countered that the record contains multiple geotechnical reports and third‑party reviews concluding the proposed mass‑balance cut‑and‑fill approach meets the code criteria and is not expected to impose local or global slope instability. As Tiffany Taylor, interim community development director, summarized during the staff presentation, the revised plans eliminated a full basement and were processed and approved by staff in July 2024 based on the applicable sections of the Astoria Development Code.
City Engineer Nathan Crater told the council the project is “near the toe” of a historic landslide deposit but that the revised design adds mass in the critical area and a third‑party geotechnical reviewer concurred that the approach should increase stability. Kleinman raised concerns about auger pile vibration and monitoring triggers; the city and applicant said construction monitoring was offered and that the construction method's vibration effects are discussed separately from grading permit criteria. Councilor Adams moved to deny the appeal, adopt the Planning Commission and staff findings, and supplement those findings by incorporating the applicant’s Oct. 2 letter; Councilor Brownson seconded. The roll‑call vote was Aye from Councilors Davis, Brownson, Adams, Hilton and Mayor John Fitzpatrick. The council’s decision can be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals within 21 days.
Ending note: The council’s action addresses only the grading and erosion control permit under the development code; other matters such as parking, building design and transportation impacts were repeatedly noted during the hearing as outside the limited scope of this appeal.
