Portland City Council PM Session 07/23/26

14:33Councilor Avalos, are you available online?

14:41Great, thank you.

14:47Good afternoon.

14:49Calling back to order this recessed meeting of the Portland City Council.

14:52It's 2:02 on Thursday, July 23rd.

14:58Rebecca, can you please call the roll?

15:00Good afternoon.

15:01Koyama Lane?

15:02Present.

15:02Council Vice President Olivia Clark?

15:03Present.

15:03Mayor Kevin Lewis?

15:04Present.

15:04Council Member Marianne Sawant.

15:04Present.

15:04Councilor Angelita Morillo?

15:04Here.

15:04City Manager Raymond C. Lee?

15:05Present.

15:05Councilor Mitch Green?

15:05Here.

15:09Councilor Eric Zimmerman?

15:10Here.

15:10Councilor Samir Khan?

15:11Present.

15:14Present.

15:14Present.

15:15Councilor Mimi Swartz?

15:16Present.

15:18Councilor Jamie Dunphy?

15:18Here.

15:22And can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?

15:27Good afternoon.

15:29Welcome to the Portland City Council.

15:31To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda, www.portland.gov/council/agenda.

15:41Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage.

15:45Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.

15:48Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.

15:51The presiding officer preserves order.

15:52Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed.

16:00If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.

16:02Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.

16:05Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.

16:08Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.

16:12Your testimony should address the matter being considered.

16:14When testifying, state your name for the record.

16:16Your address is not necessary.

16:17If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.

16:20Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.

16:24Thank you.

16:24Thank you very much.

16:25Colleagues, we have 5 items today, including a land use item, A sec— a single second reading and 3 first readings of non-emergency ordinances.

16:33Let's see if we can get through all of it today.

16:36Uh, can we please call item number 8?

16:38Our time's certain.

16:42Item 8, amend the comprehensive plan map and zoning map for a vacant lot on Northwest 31st Ave described as Willamette Heights Addition Block 18, Lot 14, at the request of Portland Parks and Recreation, LU 26-007967.

17:06Colleagues, first our city attorney is going to make some announcements about today's hearing.

17:10Lauren.

17:13Hello, uh, this is an evidentiary hearing.

17:16This means you may submit new evidence in to the council in support of your arguments, um, for council consideration of a hearings officer recommendation on a comprehensive plan map amendment Testimony will be heard as follows.

17:29We will begin with a staff report by PP&D staff.

17:31Following the staff report, the City Council will hear from interested persons in the following order.

17:36The applicant will go first and will have 15 minutes, um, or is it 10?

17:4310.

17:4410 Minutes, sorry, following this, uh, uh, to address Council.

17:48After the applicant, Council will hear from individuals or organizations who support the applicant's proposal.

17:53Each person will have 3 minutes to speak.

17:55Next, council will hear from persons or organizations who oppose the applicant's proposal.

17:59Again, each person will have 3 minutes.

18:01If there was testimony in opposition to the applicant's proposal, the applicant will have 5 additional minutes to rebut the testimony given in opposition to the proposal.

18:09Council may then close the hearing and deliberate.

18:12As this is a non-emergency ordinance, it will pass the second reading, and council may make amendments to the ordinance and findings or direct staff to return with amendments.

18:20Scope of testimony.

18:22I would like to announce several guidelines for those who will be addressing City Council today.

18:26Submitting evidence into the record.

18:28Any letters or documents you wish to become part of the record should be given to the council clerk after you testify.

18:33Similarly, the original or a copy of any slides, photographs, drawings, maps, videos, or other items you show the council during your testimony, including PowerPoint presentations, should be given to the council clerk to make sure they become part of the record.

18:47Testimony must be directed to the approval criteria.

18:50Any testimony, arguments, and evidence you present must be directed toward the applicable approval criteria for this land use review or other criteria in the city's comprehensive plan or zoning code that you believe will apply to the decision.

19:01PP&D staff will identify the applicable approval criteria as a part of their staff report to council.

19:07Issues must be raised with specificity.

19:10You must raise an issue clearly enough to give the council and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue.

19:15If you do not, you'll be precluded from appealing to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue.

19:21Applicants must identify constitutional challenges to conditions of approval.

19:25If the applicant fails to raise constitutional or other issues related to the proposed conditions of approval with enough specificity to allow the council to respond, the applicant will be precluded from bringing an action for damages in circuit court.

19:38Thank you very much, Lauren.

19:40Uh, colleagues, first The next item on my little script here is to ask if any councilors wish to declare a conflict of interest.

19:51And additionally, since I'm not seeing anybody jump up with a conflict of interest, which is great, no councilors have declared a conflict of interest.

19:58Do any councilors have any ex parte contacts to declare or information gathered outside of this hearing to disclose?

20:06Similarly, seeing no councilors with ex parte communications Have any members of the council made any visits to the site involved in this matter?

20:17Again, nobody.

20:18So no councilors have visited the site.

20:20Great.

20:21So we're now moving into the testimony portion.

20:24First, the staff report, followed by the presentation of the applicant, then supporters of the applicant, then opponents of the applicant.

20:31And if there has been opposing testimony, the applicant will be able to give rebuttal.

20:35Thank you, Mayor.

20:36Let's move into staff presentation.

20:38Welcome.

20:40Thank you.

20:41I have a PowerPoint, should be coming up.

20:49Thank you.

20:50Yeah, so good afternoon.

20:52I am Andy Galizia.

20:53I'm a planner with Portland Permitting and Development.

20:56This is a land use hearing for a comprehensive plan map amendment and a zoning map amendment requested by Portland Parks and Recreation for a property that they own.

21:05For this type of application, a land use hearings officer employed by the City Auditor's Office holds an initial public hearing, and then the hearings officer issues a recommendation for City Council.

21:15The City Council then decides the application in another public hearing, which we're doing today.

21:20The initial public hearing with the hearings officer took place on April 20th of this year.

21:26No neighbors or other members of the public attended that hearing, and the hearings officer issued a written recommendation to Council on May the 20th.

21:33Thank you.

21:34And I'm going to summarize the findings and the recommendation from the hearings officer.

21:38Next slide, please.

21:42So this is an aerial view with the subject site outlined in blue.

21:45Subject site is a 5,000-square-foot vacant lot in Northwest Portland.

21:49It's on Northwest 31st Avenue between Northwest Thurman and Vaughn Streets.

21:54It is surrounded on 3 sides by lots developed with houses.

21:58The lot is owned by Portland Parks and Recreation, but it is not developed as a park.

22:03Portland Parks and Recreation would like to be able to sell this lot, and that's the reason for this application.

22:08Next slide, please.

22:11This is a view of the subject site looking east from Northwest 31st Avenue.

22:15It is a vacant lot, and you can see there are lots developed with houses on both sides.

22:19There's also another lot behind this one with a house on it.

22:23That house is out of view behind the trees in this photo.

22:25Next slide, please.

22:28Thank you.

22:31This map shows the zoning pattern in this area, which also reflects the comprehensive plan map.

22:36The subject site is outlined in red.

22:38It is zoned OS, or open space.

22:40The southeast part of this lot is also in the environmental conservation, or C overlay zone.

22:46The lot is surrounded by the R-5 residential zone on all sides, and this lot was also zoned R-5 until 2018, when it was rezoned to OS in a legislative action that applied the OS zone to Portland Parks and Recreation's properties that were not zoned OS already.

23:02This lot, though, again, is not part of any park.

23:05Lower McLay Park is on the same block, but this property is not contiguous with the park.

23:09Next slide, please.

23:13So in order for Portland Parks and Recreation to be able to sell this lot for housing development, they are requesting 2 things in this application: a comprehensive plan map amendment to remove the open space comprehensive plan designation from this property, And apply the Residential 5000 Comprehensive Plan map designation instead.

23:31And 2, a concurrent zoning map amendment to rezone the property from the Open Space or OS zone to the R-5 residential zone.

23:39And there would also be the same Environmental Conservation Overlay and a new Constrained Sites Overlay zone.

23:44Those are the C and Z overlays.

23:46In the lower left here, you can see the existing zoning map with the subject site in red hash marks.

23:51The purple dots show other properties in this area that are also owned by Portland Parks and Recreation.

23:57Again, Lower McLay Park covers part of this block, but the subject property for this review is not contiguous with the park.

24:04And in the lower right, you can see the proposed zoning map.

24:06The subject site would have the R-5 residential base zone.

24:10The environmental conservation or C overlay zone would remain unchanged in the southeast part of the site, and there would be a new overlay, the constrained sites or Z overlay, applied to the entire site.

24:21So by code, the Z overlay is always applied to lots in the R-5 zone when any part of the lot has the environmental conservation overlay.

24:29And what the Z overlay does is restrict development to a house or a duplex.

24:33The Z overlay does not allow triplexes, fourplexes, or cottage clusters, which are allowed on other R-5 zone lots without the Z overlay.

24:42Next slide, please.

24:45The comprehensive plan map amendment would remove the open space comprehensive plan map designation from this property and apply the residential R-5— I'm sorry, residential 5,000 designation instead.

24:57And this comprehensive plan map amendment is necessary for the property to be rezoned to the R-5 residential zone and then for a house or a duplex to be constructed on it.

25:06The approval criteria for the comprehensive plan map amendment are in zoning code section 33-810-050A.

25:13The criteria require that compared with the existing open space comprehensive plan map designation, the proposed residential 5,000 designation must be equally or more supportive of the comprehensive Thank you.

25:24Thank you, Mayor.

25:24Councilmember Herbold.

25:24Thank you, Mayor.

25:24The hearing officer found that the proposed ordinance would not be in conflict with the comprehensive plan as a whole.

25:26This criterion required an analysis of a number of different factors which are addressed in the hearings officer's recommendation.

25:32This includes Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan for the metropolitan region, the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, the Northwest District Plan for this neighborhood, and comprehensive plan policies related to housing, natural resources, and public services.

25:47The hearings officer found that by creating an opportunity for new housing on a vacant lot in a central area with good access to services, the proposed amendment is equally or more supportive of the comprehensive plan as a whole.

26:00An opportunity for new housing directly supports a number of policy goals related to housing supply and efficient use of land.

26:07Various review groups at the city evaluated this request, and they all indicated that adequate public services are available for future residential development on this lot.

26:16Natural resources protections will remain through the existing environmental conservation overlay that will remain over the southeast part of this lot And also from Title 11 Tree Code regulations that regulate tree removal and require a minimum tree canopy on a residential development site.

26:31Next slide, please.

26:36The second part of this is the zoning map amendment to rezone the property to the R-5 residential zone, and the approval criteria for the zoning map amendment are in Zoning Code Section 33-855-050 and 33-855-060.

26:50And the first criterion is that the zoning map must be consistent with the comprehensive plan map.

26:56With concurrent approval of the comprehensive plan map amendment to the Residential 5000 designation, this zoning map amendment request meets this requirement.

27:04The R-5 residential zone that's proposed here is the only corresponding zone for the Residential 5000 comprehensive plan map designation.

27:12The second criterion is that adequate public services must be available to serve development that could occur in the R-5 zone.

27:19Which on this lot would be a house or a duplex.

27:22Again, different review groups at the city evaluated this request.

27:25They all indicated that adequate public services are available for possible residential development on this site.

27:31This includes water, sewer, stormwater, police, and the capacity of the transportation system in the area.

27:38And lastly, the application of the Z overlay or the constrained sites overlay must be necessary to address a situation And must be consistent with the adoption criteria for the overlay and with the comprehensive plan.

27:49Again, the Z overlay limits development to a house or a duplex, and the Z overlay adoption criteria in the zoning code require the Z overlay on the entirety of all R-5 zone lots when any part of that lot has the environmental conservation zone.

28:04So the fact that the southeast corner of this lot is in the environmental conservation zone is a situation that requires the Z overlay to be applied.

28:10Thank you.

28:12The Z overlay code was adopted by the City Council with a residential infill project in 2020, and at that time, all components of the residential infill project, including the new Z overlay at that time, were found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

28:26Next slide, please.

28:28So the hearings officer found that all of the applicable approval criteria were met.

28:32So the hearings officer recommended approval of the comprehensive plan map amendment to apply the Residential 5000 comprehensive plan map designation.

28:39Thank you.

28:40And approval of the zoning map amendment to apply the R-5 residential zone alongside the existing environmental conservation zone and the new constrained sites or Z overlay zone.

28:49Uh, next slide, please.

28:53And that concludes my presentation.

28:54Be happy to answer any questions.

28:56Thank you very much.

28:59Colleagues, are there any technical or clarifying questions from the presentation?

29:07Councilor Zimmerman.

29:08Thanks.

29:08I just want to make sure I understand that this was R-5, then in 2018 we made it open space, now we're going to make it R-5 again?

29:15That's correct.

29:16Okay, thanks.

29:21Vice President Clark.

29:22I'm not sure this is really relevant, but can I ask, it looks like there's a driveway.

29:27Did there used to be a house there?

29:30I don't believe so.

29:30I believe this was This has been a vacant lot for— I don't know if there was ever a house there, but I don't believe there was any house there anytime in the recent past.

29:38I was just curious because of the driveway.

29:40How— can I ask how the city became the owner of this lot?

29:45I don't know that either.

29:46Portland Parks and Recreation staff are here.

29:48They may know the answer to that question.

29:51If I may, I'm Zelaine Nunn from Portland Parks and Recreation.

29:55I believe it was a tax foreclosure about 100 years ago.

29:58And it's just been a vacant lot.

29:59I think there was a shed on there at one point.

30:01It's gotten some use from the neighborhood, but it's not ever been used formally by parks.

30:06Thank you.

30:08Thank you, Vice President Clark.

30:09Councilor Kanal.

30:10Thanks.

30:11Um, and I'm not 100% sure if you're the right folks to ask this to, but I appreciate the presentation.

30:16I'll just ask and let me know if not.

30:18Why now?

30:19What's motivating the change?

30:21Is there— I mean, does this link inextricably to a sale?

30:26So that, that is the plan.

30:27We went out a few— we went through the disposition process several years ago and got council approval to dispose of the property.

30:36We were finding that difficult to do with the OS zoning, so we're now looking to rezone it so that we can then sell it.

30:44Okay, council already voted on the sale?

30:46Yes.

30:47Okay.

30:48Prior to that, had there ever been a goal of acquiring the adjacent property?

30:56Uh, well, there's houses on either side.

31:00I'm not real sure what the parcel between that and Lower McLay is.

31:06Not that I'm aware of, I guess, is the answer to your question.

31:09Okay.

31:10I mean, what I'm trying to understand, and this might be outside the scope, is whether this is the best use of the property.

31:18Use of property, you know, in terms of losing the, the natural space, the green space.

31:24But, um, I'm trying to understand why— what motivated the, um, the sale, or the— I should say the, uh, the intent to sell.

31:31Um, at some later point, could you follow up and let, uh, maybe just via email and send over the information as to when council approved that?

31:41Uh, sure.

31:42I do have the ordinance number with me if that would be helpful.

31:46Great.

31:47Yeah.

31:50Uh, it was in 2021.

31:51It's Ordinance 190259.

31:56Great.

31:56And that declared it surplus.

32:00190—.

32:01Okay, cool.

32:02259.

32:03Yeah.

32:05Thanks.

32:06Thank you, Councilor Knoll.

32:07Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

32:08Thank you, Council President.

32:10Also, Possibly outside the scope of what we're doing here, but I will ask because it continues on where my colleague was going.

32:17Because this was approved as surplus previously, after any rezoning that this council may approve, does Parks then have the ability to sell this without coming back to council?

32:28Or because that zoning change occurred, would there need to be any further action by council before a sale occurred?

32:36To my understanding, we do not need to go back to council.

32:40Okay, thank you, Council President.

32:43Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

32:44Councilor Novick.

32:46Mr. President, I just wanted to suggest that maybe we should establish a policy that when we foreclose on a property, we should check in every 100 years to see if it's zoned properly.

32:54Good suggestion.

32:55Excellent.

32:56That concludes the technical or clarifying questions from councilors.

33:00Thank you very much.

33:00I think we're going to move now to We'll now move to the presentation of the applicant.

33:14Good afternoon.

33:14My name is Chris Hagerman.

33:15I'm with the Bookin Group.

33:17We were the land use planners that worked with Parks on this process.

33:23We are delighted with the staff report, delighted with the work that the city has done And we have no further presentation at this time except to make ourselves available for your questions.

33:36Excellent.

33:36Thank you.

33:37Colleagues, do you have any questions for our applicant?

33:43Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, still in the—.

33:45Sorry, that's old.

33:47Thank you.

33:48There we go.

33:51Seeing no further questions for our applicant, Questions from any councilors?

33:54Thank you very much for your presentation.

33:58We're now moving to testimony from supporters of the applicant.

34:01Do we have any signed up for that?

34:03No one is signed up.

34:04Okay.

34:06And do we have any opponents of the applicant?

34:08One person is signed up.

34:10Ghalib bin Imhotep El.

34:15Welcome.

34:16Come on down.

34:22Okay.

34:23I prepared this Monday, maybe Tuesday, before Wednesday happened.

34:28And though this applies specifically to this, I think what happened Wednesday night or Wednesday afternoon when, um, that last agenda item, I think this is a perfect example of what needs to happen as far as change is concerned.

34:43Now, I chose to speak on this exact— let me start off by saying good afternoon, councilors.

34:48I am Ghalib Benimut M. Hotep L., and I reside— I am domiciled in District 4.

34:54I chose to speak on this exact ordinance for a reason that may not sit well with you, and it does not sit well with me either.

35:02When City Administrator Lee spoke of change management, it is my sincerest hope that the idea was for the management to change the culture and the processes, or refine the processes, in the name of transparency, Accountability and diligence.

35:17This process does not feel like change.

35:20That's why I'm opposed to it.

35:23I don't oppose this ordinance on its merits.

35:25It's, it's a simple change.

35:265,000 Square feet of open space to 5,000 square feet of residence, probably for a duplex, 2 single-family dwellings.

35:35My opposition is in the process and the language.

35:39I have too many questions that lack answers, and it is my hope that these answers have been asked and answered already.

35:46First question, why were there only 2 people in that initial public hearing that was a Zoom call?

35:54The 2 people that were adjacent in the property, the 2 property owners of the adjacent properties, I think they would have some interest in what's going on with that property there in the middle.

36:04But there's been this public outcry about these hearings and the notice that's given of them.

36:09Thank you.

36:10And yet here we are having another meeting where there is just the assigned group and the Portland Parks and Recreation Bureau.

36:18So there's no other additional input.

36:21That's questionable.

36:24There's also this question: when and where will this actual lot be made available for purchase?

36:30That question's already been answered.

36:32It was purchased back in 2021.

36:34Thank you.

36:35Considering that the change to open space occurred in 2018 with a comprehensive update, a process that is required by ORS Revised Statute 197 to actually provide to the state, why pass an ordinance that's contrary to those goals that are set to be realized by 2035?

36:55Is that progressive?

36:58Why does the language keep referring to the PP&R not using the space as a park?

37:03That was never the intention.

37:05It was meant to be an open space for clean air, clean water, and vegetation.

37:10Basically greenery, because trees are our carbon dioxide scrubs.

37:14That's what they are for us.

37:16We breathe in good oxygen because we have those trees there.

37:20So why would they consider it a legislative process?

37:23Why make vague language?

37:26Again, I don't intend to bombard you with issues.

37:28There's a simple solution: transparency.

37:32I oppose this ordinance Because it's not transparent and that lot has already been sold in lieu of this process.

37:37Your choice in this matter is your choice, but the scent of theocracy is ripe in the public documents.

37:44Just remember this, no matter what you choose, I love you all unconditionally.

37:48Thank you.

37:48Thank you very much.

38:01And Rebecca, does that conclude?

38:02That concludes testimony.

38:04Okay, as there was opposing testimony, the, the applicant is entitled up to 5 minutes for rebuttal if they so choose.

38:16Okay, the applicant has denied that.

38:20Okay, colleagues, discussion?

38:23Councilor Knoll.

38:25Thanks.

38:26Um, couple questions.

38:28Uh, first, just wanted to understand if I can get clarification on the current legal ownership of this property.

38:34Just want to respond, be responsive to the, the item, the, uh, point raised in testimony here.

38:44If either the applicant or the staff could come back on up.

38:47There you are.

38:48Cool.

38:48Thanks.

38:51So the property is currently owned by Portland Parks and Recreation.

38:56Okay.

38:57There are properties to the east and south that if hypothetically were acquired by the city would make it contiguous with the larger green space.

39:08Were those properties ever targeted by any part of the city for acquisition should they have become available?

39:22Good afternoon.

39:23Dylan Paul, Public Works Business Services, Real Estate Services.

39:28We represent Parks on this matter.

39:30Um, I can say from my experience working with Parks and Recreation that oftentimes we do look at adjacent parcels.

39:39Oftentimes we will buy an easement In order to create new access corridors, in this case, it wasn't something that was warranted or needed.

39:49This lot, in order to connect it to the park, would have taken a considerable considerable amount of resources.

39:55However, in most cases in the past, we would also record an easement and then end up selling the property.

40:03It just seemed unlikely and infeasible that we would ever.

40:06Get the corresponding easements required to connect an access point.

40:10And there were already 2 different— 3 different access points available for Maclay at this time.

40:16So it was seen as a low priority and potentially a bit of a liability since it was being used in an unpermitted fashion.

40:26Unpermitted.

40:26Okay.

40:28Was there ever a consideration of creating a community garden there?

40:33Or any other sort of usage?

40:35I feel like, you know, obviously we— there was a whole conversation on this prior to us getting here, so I'm just trying to understand.

40:41Yeah, great, great, you know, I think comment where we look at community gardens.

40:47Typically we're looking for much larger areas to provide those services.

40:52They can be very expensive.

40:53They can also have an impact on adjacent homes with a lot of different visitors.

40:58So this wasn't seen as an ideal situation for a community garden.

41:02But, you know, I'd be happy to follow up with, you know, where all of ours are and what criteria they look for.

41:08But most often we're looking for a much larger, you know, hopefully, you know, close to an acre.

41:14Okay.

41:16I—.

41:19So I haven't been to the site, but I have looked at it on Google Maps, and the satellite view looks Like a portion of it is kind of in that being used in that way.

41:29It's a little hard to tell.

41:31And obviously the street view, you can't see the back of the lot as easily.

41:34So that's the basis for the question.

41:37I'm also not 100% sure.

41:40I would love to get some follow-up that's outside of the scope of this document on what the criteria that Parks looks at for community gardens, because Just interested, would love to support him.

41:54I guess the only other thing I wanted to ask, we had a presentation in Committee of the Whole earlier today for Prosper Portland board appointees, and one of the things that got talked about in that was just how assertive, and I say this as a positive thing, and how proactive Prosper is with land acquisition.

42:15And I'm seeing a lot of sale but not a lot of purchase, Broadly through the administration.

42:20I don't know that I can say that that's specifically to parks.

42:23And so I think just 2 things to put a pin in for later, maybe for the city administrator, is I'd love to understand the sort of net on that as we start repivoting and reaffirming our interest in land banking as a council, but also how we can move away from Portland Parks owning land and get back to, or get to a place of Portland, the city of Portland owning land.

42:44Councilor Smith.

42:45Because one of the things that I think complicates this is that bureaus are, you know, we're not a city yet.

42:51We're 27 bureaus and a trash co. And I would love to get to a place where, yeah, and I know that's a priority for you as well, Mr. City Administrator.

42:59Thank you.

43:00Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

43:01Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

43:02Thank you, Council President.

43:05What outreach was done to the neighbors?

43:07It is striking to me that Folks who have had an empty lot next to them have no opinion about this, whether positive or negative.

43:15I, I've seen situations with neighbors who feel strongly one way or another, but we're not hearing anything today.

43:22Yeah, so before the initial public hearing in April, there was a notice sent by mail to all property owners within 400 feet of the site, as well as to the neighborhood association district coalition, and there was a sign posted in front of the property Advertising to the public hearing with where to get more information on how to attend.

43:41So I would've thought too that people would've been more curious or concerned, but I did get some questions.

43:47So I know that there were some people who were aware of this, but I did not— no one— it's correct that it was just Mr. Hageman and myself at the last hearing, that none of the neighbors came or provided testimony.

43:57But you received questions from neighbors who wanted more information, clarification?

44:01Yeah.

44:02There was one neighbor who asked about whether, you know, how the property would be marketed and what the price might be.

44:09And Mr. Hageman responded at the first hearing that wasn't decided yet.

44:14I think I got a phone call from another person just asking some general questions about the process, I think, but nothing more than that.

44:20The notifications, though, it sounds like made it clear to neighbors that this change would likely lead to a sale.

44:26Yes, I think so.

44:27I mean, because it was, Talks about how it's for potential house or duplex or housing development in the future.

44:33Okay.

44:33In 2020, the sign was also on the lot.

44:36So when it originally went through city disposition process, it was posted.

44:41And at that time, the sign did indicate that it would be sold on the open market.

44:45There were 2, you know, the adjacent neighbors, you know, were somewhat opposed to that.

44:50However, there was a very high level of interest from the community to have that lot.

44:55So we got a lot of interest.

44:58It was just too big of a hurdle to risk having the rezone not work out for them.

45:04Understood.

45:04And hearing that folks reached out gives me confidence that the outreach that the city did was sufficient for folks to understand what was happening here.

45:13I just want to note, because it was brought up, that while I don't think this lot in particular is a great spot for a park or a You have homes around it that generally have yards that they could put gardens in, things like that.

45:27I hope we can have a conversation between this council and parks about whether everything has to be the large, full-scale, full-service model, or whether it might make sense as we need more public green space and more public garden space and things like that to have different sized models that work.

45:44Thank you.

45:46And I look forward to having more of that conversation in the future.

45:49Thank you.

45:49Thank you, Council President.

45:50Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

45:52Councilor Green.

45:55Thank you, Council President.

45:56So this is a Type 3 quasi-judicial consideration.

46:00Is that what this is?

46:03Type 4 quasi-judicial.

46:04So meaning that it goes straight— it's just a recommendation from the hearings officer and it goes straight to council.

46:09But yes, quasi-judicial.

46:10Okay.

46:12I appreciate— oh, it's 3?

46:16It's, yeah, it goes straight to council.

46:18Just a Type 4 is just demolition review.

46:20I apologize.

46:20So we call it Type 3 in terms of how we notice.

46:22Is that correct, Andy?

46:23All right, you were correct initially.

46:25I apologize.

46:25It still comes straight to council from the hearings officer.

46:28Pretend like I didn't hear that I was correct.

46:30It'll get to my head.

46:31Thank you.

46:33No, colleagues, this feels pretty straightforward.

46:36This is in my district.

46:37I've walked this neighborhood.

46:38I know that the sort of constituents I have in this neighborhood would be acutely aware of a sign of public notice.

46:46These are things that happen a lot at our neighborhood association meetings.

46:50It's a big topic of discussion whenever there's a proposed development or proposed land use change.

46:55So if we haven't heard anything from the adjacent property owners, it's not because we failed to do outreach on this.

47:01I'm pretty confident that We've, we've properly noticed this.

47:05In terms of the open land, you know, this is right next to Forest Park, and Forest Park is massive.

47:12And I think we've got a lot of that going on as part of this.

47:15I don't think we need this 5,000-square-foot parcel as part of that.

47:19In terms of the access and continuity, if you just walk around the block, you get to Lower McLeod Park trailhead.

47:26So there's plenty of opportunity there.

47:28And So I think what we don't want is just a vacant lot that just sits as a vacant lot for time immemorial.

47:37So if there's an opportunity to turn that into productive use, I fully support that.

47:41It looks like from the aerial photos there is like sort of an above-ground swimming pool there.

47:46I don't know, so maybe the neighbors want to get together, pitch in, buy the lot, and make their own little block party pool, and that's something that they should do.

47:53I think that's a great idea.

47:54Um, but if we're thinking about the resources that we have in the Parks Bureau to support parks programming and new parks, I much prefer investing in Slabtown to get that thing going than try to like do this 5,000-foot one-off little park thing.

48:08So appreciate the concern for the District 4, but I, I feel pretty confident that my constituents were noticed.

48:15We would have heard about it, and, uh, looking forward to getting to a place where we can just approve this and turn unproductive land into productive land so people can have a place to live in our city.

48:24Thanks.

48:25Thank you, Councilor Green.

48:26Councilor Zimmerman.

48:28What he said.

48:29We got this.

48:30Thank you very much.

48:31Um, I mean, it's a hill, for God's sake, you guys.

48:34Like, let's not overdo this.

48:36Like, there comes a point where— I mean, I think we spent an hour and a half on an appointment earlier today.

48:41My God.

48:42Um, like, this is, this is straightforward.

48:44I, I was trying to be funny with the R-5 to open space to R-5 and the switcheroo that we're doing in a 7, 8-year period, right?

48:52But we got this.

48:54It—.

48:54This is a neighborhood who I'm pretty sure has their neighborhood association meetings in somebody's living room.

49:01So there's an acute awareness of everything going on.

49:04I have zero concerns for engagement on this.

49:06I have zero concerns with moving it to R-5.

49:09It looks like it meets all the criteria, and I think that we should move Thank you.

49:14Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

49:16Seeing no one else in the queue, colleagues, I am going to close the evidentiary record.

49:23The evidentiary record in this hearing is now closed.

49:25This means council will accept no more oral or written testimony on the land use appeal.

49:30And I am going to move that the council tentatively uphold the recommendations of the hearings officer and ask that the applicant Second.

49:47Councilor Clark seconds.

49:48Vice President Clark seconds.

49:51Is there any discussion of the motion?

49:55Can we move to a roll call vote on this then, please?

49:57This requires 7 affirmative votes to pass.

50:02Calling the vote on 2026-242, moved by Council President Dunphy, seconded by Councilor Smith.

50:07Seconded by Council Vice President Clark.

50:10Koyama Lane?

50:11Aye.

50:13Murillo?

50:13Aye.

50:14Aye.

50:14Novick?

50:14Aye.

50:15Clark?

50:16Aye.

50:16Green?

50:17Aye.

50:18Zimmerman?

50:18Aye.

50:20Avalos?

50:21Aye.

50:22Smith?

50:24Aye.

50:24Kanal?

50:27Aye.

50:29Pirtle-Guiney?

50:30Aye.

50:31Ryan?

50:32Aye.

50:32Dunphy?

50:33Aye.

50:34Motion is approved with a 12 aye vote.

50:37Okay, the motion to uphold the hearings officer's recommendation has passed 12 to 0, and the applicant— application is tentatively granted.

50:46This matter will return to council on August 6th, Thursday, August 6th at 2 o'clock PM, time certain, for the adoption of the findings and a final vote.

50:59Thank you very much for everybody for being here today.

51:02Can we please move, call item number 9?

51:04Item 9, extend lease with Urban Office and Parking Facilities for the City Kids Childcare and Development Center space by 5 years.

51:12Amend CLM Contract 10014, document number 2026-216.

51:19Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance.

51:22Is there any further council discussion?

51:28Seeing none, Keelan— or Rebecca, can we please call the roll?

51:37Koyama Lane?

51:39Aye.

51:40Murillo?

51:41Aye.

51:42Novick?

51:43Aye.

51:44Clark?

51:44Aye.

51:45Green?

51:46Aye.

51:47Zimmerman?

51:48Aye.

51:50Avalos?

51:51Aye.

51:51Smith?

51:53Aye.

51:53Kanal?

51:54Aye.

51:55Pirtle-Guiney?

51:56Aye.

51:57Ryan?

51:58Aye.

51:59Dunphy?

52:00Aye.

52:01Uh, the ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.

52:03Thank you very much.

52:04Can we please move to item number 10?

52:09Item 10, amend vehicles and traffic code to clarify applicability of ride fees and establish a driver's resource center for transportation network company drivers.

52:19Amend Code Section 16.40.030 and 16.40.240, document number 2026-192.

52:30Colleagues, this is a continued first reading of our— of a non-emergency ordinance.

52:36We heard an initial presentation and public testimony on this previously, and Thank you, Council President.

52:56Colleagues, as the Council President reminded us, we heard testimony on this item but didn't have time for debate.

53:03And when we last heard this item, I shared that we had received some concerns from particularly Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash.

53:10Yes.

53:10As well, um, about questions around the intent of the, uh, scope of a driver resource center.

53:21Their concerns were not reflective of the language in the ordinance, but I had said that we would work with them since we had that extra time to bring forward an amendment to create some clarification.

53:33You have before you today posted Pirtle-Guiney Novick 2, and because this is an amendment to a code amendment, there are 2 shades of red.

53:44So I'm just going to draw your attention to the places where the changes are.

53:49On the second page of the posted amendment to the ordinance, there is a new N, which actually defines what deactivation means so that that That's clear.

54:04The second change— I'm sorry, I don't have the page numbers in front of me on this one, um, but if you go all the way to the part of Code 16.40240, it is about 2/3 of the way through.

54:22We are looking at a new Section 3— wait, am I in the wrong I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong spot.

54:29We're going to H in that section and changes to H2, which will now say that it will provide some authority to the city administrator to designate a customer service supervisor or to have designated for them a customer service supervisor.

54:53So that it is clear who the city administrator, through the city administrator, the driver resource center should work with within the TNCs to help drivers escalate concerns.

55:09And I apologize, we are going backwards now to see in that section a new 3.

55:14A driver's resource center may be established to assist drivers in navigating deactivation.

55:19Or other account issues.

55:21And it clarifies a little bit more about what a driver resource center does.

55:26But the fact that the driver resource center does not exercise regulatory or adjudicatory authority, that was the main crux of the concern that Lyft and Uber raised.

55:38This amendment has been reviewed by the TNCs.

55:42They had a few comments.

55:45Few other asks that didn't make it in here, so I don't think it quite got them too excited about this ordinance, but it certainly neutralized their concerns.

55:55It has been run by the drivers union leadership who are in the room with us today and who have expressed to my office that they are okay with these changes.

56:06And it has been run by PBOT to ensure that these are all workable and fit within in what PBOT currently does in running the program and what their assumptions are about their relationship with the Driver Resource Center.

56:19And we would ask for your support in adding this to the underlying and ultimately in the underlying ordinance.

56:29Thank you, Councilor.

56:30And are you formally moving this amendment?

56:33Yes, I would move this amendment.

56:34Thank you.

56:35Second.

56:36And Councilor Koyama Lane seconds.

56:38Colleagues, discussion of the amendment?

56:42Councilor Green.

56:45Thank you, Council President.

56:49If you would permit, can I call someone from the driver's unit up to ask them if they're— I mean, I saw some hand waves, but I'd love to hear directly from you whether or not you support this amendment.

57:02I'm happy to have them come on up.

57:03Yeah, thank you, Councilor Green.

57:13Joe Jackson with Drivers Union, for the record.

57:16Thank you for being here today, and thanks for your sort of ongoing stalwart advocacy for your drivers.

57:21Um, I know you've been working closely with these offices.

57:24Uh, just want to hear it from you.

57:26Uh, have you had a chance to review this amendment, and do—.

57:29Are you comfortable We have had a chance to review the amendment, and we do believe that this will help us accomplish our goals.

57:39Okay, that's all I need to hear.

57:40Thank you.

57:41Thank you very much, Councilor Green.

57:43Colleagues, further discussion of the amendment?

57:49Vice President Clark.

57:52Thank you, Council President.

57:53I would just like to ask City Attorney Lee about the From the administration's perspective, do you have any thoughts about this?

57:59You are mentioned in here.

58:02Yeah, I believe what's mentioned within this ordinance is stuff that we can carry through, so no issues on the administration side.

58:11Council President, if I may clarify, the references in the new language to the city administrator are, um, the city administrator we assume would delegate Powers or share information to PBOT and through PBOT to their contracted operator of the Driver Resource Center.

58:31This is not meant to be additional work for the city administrator himself, but rather that technical nature of referring to the city administrator on behalf of the administration to then delegate.

58:44Thank you.

58:46Thank you, Vice President Clark.

58:49Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion of the amendment, Rebecca, can we please call the roll on, uh, is it Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 1?

58:58Okay.

59:00I believe it's Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 2.

59:032.

59:03It is Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 2.

59:04We had a technical amendment previously.

59:06That's right.

59:06Thank you.

59:07Thank you.

59:07Good catch.

59:08Uh, calling the roll on amendment Pirtle-Guiney-Novick 2.

59:14Amendment 2, moved by Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, seconded by Councilor Koyama Lane.

59:19Koyama Lane?

59:21Aye.

59:22Murillo?

59:23Aye.

59:23Novick?

59:24Aye.

59:25Clark?

59:25Aye.

59:26Green?

59:27Aye.

59:27Zimmerman?

59:28Aye.

59:29Avalos?

59:30Aye.

59:31Smith?

59:32Aye.

59:33Knell?

59:34Aye.

59:34Pirtle-Guiney?

59:35Aye.

59:36Ryan?

59:36Aye.

59:37Dunphy?

59:38Aye.

59:39The amendment is approved with 12 aye votes.

59:41Thank you very much.

59:43Now, colleagues, discussion of the underlying— now amended underlying ordinance?

59:52Vice President Clark?

59:53Good bill should pass.

59:55Thank you, Vice President Clark.

59:57Councilor Kanal?

59:59Yeah, I want to thank the sponsors for bringing this forward.

1:00:02Colleagues, uh, last year I put up a, uh, a budget note, um, proposal that did Didn't end up getting a vote to explore expanding the driver's resource program into a driver's resource center.

1:00:14And since then, obviously didn't get a chance to get it voted on then, but I'm really grateful that that work's been picked up and carried forward.

1:00:22I also was going back over the 2 amendments that were done in committee, which both were improvements as well.

1:00:29So just wanted to say thanks there.

1:00:31Thank you.

1:00:32I don't remember who the sponsors were, and I apologize if I'm leaving you out on it.

1:00:37Zimmerman was one, and okay.

1:00:42Yeah, would've loved to have known about it early enough to be a co-sponsor.

1:00:47Would've loved to be able to support it in that way, but happy to vote yes on it and support it in the way we can.

1:00:52Thanks.

1:00:53Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

1:00:54Councilor Ryan.

1:00:55Yeah, thank you, Council President.

1:00:58This has been— because I'm in City Life, perhaps— you all have spent so much time here, and I appreciate that.

1:01:05I would ask if the sponsors would be okay if we put an asterisk on this as an emergency.

1:01:10I'm sure we have 9 votes, and so you don't have to keep coming back for additional times.

1:01:16Do I have a second?

1:01:18Second.

1:01:19Okay, cool.

1:01:21Wait, what?

1:01:21Oh, sponsors are cool.

1:01:23All right.

1:01:23Also, we'll need language specifically to designate why this is an emergency, um, and we need that, uh, in writing, unfortunately.

1:01:33I know it's hardship that they have to keep coming here over and over and over again and not out there making money and serving the public.

1:01:40And, you know, it's— I feel like you could invoice us at this point.

1:01:44Um, so, President—.

1:01:46Yeah, what's that?

1:01:46So, President— yes, might an appropriate emergency be that, um, the That there are drivers who are facing— let me get my language totally correct here— there are drivers who are facing deactivation every week in our city, and that enacting this more quickly would allow for them to have the proper support to address those deactivations more quickly.

1:02:16I think that's a valid excuse for sure.

1:02:19But if somebody could please reduce that to writing so that we can move on it.

1:02:24Councilor Ryan, you made a motion.

1:02:26Would you like to do that or would you like me to type that up?

1:02:28Yeah, go ahead.

1:02:28I'm not used to this.

1:02:29We've been able to do this in the past.

1:02:32I know.

1:02:32I'm being a jerk about it.

1:02:33I don't know about that, but I think you might be taking it too seriously.

1:02:38Well, I just want to make sure we have the exact language for our clerk to vote for.

1:02:42So, all right.

1:02:442 Minutes on this and then we'll— Great.

1:02:47In the interim, Councilor Green.

1:02:51Thank you, Council President.

1:02:53I will speak long enough for the language to be drafted because I will support an amendment to make it an emergency ordinance.

1:03:01I can say that over the last decade or more, but probably acutely over the last decade, more and more of the labor market has shifted toward Thank you.

1:03:12So these are sort of 1099 or contract-based labor in sectors that have very little protection, that are oftentimes feast and famine when it comes to the dollars that you earn.

1:03:27And I'll just share a vignette with a driver that I had a conversation with just the other night because I rode my bike to work and then it was in the middle of a heat wave and I was like, I'm not trying to ride this bike home.

1:03:35I forgot to charge it here.

1:03:37So I took a Lyft home, or I took an Uber home, and the entire ride I listened to the driver who was exacerbated about the economic conditions that he faces.

1:03:47And it's getting harder and harder and harder out there to just make ends meet.

1:03:53And so when you also look at the rest of the political world that we inhabit, whether we're talking about the local or the federal level, you have people who are putting in the work every single day to try to provide for their families.

1:04:04And then we nickel and dime them on fees and surcharges and the like.

1:04:09And sometimes we have to do that to pay for the infrastructure.

1:04:11But if we're not going to take one basic step to exercise our regulatory authority where we have it to provide some sort of bulwark against the erosion of the protections that these workers have, then we are failing those workers.

1:04:24And so it is an emergency in that regard.

1:04:28Today you could be driving, picking someone up from the airport, you could be in good standing, and tomorrow you can be deactivated like that, and there's no recourse.

1:04:37And now your family has to deal with that.

1:04:40And now you are maybe at risk of losing your housing.

1:04:42And then it— then you get connected to the broader set of crises that we have in the city.

1:04:47And so to me, this looks like a— this feels like a minimum step we have to take.

1:04:51It's not the end of it.

1:04:53Um, And there are a lot of workers who are in this sector now.

1:04:58And there's going to be other things that we talk about next week at the Public Works Committee.

1:05:01We're going to hear some discussion on autonomous vehicles.

1:05:05We're going to have a conversation around that.

1:05:07And for me and for this body, we have to recognize that these— this landscape of policy is all woven together.

1:05:15And so acting with the urgency that we need to in the moment, and I want to thank the city I also want to give special commendation to Councilor Loretta Smith because a lot of these conversations began with her.

1:05:25Thank you.

1:05:32And I commend you for that.

1:05:38I also want— I want to give special commendation to Councilor Loretta Smith because a lot of these conversations began with her.

1:05:45In the Labor and Workforce Development Committee, and you always made room for the drivers.

1:05:50Not once, not twice.

1:05:51There were maybe 5 different meetings that we had that you guys raised the issue up and the councilor gave due airtime for.

1:05:58And so a lot of that early work happened in that committee that no longer exists.

1:06:02So I'm really grateful that that continuity transferred to City Life and that, and that the other councilors picked it And I'm sure by now there is some language that we can consider for an emergency ordinance, but I just think that if we want to think about economic development in the city of Portland, if we're not centering those of us who put in the work every single day, work long hours in dangerous conditions, who spend most of our paychecks, then we're not serious about economic development.

1:06:32So I just needed to name that.

1:06:33I wanted to thank you guys for what you do for Portlanders.

1:06:35Thank you.

1:06:36And, uh, you've kept me out of trouble many times, uh, when I should not be driving from point A to point B. I can pick up the phone, I can, you know, click a few buttons, and I got a safe ride home.

1:06:48So I appreciate y'all.

1:06:49Thank you.

1:06:49In a heat wave, right?

1:06:51In a heat wave, yeah.

1:06:52May I, uh, do you need another 30 seconds?

1:06:55No?

1:06:56We're ready.

1:06:57Okay, but you're welcome to say a response if you'd like.

1:07:00Thank you.

1:07:00Uh, for the record, Nathaniel Hudson Hartman.

1:07:02I use he/him pronouns.

1:07:03I've been a rideshare driver for over 9 years now and a proud advocate on behalf of drivers with Drivers Union Oregon.

1:07:10I just want to say thank you all so much.

1:07:14I'm like just overcome with emotion to think, you know, to not quite prepared for this to become an emergency ordinance.

1:07:22I've learned that now that can become a thing.

1:07:24That's really cool.

1:07:25But just to think of the last year, how far we've come, and I just want to appreciate and recognize everyone who was in this building last week.

1:07:32That recognizes that this is the start.

1:07:36This is not the end.

1:07:37We have so much that we need to accomplish to help our community, and it's just great to be getting this off of the ground and looking forward to collaborating and doing, you know, so much more to help our community.

1:07:51So thank you all.

1:07:53Thank you very much.

1:07:55Councilor Knoll.

1:07:56Thanks.

1:07:57I forgot to mention, I actually asked— I was I was traveling over the course of earlier this month, and I asked 2 drivers in Los Angeles about a driver's resource center because I have things that aren't work to talk about, and I do that, but I also talk about work even when I'm traveling.

1:08:17And both of them, the level of enthusiasm that they had was really, really interesting, and I don't know what it's like in LA.

1:08:25In the broader economic conditions of a driver there.

1:08:27But it was really fascinating to me, and it was like, do that, do that immediately, and then help us get one here.

1:08:35So you might get reached out to by some folks for advice after this.

1:08:42They have our numbers.

1:08:44Cool.

1:08:45And I just wanted to say that.

1:08:47And, you know, I tend to take rideshare I hear a lot more when I'm traveling, but I do occasionally hear as well.

1:08:53And it's something I've asked locally earlier also, but it was great to see that that's a common— well, it's not great.

1:09:01It's actually very bad that that's a common set of experiences that make people around the country want there to be localized driver resource centers in their communities.

1:09:12But the existence of that and our knowledge of it gives us Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

1:09:20Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:09:21Thank you, Council President.

1:09:23You all should have an amendment in your inboxes that Devin sent at 2:56.

1:09:29Thank you to everybody for creating the time there.

1:09:32It's listed as Ryan 1.

1:09:33Councilor Ryan, are you comfortable with that?

1:09:35Yeah, yeah.

1:09:36I was working with Devin.

1:09:37Perfect.

1:09:39And Council President, I really just wanted to take a minute to thank the City Attorney for Thank you.

1:09:42Thank you.

1:09:42I just wanted to thank the drivers, both the leadership who are here in the room and the folks who are out on the streets every day and not in the room, for your patience, because this has been a long time coming, and it's, it's about bread and butter for your folks, right?

1:10:00This is about people's ability to advocate for their needs in the workplace in a Councilor Smith.

1:10:10Thank you, Mayor.

1:10:12Thank you for your patience as we made sure we got it right so it can be something that is sustaining.

1:10:19And then I wanted to thank the folks who have supported this along the way, including all those who have been shouted out and all of the co-sponsors on the amendment.

1:10:29And I know a lot of other councilors have been involved in this work and, and have been interested in the work even if their names aren't on it as well.

1:10:35So I just want to make sure that we're spreading that credit around.

1:10:39And then thanks as well to folks at PBOT who have worked with us to make sure that the way we word this fits in with the regulatory body of work that already occurs.

1:10:52Thank you.

1:10:53Thank you very much.

1:10:54And Councilor Ryan, would you like to formally move Ryan 1?

1:10:57Sure.

1:10:58Read this.

1:10:59The council declares that an emergency exists due to the ongoing deactivation of rideshare drivers in Portland.

1:11:06Immediate implementation of the deactivation requirements and establishment of the resource center are necessary to provide timely protection, support, and due process to affected drivers.

1:11:19Councilor Ryan moves.

1:11:20Ryan, 1.

1:11:20Is there a second?

1:11:21Second.

1:11:22Ooh, that was a lot of I don't even know who that could possibly be.

1:11:26Um, I'm gonna say a Murillo.

1:11:29There we go.

1:11:30Colleagues, is there further discussion of Ryan 1?

1:11:35I see some concerned looks from my friends over here.

1:11:37You guys okay?

1:11:38Okay.

1:11:39Just the second was Murillo?

1:11:41We're gonna call it Murillo.

1:11:42Thank you.

1:11:42Yeah, cool.

1:11:44Colleagues, discussion of Ryan 1?

1:11:46Councilor Novick?

1:11:47No.

1:11:49Councilor Pirtle-Guiney?

1:11:50No.

1:11:50Okay.

1:11:52Seeing no one else in the queue for the discussion of Ryan 1, can we please call the roll?

1:11:57Calling the roll on the motion to add an emergency clause to document 2026-192 as shown in Ryan 1.

1:12:04Moved by Ryan, seconded by Murillo.

1:12:06Koyama Lane?

1:12:07Aye.

1:12:08Murillo?

1:12:09You have done enough.

1:12:10Aye.

1:12:11Novick?

1:12:12Aye.

1:12:12Clark?

1:12:13Aye.

1:12:14Green?

1:12:14Aye.

1:12:15Zimmerman?

1:12:16Aye.

1:12:21Councilor Novick.

1:12:22Aye.

1:12:22Aye.

1:12:23Aye.

1:12:23Aye.

1:12:23Aye.

1:12:24Aye.

1:12:25Ryan.

1:12:25Aye.

1:12:26Dunphy.

1:12:26Aye.

1:12:27And the amendment is approved with 12 aye votes.

1:12:30Okay, colleagues, to the now newly amended emergency ordinance.

1:12:34Councilor Novick.

1:12:35Thank you, Mr. President.

1:12:36I just wanted to echo what Nathaniel said and to say that this is a really important step, but it's the appetizer.

1:12:42The ordinance on compensation will be the entree, and Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and the other sponsors and the drivers and PBOT are working together to ensure that that entree will be as nourishing and delicious as possible.

1:12:57Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:13:00Colleagues, is there further discussion of the now amended emergency ordinance?

1:13:04Seeing no one in the queue, Rebecca, can we please call the roll?

1:13:07Calling the roll on emergency ordinance.

1:13:09Requires 9 votes to pass.

1:13:11Document number 2026-192.

1:13:15Koyama Lane?

1:13:16Proud to vote aye.

1:13:17Murillo?

1:13:18Aye.

1:13:19Novick?

1:13:20Aye.

1:13:20Clark?

1:13:21Aye.

1:13:22Green?

1:13:23Aye.

1:13:24Zimmerman?

1:13:24Aye.

1:13:25Avalos?

1:13:26Very proud of the advocates.

1:13:28Good job.

1:13:28Aye.

1:13:29Smith?

1:13:30Aye.

1:13:31Knell?

1:13:31Aye.

1:13:32Pirtle-Guiney?

1:13:33Aye.

1:13:33Ryan?

1:13:34Aye.

1:13:34Dunphy?

1:13:35Congratulations all.

1:13:36Aye.

1:13:36Ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.

1:13:39Thank you all very much.

1:13:41Can we please call item number 12 now?

1:13:46Uh, wait, 11.

1:13:47Item 11.

1:13:48I jumped ahead.

1:13:49Item 11.

1:13:5111.

1:13:53Thank you.

1:13:54Item 11, amend partial and full exemptions of system development charges for affordable housing developments code To temporarily remove income requirements for homeownership units, amend Code Section 30.01.095, document number 2026-205.

1:14:11Thank you very much.

1:14:13Colleagues, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance.

1:14:16Uh, Claire Adamsick with Council Operations is supposed to be here, I believe.

1:14:21Well, Council President, I was going to ask, since this was continued, we already did the—.

1:14:25Oh, we did do that already, didn't we?

1:14:26Yeah.

1:14:27Well, I'm just gonna turn it over to Councilor Avalos then very briefly if you have any other remarks to catch us up or we can jump into—.

1:14:32No, I said it all in my last time, so I don't have anything else to add.

1:14:38Thanks.

1:14:38Sounds good.

1:14:39Perfect.

1:14:40Thank you.

1:14:42So colleagues, there are a number of amendments that have been proposed.

1:14:46I see 2 specifically.

1:14:47I'd like to turn it over to Councilor Pirtle-Guiney to introduce hers.

1:14:53Thank you, Council President.

1:14:54I raised some concerns when this was before us in committee because, um, we, you know, that— let me take a step back.

1:15:06The discussion around this in committee was around, um, the fact that perhaps the work we had done on other SDC proposals had made it harder to sell these houses.

1:15:18Then as we got into some of the details of the discussion, it became clear that we were actually looking at a challenge around the market and a challenge around finding the right buyers for these houses.

1:15:33I feel strongly that if we lay out a policy, a policy that folks who make what is in this case an average wage for community should have the opportunity to find a home that is affordable to them to buy, that we shouldn't undo that policy because the homes aren't selling.

1:15:58We should lean into the policy and figure out why they're not selling and provide the tools necessary to ensure that they can sell.

1:16:06Having raised that concern, I didn't think it was fair to come to council without some proposal to try to move us in that direction.

1:16:14So working with Councilor Koyama Lane, thank you for your partnership on this.

1:16:23I have an amendment for us to consider today that does 2 things.

1:16:27Rather than simply remove the income requirement before us, go from an income requirement of 100% of Thank you.

1:16:36So we're talking about median area, median income to homes available for anybody.

1:16:41We stair-step it.

1:16:42If a home isn't selling, let's allow a slightly higher income level individual an opportunity to try to purchase it.

1:16:51120% After 60 days, 140% after 120 days.

1:16:58And then if a home is still on the market after 180 days, Remove that income requirement altogether.

1:17:05But at the same time, let's lean into the policy itself and ensuring the policy can work.

1:17:10And so this amendment does two other things in the therefore parts of the the code change before us.

1:17:20That first was a change to the code, to the exhibit, but in the therefore portions.

1:17:27Of the language before us, add a B and a C. And B would say that the— would direct the city administrator, and through the city administrator, the housing bureau, to identify funds that may be used for down payment assistance.

1:17:42Again, to lean into that policy, what do we need to do to make these homes actually affordable for individuals who make 100% of median income?

1:17:51And to report back to us by October 1st what funds might be available for that work, what the balance of those funds are, and if there are any current planned or reasonably anticipated uses for those funds.

1:18:06What would this work be competing against, and is it something that we think is more or less important than this topic so that we can make some decisions there?

1:18:15And then second, in the, the new C, It asks the Housing Bureau, again through the city administrator, to market these programs because another piece we have heard is that the appropriate buyers for these homes, folks at that income level, are not always getting the information about the programs that are available to them.

1:18:40A significant amount of marketing already happens through our Housing Bureau, but to make sure that we are doing that work to the fullest extent practicable and looking at places where we might be able to have better coordination with lenders and real estate professionals so that individuals at 100% of median income, or if a house doesn't sell, 120%, 140%, know that these opportunities exist so that we can lean into the policy choice we've made in the past rather than Thank you, Councilor.

1:19:15Are you wanting us to move amendments now?

1:19:17Are you—.

1:19:17Okay, I would move, uh, Pirtle-Guiney/Koyama Lane 1.

1:19:22Okay, there we go.

1:19:23Councilor Pirtle-Guiney moves, Councilor Koyama Lane seconds.

1:19:26Colleagues, discussion of Pirtle-Guiney/Koyama Lane 1?

1:19:33Councilor Koyama Lane.

1:19:35Thanks.

1:19:36So when this item was discussed at committee, my first questions were around how eliminating the income limit would negatively impact families, specifically families that would qualify under the current income limit and make it harder for those families making $128,300 or less to complete— to compete and purchase a home.

1:20:00You know, after asking quite a bit of questions in committee, I'm not convinced that we should Completely remove the income requirement entirely.

1:20:07And I think this amendment does do a good job of introducing a phased or laddered timeline that makes a window for families that are at or near the MFI threshold to find ways to purchase these homes.

1:20:19I think this amendment preserves the original purpose of the Affordable Housing SDC exemption program and also expands at the same time the pool of qualified buyers for these homes.

1:20:29Thank you.

1:20:32So I would appreciate the support from my colleagues.

1:20:36Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.

1:20:38I put myself in the queue.

1:20:39I had a couple of technical sort of clarifying questions on this.

1:20:44Do we know that— I mean, what the level of administrative burden would be of implementing something like this?

1:20:51I'm worried about— well, we've heard repeatedly that the Housing Bureau staff are, uh, very tight in their time, and this seems like a pretty heavy burden.

1:21:02Um, I'm happy to share the communication that we got from the Housing Bureau director, who I see coming up as well.

1:21:10Essentially what I would say is that our staff have— my staff have worked with the Housing Bureau, and this proposal is not without an administrative You're right.

1:21:22This proposal certainly is— makes it a little more difficult to do the verification.

1:21:30There is a verification that already exists, that 100% of AMI verification.

1:21:36So compared to the underlying, which removes that altogether, it's a significant administrative burden compared to the status quo, what we have without moving this ordinance.

1:21:45I think the question is, is it a significant administrative burden?

1:21:48Is it fair to describe it as a slightly greater administrative burden because there are those checkpoints on a check that already happens?

1:21:56I would contend that there are large challenges right now to folks' ability to afford a home, and I think the decision that we need to make today is whether we want to continue to prioritize that policy and whether we're willing to accept a small additional administrative burden to do so, or whether that policy, affordable homeownership for folks making the average wage in our community, is not a policy priority at this time.

1:22:30And just sort of following up on that, do you think that— I mean, do we have a sense of the number of existing homes as of right this second that are Uh, that this would apply to?

1:22:42Yeah, that's my questions.

1:22:48I think I know the number, but I want to make sure.

1:22:51I think it's somewhere in that— around 200 to 400 homes that this could apply to.

1:22:56I can't remember.

1:22:57Oh, so yeah, thank you.

1:23:01So just to clarify, um, I'm Dori Hellier and I manage the Development incentives programs, and it was how many homes do we believe fall within this category.

1:23:11Yeah, we're estimating, um, around 200 to 400 depending on current status of ones that are pending for sale.

1:23:18And that's like 200 to 400, like, physical buildings that exist in Portland today?

1:23:24Yes.

1:23:25That are just sort of vacant or unable to move.

1:23:29And just so I'm clear, no one is currently building under this program right now since we have a citywide SDC waiver.

1:23:37Is that right?

1:23:37We do receive a handful of applications still when developers are seeking other incentives that are related, such as for exemption of tree fees.

1:23:49And there are others still building under the same requirements in order to receive a tax exemption that benefits the buyers and And recognizing that there is, as Councilor Pirtle-Guiney said, there's an administrative burden, do you think that your bureau would require additional resources or would have to stop doing other things in order to prioritize this?

1:24:13So, Councilor Queesha Light, for the record, Queesha Light, interim director.

1:24:19I think if we look at this program just by itself, that's one thing.

1:24:24But the reality is, is that Dori's team is managing multiple programs.

1:24:28And so when you add programs that have all these distinctions and nuances within them, that's when for us the administrative burden comes in because you're adding on to multiple programs that already exist and they all have all these nuances.

1:24:43And Dori has a small team that is trying, and their map of these programs is honestly—.

1:24:49It's a map.

1:24:50Something, you know, that should be hanging on a wall in, in an art museum because it does not— it is a web of if this, then this, if this, then this, if this, then this.

1:25:01And so yes, resourcing— resources would be necessary to keep doing these things.

1:25:07Thank you.

1:25:09Uh, Councilor Maria.

1:25:11Uh, thank you, Council President.

1:25:13Um, can we have Matt Gander come up as Well, to answer some questions on the just I just have some questions on the language of the amendment.

1:25:24I I think I'm curious for the the sponsors of the amendment why it's so specific to say it says additional down payment assistance rather than writing something that's a little bit more general because my understanding is that Title 30 tends to be about general affordable housing support.

1:25:41And I understand that there's an emphasis on homeownership that we're trying to strike, but I also feel like there are so many challenges in the affordable housing space generally that I'm kind of wondering if we should make that a little bit more general.

1:25:54So I guess first, that's my question for legislative intent from you, and then I'll have some questions for Matt.

1:26:01The policy intent here was that because we are looking at loosening the income requirements requirements for a homeownership program.

1:26:10We look simultaneously at providing additional assistance for folks who are seeking to undertake homeownership under this program.

1:26:22We didn't specifically call out this program when we talked about down payment assistance because that seemed like it would get too narrow, but the goal here was to say if this Gotcha.

1:26:53Anything you want to add?

1:26:58The only thing I wanted to add is it was hard for me to understand and get clear on the language.

1:27:03If this homeownership program wasn't working, or if there were developers that felt like we got in line and the rules were one way, and, and when we got in line, we had to make sure that there were income requirements for when we sold these buildings, sold these units.

1:27:21But now you made an SDC waiver for everyone, so we want to— we don't want to have to jump through those same hoops.

1:27:26Councilor Loretta Smith.

1:27:29The rules changed when we got in line.

1:27:32It was unclear how— when I asked questions how many of these buildings, how long they had been on the market, it was said that right next door there's going to be buildings where people don't have to do the same income requirements.

1:27:47But we just passed that SDC waiver in the fall.

1:27:50So it was unclear, are there really buildings side by side?

1:27:53And are we taking opportunities off the market for people who can't afford, who are at this level and would be able to buy a home because they qualify for their— because of their salary or not?

1:28:11Gotcha.

1:28:11Okay, that's helpful context.

1:28:13I think what— I like the amendment generally.

1:28:16I think what I, based on what you said and I would like to hear from you as well, Mr. Gander, is that the— to me, it would make sense to change that part into and making it more general.

1:28:27So I think I would change the language instead of additional down payment assistance to instead say affordable housing support opportunities.

1:28:37Is there any reason, Attorney, why we shouldn't make it more general like that, or do you think that would work either way?

1:28:44I think either way is fine.

1:28:45Uh, Matt Gander, for the record.

1:28:47Um, do you have any preference for either?

1:28:50No.

1:28:51Okay, thank you.

1:28:53Thank you, Councilor Morillo.

1:28:55Councilor Green.

1:28:57Thank you, Mr. President.

1:28:59Um, having a little trouble with the amendment, and it's not for lack— I, I know that you guys are well-intentioned and you're, you're trying to make— you're trying to get to a place where your concerns are assuaged with this, and I, I see that here.

1:29:13I think the thing that I'm concerned about is my understanding of this dynamic is that through accidents of history, through maybe the fact that we weren't thinking broadly enough when we did an SDC exemption, we placed a new hurdle on an already strained market condition.

1:29:34You have high interest rates and you've got soft And so if you've got new construction that's basically at par, then you're going to have all this other stock under this other program that's going to lie fallow for, for, for a while while this other stuff gets sold.

1:29:57And my concern with that dynamic is the, the segment of the market that's being sold Yes.

1:30:02Is the segment of the —served market that's being sold.

1:30:02Thank you.

1:30:03By this kind of means-tested homeownership, you know, production, we risk those providers going belly up.

1:30:18And they bring with them capabilities that serve this target population.

1:30:24So they bring with them the ability to market and work with lenders, to work through the paperwork to make sure that folks know about these opportunities.

1:30:32And if they go out of business because we can't kind of correct the uneven playing field that we created, then that's capability that we've lost that we need to try to get back somehow when the market does pick up and then there is more demand chasing a tighter supply of housing.

1:30:49And it also means that they don't have the ability to recycle their capital into a new pipeline development and take advantage of some of the other residential infill project and maybe, God willing, the Inner Eastside for All project to ramp up production.

1:31:03So I think if we— I think this amendment makes it more difficult for them to dispose of their properties.

1:31:09And I think we would require— if I'm looking at Section B of the directive part of the resolution or the ordinance, it looks like it's repurposing scarce resources to then focus on these types of properties that would otherwise go to programs like the North-Northeast Preference Policy or some of the other kind of homeownership efforts that we were trying to cultivate and develop.

1:31:33And colleagues, down payment assistance dollars don't go very far.

1:31:39They really don't.

1:31:40And so if you take that capital out and you say that's a priority, we just had a presentation in the Housing Committee on the North Northeast preference policy work over the last decade, and it's good work.

1:31:53The message, though, in there was that we need more money for down payment assistance.

1:31:56And so I'm worried that if we if we say we want to prioritize down payment assistance for those at or below 100% median to help solve this problem, then we're going to pull resources away from that North Northeast preference policy problem.

1:32:11The other piece is.

1:32:13The underlying ordinance has 2 protections that preserve, I think, the intent here.

1:32:17It's a— there's a sale price cap on $400,000, so you're not in a situation where someone's— some wealthy person is going to come in and speculate and bid up the price of this house.

1:32:26It is capped at $400,000.

1:32:28So there might be a queuing problem, but we are in a soft market, so there is not much of a queuing problem.

1:32:34The other piece is this can't be a speculative investment property.

1:32:37Right.

1:32:37This is supposed to be your primary residence.

1:32:40And so I think if we were to adopt this amendment, it would add more reporting requirements and actually further complicate the ability of the— there's like 3 different tranches of incomes to check, and it further complicates the ability of these developers to sign contracts to get these things off of their books so they can get into the business of developing the next property.

1:33:01And we need a lot more housing built.

1:33:02And so— Councilor Dan Ryan.

1:33:03So I'm not supportive of the amendment as it stands.

1:33:07I'm just seeing it, so I'm still digesting it.

1:33:09So I'll listen to the balance of the conversation.

1:33:11But I want to note that these are not large, greedy developers.

1:33:17These are very small boutique developers who operate on very thin margins.

1:33:22And bankruptcy is real, and liquidation is a policy choice we could choose, but that's much closer to bankruptcy than a foreclosure.

1:33:28Thank you.

1:33:28Me too.

1:33:29Closer to kind of like free market economics than it is something else.

1:33:32And so that's my understanding of the dynamic and the state of play here.

1:33:38And that's why I'm hesitant to support the amendment, even though I know what you're trying to do is to serve the people I care about too.

1:33:46So I'll just kind of leave it there for now.

1:33:48And if folks want to like grill me too, I'm happy to be in cross-dais dialogue and defend my case.

1:33:57Council President, may I respond?

1:33:58Sure.

1:33:59Is that okay?

1:34:01Yeah.

1:34:01I appreciate what you shared, and I think it's trying to find the— how to thread the needle with balancing the importance of what you just said, developers being able to dispose of properties, and also making sure that homes that were built with the intention of them being for families who meet certain Qualifications, that they also have access to those.

1:34:23So I do see this as an attempt at a compromise between just lifting all of those income requirements and then, you know, having the ones that are holding back certain families to accessing these homes.

1:34:37I see that as some sort of in-between.

1:34:38And what I felt in our committee is I could not see that there were steps taken in between that and that the Thank you, Councilor.

1:34:55Councilor Smith.

1:34:58Thank you, Council President.

1:35:00Um, I agree with, uh, Councilor Green because I'm looking through, uh, my district, and my district has new properties that have been on the market for, uh, 2 years, 3 years, 245 days, 336 days, 246, and they range in between $220,000 a year to, um, $349,000 a year.

1:35:24And so those are— and these are brand new properties.

1:35:29Uh, no one is buying them.

1:35:32And so that may work in District 2.

1:35:34We have a different, um, you have different residents there that can afford different types of levels of housing.

1:35:43But for my district, if you're talking about some of these folks who are developers, they can't— they need their capital stack to build.

1:35:53They can't wait 245 days, 330, over a year for some of these folks.

1:35:59And adding some of these restrictions in this amendment is going to make it Yes.

1:36:05Very difficult for those folks.

1:36:07And, you know, and they may not even— and let me tell you the zip codes they're in: 97220, 97236, 97230, and 97233, uh, and 97266 out in, uh, Lentz.

1:36:25So they can't afford to keep their capital in, in a project and not sell these, these, uh, type of, uh, of, uh, units.

1:36:35And I think it would make it much more difficult, and they'd be in the same position that they're in right now.

1:36:40So I wouldn't be supporting it.

1:36:42Um, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, I am a big fan of trying to make sure that people who are at the 60th percentile to the 120th percentile, that they're able to buy homes.

1:36:53But this is going to put a huge burden on a group of folks to build these kinds of houses, and it's not going to be good for us.

1:37:01Thank you.

1:37:02Thank you, Councilor Smith.

1:37:04Councilor Ryan.

1:37:05Thank you, Council President.

1:37:06Uh, I agree with much of what was just said by Councilor Smith and earlier by Councilor Green.

1:37:12The people who approached the Housing Committee, as I recall, and then worked with DC Oliveira, um, I recall Justin Wood, um, and I can't remember the name of the, the Construction firm, but it doesn't matter.

1:37:25It's, uh, he's the one that's been doing this, this work for a long time.

1:37:29Did you have conversations with the actual builders?

1:37:33You know, this was brought forward by the committee chair as something that she had been working on.

1:37:39Uh, there was one builder who testified, uh, but there was not a, a significant number of So no, we did not, in developing this, work directly with those builders.

1:37:52What we tried to do was balance the intent of the program, the calls for the change we had heard, and make sure with the bureau that it was workable.

1:38:01I try to generally work with stakeholders, but because there wasn't a big stakeholder group there, we were told this had come from the chair, we didn't have those groups to work with.

1:38:11Okay.

1:38:12I think this does get up to council.

1:38:13Supply, and this amendment goes against the spirit of just trying to make a simple fix for a very specific policy.

1:38:20And now we could be adding a new unintended consequence.

1:38:24And sadly, this council has had a history of adding these type of amendments that add unintended consequences that have impacted the supply of housing in the city of Portland and low-income housing specifically.

1:38:36So I can't support this amendment.

1:38:38Thank you.

1:38:39Thanks.

1:38:40Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

1:38:41Councilor Novick.

1:38:42Thank you, Mr. President.

1:38:44I echo what Councilor Green and Councilor Smith have said.

1:38:47I also want to say that a concern I've heard is that in this housing market, there's comparably priced homes available to people who meet the income requirements who would prefer to buy those homes because meeting— as I think Councilor Avalos has said, proving that you're poor is a pain in the neck.

1:39:06So I think that's something that— I used to work on Medicaid eligibility issues.

1:39:10I mean, it's really familiar with how much of a pain in the neck it is to prove that you're poor.

1:39:14So I think that's another factor to be considered.

1:39:17Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:39:18Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:39:20Thank you, Council President.

1:39:21I wanted to just address a couple of things that have been called out in testimony, and I also want to Councilor Smith.

1:39:31Thank you, Mayor.

1:39:32I just want to be clear that this solution is not an elegant solution.

1:39:36I recognize that we were trying to figure out how to address the need that was brought forward while still maintaining the policy goals of the underlying program, and there wasn't an elegant way to do that.

1:39:50But I do want to note that in the amendment to the exhibit, the language around number of days is after a property is listed on the market.

1:40:01So the concern that Councilor Green raised and those homes that Councilor Smith identified, homes that had been on the market for 245, 336, 246 days, are all well past that 180-day marker.

1:40:17If this amendment were to pass and the underlying ordinance were to pass, those would all be eligible Councilor Smith.

1:40:22Thank you, Mayor.

1:40:23So the language in the ordinance is still eligible to sell at— to any buyer without any income restriction because the language is not tied to the passage of this amendment and this ordinance, but rather to when properties were listed on the market.

1:40:36And that was done very intentionally knowing that we have a backlog, but that this applies to properties built over a period of time, a time Capped period of time, but nonetheless one that's extensive enough that we might have properties that fall into each of those different tiers of days on the market right now.

1:41:02I also, can I, I'm sorry, I would like to flag one other thing, which is that the upper portions of the amendment, specifically Section B, does not redirect any funding.

1:41:16It simply asks what's available so that we can make an informed decision about whether this is a program whose underlying policy goals we still want to lean into or whether we don't.

1:41:30And to suggest that this would pull money from other programs, particularly from the North and Northeast Housing Preference Policy Program, where we have heard loud and clear, more down payment assistance is absolutely needed, is this does no such thing.

1:41:46This identifies sources and allows us to make informed decisions later.

1:41:51I would contend that we should be looking at ways to support homeownership across programs that already exist more robustly.

1:42:02Thank you.

1:42:03Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:42:04Councilor Kanal.

1:42:05Thank you.

1:42:06Uh, technical question, then a substantive one.

1:42:08Um, technical question for the administrator.

1:42:10Uh, October 1st, 2026 is proposed here.

1:42:13Are there any concerns on that?

1:42:16I'm not sure.

1:42:17I have to defer to staff to kind of answer that one if there's any concerns on that one.

1:42:21I would say the challenge that we have right now is we have unified housing strategy, we have social housing report, we have a whole bunch of things that are coming due at the same time.

1:42:33And I didn't think about all of that until I was sitting here and the date was said again.

1:42:38I was like, oh my gosh, October.

1:42:40No, that's not good for us.

1:42:42So I would say it would be good to have that moved out some because we have a lot right now.

1:42:49Okay, I appreciate that answer and I'll leave it to the amendment sponsors to work on that.

1:42:58I just kind of need a little bit more on the, the concerns around North-Northeast preference policy because that obviously got, uh, everybody's, uh, attention, I think.

1:43:07And, um, and I just love to get a little bit more from Councilor Green as to the, the concern because I'm not on that committee, so I don't have that context.

1:43:16Uh, but what I do, I do see like a plain text reading doesn't have any moving money, but I, I'm curious if I can get a little bit more there, um, at some point.

1:43:26You know, the— up to you whether you want to do it now or in the queue.

1:43:28Thanks.

1:43:31Thank you, Councilor.

1:43:32Did you want to respond?

1:43:35I'm happy to.

1:43:36And Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, I appreciate you clarifying the intent of Sections B and C. I had misread that as more of a directive to reallocate, so that's— I apologize.

1:43:47Um, it is confusing, however, to put that in there And so as long as we're clear that the other parts of the amendment are not dependent upon some sort of report of findings here, is that what I'm understanding?

1:44:04The intent, and I will look to the attorney who reviewed this to make sure that that is how our legal counsel would interpret it as well, is that if the city If the amendment were to pass, the underlying ordinance would do 3 things.

1:44:19It would adopt a code change in Exhibit A, and the amendment provides some changes to that code change.

1:44:26It would direct the bureau through the city administrator to bring us a report on funds that could be used for down payment assistance, again, to help us keep the policy goal here by October 1st.

1:44:39And if that date needs to be changed, that's Okay.

1:44:42Obviously, in an ideal world, we would have those funds before we lifted any income restrictions so that the 2 things could work in partnership, but that didn't feel workable to tie together.

1:44:55So they're operating on different timelines here.

1:44:59And the third is that it would ensure through C that we are marketing to the fullest extent practicable, including with our lenders and real estate professionals, some of which is certainly already happening.

1:45:13I don't want to diminish that at all, but make sure that we're maximizing it.

1:45:17So those are 3 separate things— that code change in Exhibit A, and then the 2 new requirements, which all operate independently but are related to ensuring that this program can be successful.

1:45:32Okay, that's helpful.

1:45:33And so So I will concede that passage of this amendment wouldn't necessarily follow that there would be a redirection of funds from efforts like the North-Northwest Policy.

1:45:44But I do raise it because we did hear that sort of state of the program presentation in the Housing and Permitting Committee recently.

1:45:54And the big takeaway was we have spent significant resources.

1:45:59Yes.

1:45:59Under that policy for the purpose of building homeownership opportunities for the target population.

1:46:09And it's still several dozen to 100-some-odd households.

1:46:15And that's not a lot.

1:46:16It's meaningful for those households, but for the scale of the money, we're talking maybe about something like $300,000 to $400,000 per unit.

1:46:24Okay.

1:46:24And that's the assistance that's necessary all in to make sure that you put someone in that house and meet the intent.

1:46:33And so I get nervous every time we try to solve a policy gap by saying, well, we need more down payment assistance, especially in a market where if we don't make hay while the sun shines and try to sell off and kind of dispose from the balance sheets the real property that that was paid for on a previous lower-cost paradigm, then we're going to be getting into a situation where we have to chase more expensive goods with scarce dollars.

1:47:01And I'm always going to be really hesitant of that piece.

1:47:04And so the reason why I'm supporting the unamended underlying is it provides what I think is a much lower-cost mechanism to allow these developers to move forward and sell these houses.

1:47:16For like $20,000 to $30,000 a pop, maybe instead of a couple hundred thousand a pop.

1:47:20And so that way they can hit the reset switch and go out and try to build something new.

1:47:25So that's the basic underlying logic for me.

1:47:30I did feel it necessary to kind of correct my earlier statements on the sort of tight linkage of the redirect of the funding because I had misread that.

1:47:38So thanks for clarifying that.

1:47:40Thank you.

1:47:41I think my other concerns around the other thresholds and the 2 more stages of testing means is I don't see how that results in solving the problem, frankly.

1:47:55But I got to think a little bit more about what you said earlier, Councilor, about— you mentioned something about the timelines and the time hacks and you saying that there's no effective difference here, because if there's— if If most of these houses have already been on the market for 180 days or so, then maybe there's no point.

1:48:11But I'm just seeing this resolution before we walked in here, so I'm trying to process the things that you've said.

1:48:16So I'll shut up and process.

1:48:19I appreciate that clarification.

1:48:21I think I still have the— yeah.

1:48:23And I share some of the questions around— well, I'll say concerns about means testing broadly, but that's the whole thing.

1:48:30So as it is, as it would be amended, and as it would be amending the amendment.

1:48:34Um, I— since we were talking about the North Northeast Preference Policy, and since there is this piece here about actively marketing affordable housing programs, I don't think it necessarily needs to be, uh, changed textually.

1:48:47But if, uh, if this amendment should pass, I would, I would hope that this is— that we're doing culturally specific marketing as well.

1:48:54Um, and I just wanted to get that on the record while I have the floor.

1:48:56Thanks.

1:48:57Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

1:48:59Councilor Morillo.

1:49:01Thank you, Council President.

1:49:03Yeah, just listening to this discussion, I definitely am leaning more towards the analysis that I think Councilors Novick and Green have outlined.

1:49:12And I think to Councilor— or to Council President Dunphy's point, I am a little bit concerned that PHB's capacity is reaching a limit.

1:49:20I'm definitely hearing you with all the reports we're making you do, and I expect that if and when this report comes out, the first question that we're going to have to answer is, are these funding sources for down payments also going to apply to this homeownership opportunity or this affordable housing opportunity?

1:49:37And that's sort of forcing PHBA to do that same work again.

1:49:42And I think the— some of the language is also just a little bit incongruent.

1:49:46Like in Section C, it says marketing on affordable housing.

1:49:50But then in B, it says a detailed report on down payments specifically.

1:49:56So because of that, I think I'm just leaning towards supporting the underlying without this unless— but I'm open to changing my mind as I listen to other folks talk about this a bit more.

1:50:06Thanks.

1:50:07Thank you, Councilor Murillo.

1:50:08Colleagues, just a programming note.

1:50:09We will get through this amendment.

1:50:11We're gonna take a restroom break, come back for an additional amendment.

1:50:14And then Councilor Avalos.

1:50:18Yeah, thank you.

1:50:20Good discussion.

1:50:21Um, like I have said before, I spent a lot of time trying to understand the problem with the ordinance and what it was trying to solve.

1:50:29Um, and we heard that essentially the issue isn't the income limit, it's that these homes are competing against similarly priced homes that are built under that broader SDC exemption that doesn't require the verification.

1:50:40So I don't see how this amendment is addressing Raising the income limit doesn't solve that competitive disadvantage.

1:50:47It also doesn't address the broader affordability challenges that we're seeing with today's interest rates.

1:50:51And so I see the way that the ordinance is written without the amendment is it's affecting about 200 homes, but it's still preserving important protections like the sale price caps, the owner occupancy requirements, and many of those homes are also going to be income restricted through other PHB programs.

1:51:08So I think that the ordinance addresses the problem we're actually trying to solve, and I will be voting no on the amendment and yes on the ordinance.

1:51:14Thanks.

1:51:16Thank you, Councilor Avalos.

1:51:17Vice President Clark.

1:51:18Thank you, Council President.

1:51:19Just really briefly, I, I appreciate the intent of the 2 amendment co-sponsors, but I thought that we had— the underlying ordinance was really an elegant, simple solution to just moving the inventory, and I don't have a problem with that, and especially given what my colleague Councilor Green has said.

1:51:39And I don't want to put any more administrative burdens and make this more difficult for the Housing Bureau, so I'm, I'm going to vote no on the amendment.

1:51:47Thank you, Vice President Clark.

1:51:48Councilor Smith.

1:51:50Thank you, Council President.

1:51:51I want to go back and answer one of Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's issues.

1:51:56And so she said, since these These projects are over 246 under, you know, in days that they would be eligible to, uh, to buy at a higher rate.

1:52:07But this is my point exactly.

1:52:09They've had to wait already 246 days.

1:52:12If that was lifted like 150 days ago, that would be okay.

1:52:18But apparently the people who can buy these houses in this price point, they're not doing it.

1:52:24There are other people who want this house who who may make a little bit more money, but they're not able to buy them.

1:52:32So that is the other issue, leaving stock.

1:52:35I mean, in most places— I remember a time in Portland where if you had a brand new house under $349,000, $220,000, $195,000, the minute that you put it on, it would be gone before you could get off work.

1:52:50So That doesn't, that doesn't help for me.

1:52:54I, I still think that it's adding too much administrative, um, bureaucracy on this program, and, uh, we need to help folks right now sell these houses now.

1:53:06Thank you, Councilor Smith.

1:53:08Councilor Zimmerman.

1:53:11Thank you.

1:53:12I have a ton of concerns about this entire underlying, but to the amendment, I think that this I think this thread about making something more complicated is gaining traction for me.

1:53:26Apologies for some harsh comments, but right now my faith is not in the Housing Bureau, right?

1:53:30I have a lot of concerns about the future of the Housing Bureau and the ability to execute programs.

1:53:35And so making something more complicated is not something I feel like can be executed well.

1:53:42And so I would have concerns here.

1:53:44Councilor Dan Ryan.

1:53:47The inability to just get straight answers from the Housing Bureau, from Home Forward, from the entire affordable housing industry right now, I think is leading us to try and shoehorn in some solutions without a lot of straight answers on the problem we're trying to solve.

1:54:08And that's a problem.

1:54:09And so—.

1:54:10I think that's a fair point.

1:54:12I do see the intent here for the sponsors.

1:54:15I, like I said, I'm not sure I even like the underline that much.

1:54:23I care a lot about these income restrictions and I'm not sure what solution we think we will have done at the end of this.

1:54:30But this amendment, having a cascading of different times and different amounts is, I guess I'm just, I'm missing the, Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

1:54:46Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:54:47Thank you, Council President and colleagues.

1:54:49Thank you for your feedback.

1:54:51There have been a lot of things said about this underlying that are very interesting to me and, and a lot of reasons for its need that have been pointed out.

1:55:00But I think that— I think it was Councilor Clark who said it who best, that we need to make sure that we're really laid out what it seemed to me the underlying was for, which is just move inventory.

1:55:11And when I saw the underlying before me and the reasons for it that were brought forward, that it's too hard to verify people's income, that people who Can buy these houses under the restrictions, maybe are buying other houses because of that, or maybe can't afford to buy a house at all.

1:55:37There have been many reasons thrown out for the need for this, but the reality is this is about allowing folks to just move inventory.

1:55:46And so I would ask if our underlying goal with this program is to make it easier for people who make An average wage— I'm not talking about low-income folks here, y'all.

1:55:58We're talking about people who make an average wage in our community and can't afford to buy a home without some intervention in the market.

1:56:08Is that a policy goal?

1:56:09In which case, how do we solve the concerns that have been brought forward by developers in a way that still meets that policy goal?

1:56:17Or is it not?

1:56:19And do we want to just move the inventory and say that ensuring that we're doing everything we can so that folks making an average wage can buy a home have that opportunity.

1:56:31Because when we remove the income restriction, what we will do is say that this home that has a capped price can be purchased by anyone, whether or not they need that capped price.

1:56:46And so I just want to be really clear about the reasons we brought this forward and what the underlying changes in terms of our, our policy thrust versus what we were trying to get at, which is addressing concerns that were brought up while still maintaining the underlying policy goal of ensuring people who make an average wage in our community have the opportunity for homeownership as well.

1:57:16So I just, I want to be really clear about that as we move toward a vote.

1:57:21Thank you, Council President.

1:57:22Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:57:23Councilor Zimmerman.

1:57:27Thanks.

1:57:27I mean, I think those are good points.

1:57:29What I'm trying to say is I don't see how your amendment is making that difference.

1:57:34I'm actually not sure how the underlying is making that difference.

1:57:37Right?

1:57:37$455,000 Is the cap that's in this document.

1:57:42$128,000.

1:57:44We're really talking about people buying houses at 50% of their take-home pay.

1:57:48So I, I, that's where all of this— when I say shoehorning into a solution, I'm not sure that we're shoehorning into anything other than like we moved some numbers and the same problem exists 30 days from now that existed 30 days ago.

1:58:01That, that's what I'm trying to talk about.

1:58:03So I guess I'm not hearing that you've made the case that your amendment makes this any better.

1:58:08I'm not— I'm applying that to my statement that I'm not sure the underlying is even going to do that.

1:58:15So if you can make that case, if there's something there, okay.

1:58:20Then the secondary part is, do you have faith in the Housing Bureau to be able to deliver a more complicated thing?

1:58:26That's a critique I have.

1:58:26I think that's a fair critique.

1:58:28But I think across the board, we're trying to see like what— what you're, you're saying this thing, but we're not seeing how you've made that case yet in this amendment.

1:58:36Council President, can I respond to that?

1:58:38Sure.

1:58:39So right now, these homes can only be sold to somebody who makes 100% of AMI.

1:58:46Under the underlying change, unamended, that income cap would be removed.

1:58:52So the homes would still have sale price cap, but anybody could go to purchase that home.

1:59:01Hearing that there aren't buyers right now, what we are trying to do in the amendment is say, okay, there aren't buyers right now at 100%.

1:59:10Let's give the market time to see if there are buyers at 120%.

1:59:14If there aren't buyers at 120%, let's give the market time to see if there are buyers at And if there aren't, then raise the income cap.

1:59:23But try to ensure that we are still allowing folks who need a little extra help the opportunity to buy this house, which has a capped sales price, an artificially capped sales price.

1:59:34Yeah.

1:59:35Before we open up that benefit, the benefit of an artificially capped sales price to any buyer on the market.

1:59:42So that's how we're trying to address the concern.

1:59:44What I I had mentioned with regard to the homes that Councilor Smith has had raised is that for homes that have already been sitting on the market for 180 days, they would go straight to that no income cap.

1:59:58There are also plenty of homes that would be affected that have not been on the market for 180 days where that stair-stepped cap would apply at those different levels.

2:00:08Does that provide a little bit of a more direct explanation?

2:00:09So given that, what my suggestion would have Just, just set your number.

2:00:13Staircases, stair-stepping, whatever the right term is, is I think what's leaning me away from this.

2:00:19If you have a concern, and I, and I think I share it, right, that, that there are certain things that are not going to sell at, frankly, what should be able to sell— $128,000 should be able to buy a home.

2:00:29It's really sad that we're in this situation.

2:00:32I agree.

2:00:33So maybe instead of this, like, incrementalism Go bold and be like, to move this market, we're going to do 150%, 180%.

2:00:41I don't know what the right number would be, but just say one thing.

2:00:46The administration of how many days have you been on stair-stepping is what's killing your amendment, Councilor.

2:00:52So I think if you could say, here's the magic number, and we're admitting it's not a great move, but here it is, I think you'd have power in that.

2:00:59And then the other part that is giving me, um, Because that's one aspect of it, but then you've got this other stuff about moving balances and number B or letter B that is, I don't, it seems erroneous to the point you've been actually talking about.

2:01:14So maybe you've included too much or you tried to be too good at it and just be simple.

2:01:20The original proposal as we were iterating on it on my team was to just pick a number.

2:01:28And because that concern was out there of, well, what if it still doesn't sell?

2:01:36Do we need to get to raising the cap completely, getting rid of that income cap completely?

2:01:42We stair-stepped it.

2:01:44I would be perfectly comfortable saying, you know what, $140,000, that's it for everybody.

2:01:50Doesn't go away.

2:01:51It's $140,000 now instead of $100,000.

2:01:53Thank you.

2:01:53That's something I would be very comfortable with.

2:01:55We were trying to be a little more responsive, which is why we didn't do it that way.

2:01:59I'll note again that the idea behind B, and the timing is not tied on these, it is not a you must have this to do that, but the idea behind B was that if we really want to look comprehensively at this problem, then we say, okay, perhaps 100% is too low.

2:02:19Thank you.

2:02:20An AMI, it needs to be— I'm going to take the number 140.

2:02:24So let's raise it, see if we can get some buyers there.

2:02:27But we also know that in some cases the purchasing power isn't there, that down payment power, because frankly rents are so high.

2:02:35So if you don't own a home right now, saving for a down payment is very difficult.

2:02:40So let's simultaneously say, my goodness, we need to do more to to make sure that people can get that down payment.

2:02:48And there are a lot of other tools out there that I think we should look at as a city, but right now the tool that we have is to put our public dollars into down payment assistance.

2:02:57So simultaneously, let's raise that cap and let's start looking at whether there are funds that we should be putting into down payment assistance more aggressively, which would also help with the other side of it.

2:03:10Thank you.

2:03:13That sounds like a resolution though, rather than an ordinance, right?

2:03:17I think you're setting a direction for bring us a budget offer, and I think that's where I think a few of us are kind of— in theory, many of us have talked about some down payment assistance stuff, and this is different.

2:03:30And the last thing I just want to mention, right, I'm a person who's watched values change in my own neighborhood.

2:03:36Yeah.

2:03:37Portfolio, my 2 house— my one rental and one house I live in, right?

2:03:40I'm watching it.

2:03:41We're in the world in which these numbers are now dipped below these numbers that we're talking about.

2:03:46So I was an appraiser for Multnomah County during the boom.

2:03:51I have gone to more skinny homes, more, more regulated properties that were designed for this type of program.

2:03:57It was awesome.

2:03:58It was really great.

2:03:59It taught me a lot about it, taught me a lot about how people were getting in.

2:04:02But we were in a moment where we could build at a place where that buyer could qualify and it could be acceptable.

2:04:13The market has changed in a way in which the new build is not the target for a person in the income level we're talking about.

2:04:20It's, it's an older home, which is perfectly fine.

2:04:24My house was built sometime in the '50s.

2:04:26You know, it's like This is focused on builders, and this is where I kind of gave Councilor Green— I'm a little concerned about the whole thing here because we're talking about capital and turning your stack over.

2:04:36And those all made sense in 2007, 2006.

2:04:42It all fell out in '08 and '09, right?

2:04:44But this— a new build, given the price of the workforce and housing, I'm not sure that this is actually tackling because if If you are struggling at a 6.2% interest rate, you're at 100% AMI, the new build is really not targeted for you.

2:05:03And I don't think that this changes the market enough to make the new build your target.

2:05:08I actually think going after the older home who is stagnant or maybe even losing value in these years is the area in which we want these homebuyer programs to target.

2:05:20But when we target this as just being about new family homes, that's where I'm, I'm wondering how big the impact is.

2:05:25And that's why I think we might be talking about just a couple of dozen homes at this point, which seems like a big squeeze for a market that's in trouble in so many facets.

2:05:38I don't know.

2:05:38Thanks.

2:05:39Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

2:05:40Colleagues, I'm limiting debate to this on this amendment.

2:05:43Councilor Green, you'll be our last.

2:05:46Thank you.

2:05:46I wanted to address the hypothetical that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney posed to us, which is like, what is the objective here?

2:05:53Is the objective to make it about making sure there's opportunities for people at the 100 AMI level to be able to have a path to homeownership, or is it to simply move the houses?

2:06:06I'll remind us that we're in— we're facing this ordinance in the first place because we adopted a temporary temporary SDC waiver, just carte blanche, that created some conditions.

2:06:16The SDC exemption only existed for these affordable housing units in the first place.

2:06:20So this council took an action that upset a balance in the market.

2:06:25And this is an attempt to address a potential unintended consequence based upon that action that, in my view, Could result in a loss of capacity for the ability to deliver this type of program in the decades to come.

2:06:44Because these are things that don't— this is the thing that these private sector developers are delivering a capability for the market.

2:06:53They have invested in a type of build.

2:06:57They have invested in relationships with lenders.

2:07:00They've invested with programs.

2:07:02Thank you.

2:07:02That worked with sort of from soup to nuts with the buyers.

2:07:06And so if you lose that capability because they have to walk away from a project or they have to abandon this program because it doesn't work anymore and they need to stay in business, so they just completely walk away from the affordable housing sector as a whole because this period is tough, then that capability won't exist in the future unless we build it intentionally.

2:07:27And so there's a preservation piece here that I think is an analog to other things we're trying to preserve in our city right now.

2:07:34And so that's, for me, the effort and/or the decision before me right now is, do I want to make a decision that helps preserve capability or not?

2:07:46This is, you know, not a— I think you said it yourself, this is not the preferred method for any of the conversations that we're having.

2:07:54Right.

2:07:55I do think that we need to find resources to more deeply subsidize homeownership or long-tenure social housing opportunities as a whole.

2:08:05But if an SDC waiver can make the difference, that's $20,000 to $30,000.

2:08:11And if it doesn't, well, then this was all a moot point anyway.

2:08:14So the opportunity cost, really, I think the stakes are pretty low, frankly, because we're in a market where—.

2:08:19I think the stakes are pretty high.

2:08:21We're operating outside those normal conditions.

2:08:23So I think adopting the underlying has pretty low risk, frankly, to the overall intended program objective here.

2:08:34So for that reason, I'm not going to support the amendment, although I know that the intentions behind it are pure and aligned with my values.

2:08:42Thank you, Councilor Green.

2:08:44Rebecca, can we please move?

2:08:45I would move to amend this amendment Instead of the stair-stepping at 150% of the AMI, I think you have it at 100% currently now, and just have that set as a standard.

2:09:01Sorry, Council President.

2:09:02Okay.

2:09:02I was forming thoughts as you were getting ready.

2:09:04No problem.

2:09:05Um, do we have that in writing?

2:09:07No, you certainly don't.

2:09:08I will type it away.

2:09:10Um, but I'm going to need some assistance here.

2:09:12I'll just Let me explain a little.

2:09:14I think I can get there on the underlying, but I'm so concerned about relieving some sort of income restriction on these properties.

2:09:25Like, it is really a huge concern for me.

2:09:27I, I, I hear what Councilor Green is saying, and I want to keep the pipeline going, but the idea of removing a restriction is giving me so much heartache because this is intended for a purpose and So I'm trusting that some of you who were at the council realize, or at the committee, realize that this could be a path.

2:09:46And I guess what I'm signaling is I think that if we had a more concise number, I might be able to get there on the underlying.

2:09:54So I'm really looking to the 2 sponsors of the amendment.

2:09:58I'm getting one thumbs up.

2:09:59I'm getting maybe— I'm getting a nod from the other that this seems like it would be a workable Council President, permission to add something?

2:10:09Councilor, I'd request that if you're going to offer an amendment, you also change the report deadline to December 1st.

2:10:18Yes, that works.

2:10:20Okay.

2:10:21The Bureau had originally seen this with October 1st, but it sounds like has some concerns now.

2:10:25So change that to December 1st to provide a little bit of space for the Bureau.

2:10:32I have no opinion on that part.

2:10:33Okay.

2:10:34Um, Councilor, do you want a couple minutes to—.

2:10:37I've got it.

2:10:37Oh, you're good?

2:10:38Okay.

2:10:39I think somebody just gave it to me.

2:10:40No, no, is that not what— oh, is this— do you want to articulate what you're sending?

2:10:49Councilor Morillo?

2:10:50Yeah, sure.

2:10:51Um, I was going to say, if we're going to make adjustments, uh, I just sent you a part that I would to change from down payment assistance to affordable housing support and supportive services, just to make it more open-ended.

2:11:03If you're interested in that, I'd add it.

2:11:06I don't know what that means.

2:11:09I know what down payments are.

2:11:10I don't know what the other 6 words that you listed meant.

2:11:15Uh, affordable housing support and supportive services.

2:11:18You don't know?

2:11:19Yeah, but when we're talking about a housing purchase program, I guess That's where I'm like, I'd like to use housing purchase words, and this seems like that's not part of that.

2:11:29I'm going to say thank you, but no.

2:11:31That's fair.

2:11:33So if I could have a minute to type it up or even look to where it would be appropriate to change this.

2:11:42Let's go ahead and take a 10-minute recess and give everybody a restroom break and be back here at 4:10 for a So if we just further work on this, back in 10 minutes.

2:11:52Thank you.

2:11:54We keep that, it shall be one day.

2:25:55Okay, we are back.

2:25:58Councilor Zimmerman has let me know that he's not going to be pursuing the amendment at this time— amendment to the amendment at this time.

2:26:05I have limited debate already, and so I'd like to call a roll on Pirtle-Guiney, Koyama Lane 1.

2:26:15Calling Pirtle-Guiney, Koyama Lane 1.

2:26:17Moved by Pirtle-Guiney, seconded by Koyama Lane.

2:26:20Koyama Lane?

2:26:21Aye.

2:26:22Morillo?

2:26:23No.

2:26:24Novick?

2:26:25No.

2:26:28Clark?

2:26:28No.

2:26:30Green?

2:26:31No.

2:26:32Zimmerman?

2:26:33No.

2:26:34Avalos?

2:26:35No.

2:26:36Smith?

2:26:40No.

2:26:41Kanal?

2:26:45No.

2:26:46Pirtle-Guiney?

2:26:47Aye.

2:26:49Ryan?

2:26:50No.

2:26:51Dunphy?

2:26:52No.

2:26:53The amendment fails with 11—.

2:26:5810 To 1.

2:26:59Sorry, 10 nay, 2 aye votes.

2:27:00Oh, thank you.

2:27:02Colleagues, I am recognizing myself 'cause I can do that.

2:27:07I have pre-filed Dunphy 1.

2:27:10It is in your— it is posted online.

2:27:12You should have a copy of it.

2:27:14A little bit of explanation of this.

2:27:16I have been working with the Portland Housing Bureau for multiple months on a problem that was brought to me by a constituent regarding the 3-bedroom FAR density bonus program.

2:27:25This is a program that was meant to boost family-sized for-sale homes for moderate-income buyers, very much like we're talking about right now.

2:27:33But only 4 projects have ever used this, largely because it doesn't work.

2:27:38Hmm.

2:27:39Right now, there are 14 permitted townhomes in District 1 that have remained unbuilt Largely because the builder can't afford to keep losing money under the program that's more restrictive than the SDC waiver limits that we're discussing removing today.

2:27:55We cannot expect builders to sell at cost just to get qualified 100% AMI buyers in the door.

2:28:00That's not sustainable and it's not what these programs are built for.

2:28:03So my amendment does 3 things.

2:28:06First, it removes the income restriction on this 3-bedroom FAR density program.

2:28:12After 90 days.

2:28:13If a home can't sell to a qualified buyer in 90 days, the home— the owner asks— can ask to sell it without income restrictions, but the rest of the 10-year affordability covenant stays.

2:28:23It fixes the penalty calculation, and my proposal is a simple, more fair calculation that ties the penalty only to the bonus received so that it's not punitive of almost $40,000 per home.

2:28:36And lastly, it gives the city administrator discretion I've talked to lenders.

2:28:45The problem with these programs aren't greedy developers.

2:28:48It's that very few buyers at this income have a down payment saved.

2:28:52They don't know assistance exists, and they don't see the value in the extra cost of homeownership at today's rates.

2:28:58So if we're serious about affordable housing, we have to largely rethink our strategy.

2:29:03It's not our goal to put people who build out of business over market conditions that they can't control.

2:29:07Thank you.

2:29:07Councilmember Herbold.

2:29:08Our job is to find a balance and to make these programs actually work so that more builders use them and build an environment where middle-income Portlanders have a stability and access to programs that let them feel secure buying a home too.

2:29:20So I would move Dunphy 1, and I would welcome a second.

2:29:24Second.

2:29:25Thank you, Councilor Novick.

2:29:27Colleagues, discussion of this amendment?

2:29:30I'm happy to answer any further questions as well.

2:29:32Vice President Clark.

2:29:34Thank you, Councilor President.

2:29:35I'm a little confused.

2:29:36There was an Amendment 1, Dunphy 1, July 8th, and then there's another Dunphy.

2:29:43Is this your only Dunphy?

2:29:43Dunphy 1 is— there's only one.

2:29:45We updated it because the underlying was changed slightly through committee.

2:29:49So it is the same intent and definitions and everything.

2:29:52Thanks.

2:29:54Councilor Green.

2:29:56Thank you, Councilor President.

2:29:57Can you— I know that This is going to be painful, but can you walk me through your red lines and blue lines?

2:30:02There's red lines and blue lines.

2:30:03Just help me understand what's happening.

2:30:05There are.

2:30:06So in this amendment, the— because a lot of these red lines are because right now this is talking about just the SDC program.

2:30:17Because I am trying to expand the scope ultimately of this ordinance to also include not just the SDC, but Also explicitly to tie in the 3-bedroom unit and try to— some of this specifically adds the background that we would expect for a regular ordinance to describe what this 3-bedroom bonus was, what the intent was, and then describes part of this, the challenge of why it would be included in this ordinance.

2:30:43And then creates an additional Exhibit B that would tighten some of our definitions and Does what I had said specifically around the penalties.

2:30:57Just to be a little bit more clear, an FAR, I mean, for people who maybe don't know, FAR, floor area ratio.

2:31:03This 3-bedroom program was intended to give a builder additional buildable space in order to get that 3-bedroom with a covenant that it'd remain affordable.

2:31:13This is saying that we wouldn't— we would only reduce the— or we would— continue the payment or the penalty that are on the bonus but not on the entire program or the entire building, the entire individual property that was for sale.

2:31:31And then looking through my redlined very quickly, yeah, and then also is about giving the city administrator the flexibility necessary to, if there is a genuine financial distress or situation, to So is the idea by sort of limiting it to the bonus vis-à-vis the penalty that you're really sort of addressing that marginal piece, that sort of like that last leg that's not being used right now, and playing around with the penalty structure and the bonus structure as 2 sides of the same coin, saying, I'm going to isolate it to this?

2:32:08That is my intent.

2:32:09Okay.

2:32:09That's how I understand when I read it.

2:32:10Thanks.

2:32:13Thank you, Councilor Green.

2:32:13Councilor Clark, Vice President Clark.

2:32:15Thank you, Councilor President.

2:32:16So my understanding is that there are very few 3 bedrooms being built.

2:32:23Very few at all.

2:32:24Yes.

2:32:24And that we actually need more of those, right?

2:32:28Particularly in your district.

2:32:30Absolutely.

2:32:30Maybe District 2, I don't know.

2:32:33So are you thinking this is going to help incent developing more of these?

2:32:37We know that at least in a very limited situation, there is a builder who is permitted to build these right now but cannot because his capital is tied up in buildings he cannot sell.

2:32:47We know that at the very least, there would be 14 more 3-bedroom townhomes ready to come.

2:32:52And as I said, this bonus program has only been used 4 times in its existence.

2:32:57Developers don't really like it.

2:32:59And with their current SDC waivers and other things, it's not being used.

2:33:03So yeah, the hope is to largely free up the capital of these builders so that they can build what's already been permitted.

2:33:09So you think if this passes, there's going to be more 3-bedroom units?

2:33:13There's not going to be some giant rush to build 3-bedroom units, I don't suspect?

2:33:20No, I don't suspect that that will be the impact.

2:33:21I suspect the biggest challenge really is that it's just to get these ones that have already been built or permitted easier to sell.

2:33:28And does this sunset ID?

2:33:32No, no, this program doesn't— is— I mean, as we said, this program, this 3-bedroom bonus has been on the books for a number of years and it's only been used 4 times.

2:33:39I think that there is more— I think also we have to have a bigger conversation as a city about our affordable housing projects and affordable homeownership specifically.

2:33:50Does the Housing Bureau have anything to say about this?

2:33:52I'm welcome to invite the Housing Bureau folks up.

2:33:55They don't have to.

2:33:55I'm just curious if they have a thought.

2:33:59I will say that we— while we've been working very closely with them, I do think that, uh, they're probably not as thrilled with it as I am.

2:34:06Oh, I'm a yes then.

2:34:09Done.

2:34:12Thank you.

2:34:12I was just curious if you have a thought there on the 3-bedroom amendment.

2:34:23I'm Queesha Light, interim director of the Housing Bureau.

2:34:28Um, I would say that I understand the problem that is being addressed here, um, just like the underlying ordinance.

2:34:39And the reality is we all recognize that We've created a lot of programs when it comes to affordable housing, and the market has changed, and we need to rethink a lot of stuff.

2:34:57And my worry is that we create programs— we're essentially creating still one more thing, and we don't know how all of this is interacting.

2:35:11And I— but again, I recognize we do need to move stock.

2:35:14Yes.

2:35:15We have a very— that's a very legitimate issue that we need to solve for.

2:35:20And I'm newer in this, so I'm just letting you know from that perspective of observing and taking it all in at this point, there are a lot of opportunities to step back and reexamine.

2:35:32And I think that's a lot of what we're doing through the unified housing strategy work.

2:35:37I think that's what we're doing with the social housing report.

2:35:40Thank you.

2:35:40We're getting an opportunity to look at everything again because that's what's needed and to figure out what worked before and what didn't work.

2:35:49And we have some opportunities to be innovative in our thinking.

2:35:53And so I appreciate that aspect here.

2:35:58So, I mean, I don't have a yes or no.

2:36:00The policy is yours to decide.

2:36:04The issue for me is Councilmember Herbold.

2:36:06As I stated before, and I want to be very clear, it's not about the capability of staff.

2:36:11The Housing Bureau staff is very capable of doing this work.

2:36:16I think it is more about all the things that we are trying to reexamine when it comes to the housing market, the housing providers, all the things that are happening.

2:36:27This team is trying to step back and reexamine a lot of things right now.

2:36:32So It is more about feasibility in the sense of operationally, we're trying to reexamine the structure, reexamine the work we've been assigned to do, and carry— keep the work going at the same time.

2:36:46And you have to be able to do both.

2:36:47And I think we're capable of doing both.

2:36:49It's— but there is a point where your capacity is limited.

2:36:53But I don't— like I said, I think that I understand what this program is trying to solve, what it's trying to get at, or what this But I'll turn it over to Dori.

2:37:04She's a technical expert here.

2:37:09So just to clarify your question, please, Councilor or Vice President Clark, is it strictly the effect on the housing bureau?

2:37:18That would be helpful too, but I just wanted to get a general sense.

2:37:21I really appreciate what the director has said.

2:37:24The most compelling thing to me that you said is that we need more inventory.

2:37:28And anything we can do to make that happen.

2:37:30And this seems though it's very, very narrow, very small.

2:37:34So if you have any other comments on that, if there is an administrative burden that comes with this one too.

2:37:41I mean, there is an administrative burden in that if we are— there are other— there is a program that is still operational, although it hasn't been used to a significant degree.

2:37:54There are a couple of things that we would need to implement with this, particularly with the financial review of any feasibility of a project is very complicated.

2:38:07And trying to do an objective review of someone's financials is not something that I think the Housing Bureau is used to doing, nor are developers accustomed to turning that type of information over to the Housing Bureau for review.

2:38:24I, I think that that could be a pretty fraught and complicated process, um, and, and nor is it something that the staff on my team is necessarily qualified to do in that they work on a lot of different things, but that's not something that they currently have the expertise in specifically.

2:38:45There are other areas at the Bureau where they might, but They also are not staffed to do that additional work.

2:38:52As far as the underlying changes to the penalty, that would not be too cumbersome to change how the penalty is implemented.

2:39:03I mean, I will say too that currently there are no homes that remain in the first project that are unsold, so this wouldn't be something we would immediately be testing.

2:39:16Okay.

2:39:18And this is talking about a speculative project for this in this specific instance.

2:39:24Oh, thank you.

2:39:25So, Council President, these are projects that are already in the pipeline.

2:39:30They're just sitting there, right?

2:39:31So they've already gone through a process.

2:39:33My understanding is, yeah, that there— this has been used 4 times total.

2:39:37There are some— there are actually in all there are 30 unsold parcels.

2:39:42Units on Long Division Street, um, and 14 waiting, permitted, ready to go, but for the ability to sell the, the remaining stock.

2:39:50So, okay, thank you.

2:39:53I appreciate, um, your input on that.

2:39:55I'm going to mull it over here.

2:39:58Thank you, Vice President Clark.

2:39:59Councilor Zimmerman.

2:40:00Thank you, Councilor Dunphy.

2:40:02I guess when you say things like they're just unable to sell I guess I'm wondering, why are you asking me, us, to insert in this case into the market?

2:40:19Because if I'm unable to rent a unit, I lower the rent.

2:40:23That's why I yelled at HomeForward last week.

2:40:26If I'm unable to sell my house, I lower the price.

2:40:31I think that some people build bad ideas.

2:40:34I think some people open bad idea restaurants.

2:40:38I think that some people are bad at business.

2:40:43That doesn't make them bad people, I guess.

2:40:45But there is a point in which I go, where is our role in government to interfere?

2:40:49And so what you're asking is allow this person to, uh, reduce the thing that they had agreed to be a part of.

2:41:01Like, they made a business choice to do it.

2:41:02I think, you know, I'm going to stop that analogy.

2:41:07Um, but I think that— I, I guess that's where I, I'm wrestling a little bit with it, of like, I feel bad for whatever this situation is you're articulating.

2:41:17I'm not sure that my role is to bail them out.

2:41:20And so I'm struggling with that.

2:41:22I am all for this whole— this entire conversation.

2:41:26I'd love to take this whole code, throw it I would throw it in garbage and rewrite from minute one, right?

2:41:29Because this complicated to verify your income is wild to me.

2:41:36It shouldn't be complicated to prove your income.

2:41:39Like, so these are the basics I think we should get to.

2:41:41And so I'm not— I guess I want to give you an opportunity to answer that, but I'm missing a point here of why would we help that if this just was a bad building decision?

2:41:51And maybe it wasn't.

2:41:52Maybe that's just how I'm hearing it.

2:41:53And I I want to give you a chance.

2:41:54You know, I won't defend whether or not this builder is a good builder.

2:41:56I mean, he seems like a good guy.

2:41:57Seems like— yeah, seems like he's building quality homes.

2:42:00I can't speak to the specifics of that.

2:42:02I can say that he signed up for a program that thought he was going to be able to do some good and ended up stuck functionally.

2:42:11I'm— what this does is not— we're not rewarding him in any way, but we're backing away from the penalties specific to around income requirements.

2:42:20It's not so much the price of the unit so much as who, as we were talking about earlier, who can get into there.

2:42:26And there's just a lot of specific challenges about trying to get to those income requirements for these people, a lot of these folks.

2:42:33They have been marketed.

2:42:34They are actively working on it.

2:42:36I think a lot of these actually, these 30 units are currently being rented.

2:42:40Mm-hmm.

2:42:41And, but as I understand it, Specifically, this builder took out construction loans and is paying back his rent or paying back the construction loans with rents, which is not what they're ever meant to be doing.

2:42:53So, and right now it is simply the AMI is too restrictive for a market or a product that the market will actually give to that homeowner to be able to buy that house.

2:43:06So it is, I think, I think based also off the fact that only 4 times in the history has this project or this bonus been used, I think there is something wrong here.

2:43:18And maybe that also implies that, you know, as you were saying, maybe this builder isn't the savvy builder to know.

2:43:25Maybe every other builder in the city figured out you don't touch that one, the live wire.

2:43:30But regardless, as Councilor Green was sort of saying earlier, we got to move product because we have jobs that need to get— keep going, and, and we want to make sure we don't put this guy out.

2:43:39So that— I mean, it is a choice though.

2:43:41You're absolutely right.

2:43:41I mean, like, it is us interfering.

2:43:43I do appreciate that, and I, I want to be fair to that description.

2:43:47I think that that makes a lot of sense to me.

2:43:48I'm not making any sort of value judgment against anybody who's been in a tough business situation, right?

2:43:53I get it.

2:43:54I'm happy that there are some that are built and being rented.

2:43:57Like, that's good.