Astoria council narrows guiding principles for two-site housing RFEI, directs staff to analyze proposals

The Astoria City Council on Dec. 15 reviewed six development proposals submitted in response to a Request for Expressions of Interest for two city sites — the Customs House parcel and the county-owned Derry Gold site — and directed staff to perform a detailed comparative analysis.

Community Development Director John Roberts told the council the RFEI returned a broad set of ideas: Customs House concepts ranged from about 12 to 23 units, often duplex/triplex/cottage-cluster typologies, while Derry Gold proposals ranged roughly from 60 to 120 units and included studio-through-three-bedroom configurations. Staff estimated a likely ballpark cost of roughly $8–$10 million for Customs House projects and $20–$30 million for Derry Gold concepts, though many submittals supplied percentage breakdowns rather than total hard costs.

Councilors debated trade-offs among proposals and identified a short list of priorities they wanted staff to use in a follow-up analysis. Councilor Davis — who moved the motion instructing staff to proceed — said financial feasibility and a clear capital-funding strategy are his top concerns. Other priorities the council coalesced around were housing-type diversity and tenure (including interest in community land trust or ownership pathways for portions of the Customs House site), site-by-site compatibility and realism, and community engagement and visioning to build buy-in.

Several councilors praised Edelen and Company’s Customs House concepts (noting cottage clusters and an ownership emphasis) and identified Related Northwest, Urban/Skylab and Compass Communities among the firms with attractive elements for Derry Gold. Councilors also flagged potential implementation issues: some proposals targeted 60% area median income (AMI) affordable housing while staff had asked for 80–120% AMI workforce housing; parking on the county-owned Derry Gold site required coordination with the county and a more precise inventory; and some financing approaches may need gap funding or tax-credit strategies to be viable.

Staff said the RFEI was intentionally lighter-touch than an RFP to surface realistic options and innovations. Roberts told the council staff would apply the council’s stated guiding principles, perform a strengths/weaknesses/funding-feasibility analysis across all six responses, and return to the council in mid-to-late January. The council moved and approved a direction for staff to produce a ranked analysis and recommendations; Councilor Davis made the motion and Councilor Mozzarella seconded. The motion carried by voice vote.

What’s next: staff will compile a comparative analysis (financial viability, alignment with council guiding principles, site constraints and public benefits) and present findings to the council in January, with a possible Jan. 26 work session or regular meeting scheduled for further action.