# Portland City Council Public Works Committee 10/27/26
# Meeting ID: 2026-10-27-pwc-1  Duration: 116 min

[00:06:49] Olivia Clark: Morning, everybody. Um, welcome. Uh, I'm going to call the meeting of the Public Works Committee to order. It's Tuesday, October the 27th at 9:32. Deanna, could you please call the roll?
[00:07:04] Rebecca Dobert: Good morning. Green?
[00:07:08] Mitch Green: Here.
[00:07:09] Rebecca Dobert: Smith? Kanal?
[00:07:11] Sameer Kanal: Here.
[00:07:12] Rebecca Dobert: Koyama Lane?
[00:07:13] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Here.
[00:07:14] Rebecca Dobert: Clerk?
[00:07:14] Olivia Clark: Here. And Claire, could you please read the statement of conduct?
[00:07:19] Unidentified speaker: Thank you, Chair. Good morning and welcome to the meeting of the Public Works Committee. To testify before this committee in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at portland.gov/council/agenda/publicworkscommittee or by calling 311. Registration for virtual testimony closes 1 hour prior to the meeting. In-person testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard.
[00:07:41] Rebecca Dobert: If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the chair states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
[00:08:20] Unidentified speaker: And finally, virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
[00:08:25] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Claire. Uh, colleagues, we have a slightly lighter agenda today than we've had in recent weeks, which is kind of a break. Welcome. But first, we're going to have an ordinance from PBOT on allowing property owners to paint driveway clearances for safety and visibility. Then, um, we will resume our discussion on autonomous vehicles. But before we do that, I'd like to take a little bit of an extended break after we We finished the first item. But before we get to those items, we need to adopt the committee minutes. Are there any changes, objections, issues? Do I—. I don't need to move approval, do I?
[00:09:08] Rebecca Dobert: No.
[00:09:08] Olivia Clark: No. Okay. Thank you, everyone. Okay. So we've approved the minutes of September meeting without objection. So, Diana, would you please read the first item?
[00:09:25] Rebecca Dobert: Item number 2, document number 2026-387, amend vehicles and traffic code to clarify Bureau of Transportation authority and allow flexibility, replace code section 16.10.080 and amend chapter 16.90.
[00:09:48] Olivia Clark: Thank you. So colleagues, this ordinance replaces and amends city code to allow property owners to paint driveway clearances. And what we're talking about here is just part of the driveway that meets the street. And this can be painted to prevent parking immediately adjacent to a driveway. But there's been quite a backlog, and obviously we're all familiar with the budget cuts that have taken place at PBOT. So PBOT needs to amend the code to make this process of driveway painting easier and less expensive for property owners. So, and I'm gonna have some interesting questions about this, and I know they have a presentation. Staff has a presentation for us.
[00:10:31] Erica Namio-Kniebel: We, oh, I'm sorry.
[00:10:33] Olivia Clark: Are you Erica Niebel? Yes, I am. Hi, welcome. And you must be Peter.
[00:10:38] Peter Wojcicki: Yes.
[00:10:39] Olivia Clark: Great. Why don't you introduce yourselves, and then you've got, you're going to show us a slideshow.
[00:10:44] Erica Namio-Kniebel: All right, um, we are working on the presentation, so please hang tight with us. Okay, introductions first. Oh, okay. Good morning, councilors. Thank you for having us this morning, and I apologize for the technical issue. My name is Erica Namio-Kniebel, and I oversee the parking and regulatory operations at PBOT. And next to me is— I'm going to do his introduction while he's working on the presentation. His name is Peter Wachicki. He is the program manager for parking signs and markings within, uh, Parking operations.
[00:11:19] Olivia Clark: Oh, sorry, having a technical difficulty. How's that? Adam to the rescue. Muted. That's right.
[00:11:32] Erica Namio-Kniebel: I'm glad it's a lighter agenda, or else I'll be a little bit more stressed.
[00:11:36] Olivia Clark: No, no, no, no stress today. No, it's a no stress day. Shirt. So although I may ask you some questions that may stress you out. Click on here, and now you can share there or share there.
[00:11:56] Peter Wojcicki: And thank you.
[00:11:57] Erica Namio-Kniebel: All right, thank you so much for the assistance. All right, next slide. All right. So we are here today to discuss minor changes to Portland City Code Chapter 16-10-080 and 16-90. This change would allow residents and businesses to paint their own driveway clearances, do it at a reduced cost, and reducing the long wait time from request to completion. And it also ensures their— that their invested time and money is actually enforceable by the city when there's a violation. Next slide. So first, what is a driveway clearance? Simply, it's paint that's added to the curb and street for easier driveway access. Driveway clearances are an easy way to visually make drivers aware that they're way too close to the driveway. As our urban neighborhoods grow denser, there's often more stress on the on-street parking system, and drivers sometimes park too close to driveways. When this happens, it reduces visibility getting out of driveways, which presents a safety problem. Driveway clearances help reduce livability frustrations, contribute to fewer confrontations, and make it unnecessary to put makeshift signs, cones, or what have you in the right-of-way to ensure you can simply just get out of your driveway. Between 2021 and 2024, we received over 600 of these requests. Unfortunately, we suspended this service last year because we needed to prioritize a backlog during that time, we were coming up with a— hopefully a simple process that would allow people to perform that work themselves. Currently, by code, people are allowed to paint the driveway throat— that's the driveway and the wings in that picture there— with hardly any involvement from the city. The only requirement is the color of paint. What's not allowed is painting the curb adjacent to the wings. And the streets in the— I'm sorry, the lines in the streets.
[00:14:04] Olivia Clark: You just say that you can't paint the lines in the street?
[00:14:07] Erica Namio-Kniebel: Yes, we cannot.
[00:14:08] Olivia Clark: Yeah.
[00:14:09] Peter Wojcicki: So currently, this adjustment to code would allow us to allow people to do that.
[00:14:16] Erica Namio-Kniebel: So when— oh, yes. When the city was performing the service, property owners would request and pay the city to install them. The fee was about $383, which was cost recovery at that time. It took about 2 days to complete and is weather dependent. So you may ask, why is the city involved at all? And that's a very valid question. And are we creating unnecessary bureaucracy? There are 3 main reasons why this design or this process was designed. First, the city should be aware of any work in the right-of-way. Think of a parking sign. We don't want anyone and everyone putting their own parking signs up in the— in a public and shared space. The second and third points sort of go together. In order for the city to enforce driveway clearances, we have to know that they are official and installed properly. And in order to know it's official, we need to know where they are. And I'm sorry, go back one. Just a final point, going back to the example of parking signs. Parking enforcement only enforces official signs. So what we are proposing is an easier and faster process. Previously, it took 6+ months to complete because there was a backlog of work. Oftentimes, the work took longer because other work was prioritized for safety and ADA access reasons. Instead, we're proposing a self-serve and verify process. Thank you. The resident or business would apply online. Staff would verify that they have permission from the property owner and that there weren't any other issues. The application gets approved. The requester pays the $200 for cost recovery for staff time, and they paint their driveway clearance at their leisure. After the work is complete, the city will inspect the work, make sure it's just done properly, and add it to GIS. And at that point, It's enforceable. So that concludes our presentation, and we're happy to take questions.
[00:16:24] Olivia Clark: Well, thank you, Erica. Um, I have questions, but I'll defer to Councilor Green to kick us off.
[00:16:29] Mitch Green: Uh, thank you, Chair Clark, and thank you, Erica, and so much for presenting this. Um, this is something that I've wanted for a long time. I remember, uh, dealing with, uh, a neighbor that just refused to not park in front of my driveway, just constantly, and was like, uh, like somehow I'm the jerk because I'm like, I want to get my car out of my driveway. And, and when I was trying to deal with it, it's like, well, sorry, we can't enforce this because you don't have the paint. And I was like, this, this feels like a nightmare to me. Um, and I feel like a lot of Portlanders probably feel that way. So this is a really good example, I think, of, of extremely responsive government. So I, so I applaud it. I do have a question. Can you go back to the slide where you show the 2 different costs? Sure. Perfect. Uh, it's like the second to last slide, I think. Yeah, that one right there. Um, so you said, I think, just briefly that the $200 is cost recovery for staff time, or the review of the application and the verification at the end. Yes. Okay, great. So then in the status quo, is $382.50 even cost recovery?
[00:17:38] Erica Namio-Kniebel: I have— my honest answer is that I, I have my doubts. So at the time we were doing cost recovery for labor, and maybe you'll, you know, this answer a little bit better. Um, I'm not sure if it was fully loaded, and it, you know, the every year costs rise.
[00:17:53] Mitch Green: Yeah.
[00:17:54] Peter Wojcicki: Um, Peter Wojcicki. Uh, the $382.50 was actually an inflationary rate change from $360, which was fixed for the last 10 years. So it was cost recovery based on many years ago.
[00:18:10] Mitch Green: Yeah. So I think that what, what we're seeing here is, you know, because I was going to ask, well, why is there a 6-month-plus queue? Well, probably because there's not enough resources to clear the queue, and there's not enough resources to clear the queue because you can't really charge enough to, to pay for the people to do the— so, so is that— am I on the right track there?
[00:18:29] Peter Wojcicki: Yes, for the most part.
[00:18:31] Mitch Green: Okay, excuse me. I have no other questions. I think this is great. Good bill must pass.
[00:18:37] Olivia Clark: Uh, Councilor Kanal.
[00:18:40] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Chair Clark. Thank you, Erica. Thank you, Peter, for being here and for the work on this. I, broadly speaking, support this, and, and I'm in alignment with everything that Councilor Green just said. Um, I had a couple questions that are also on this slide 7, um, related to the sort of subpoint under number 1 in both cases. Um, I'm a renter. I have had different situations where it's clearer or not based on where I'm living, whether or not you can park, how close you can park. And so I wanted to kind of understand a couple things about the owner approval piece. One, can you just speak to, I guess, the necessity of this and if we're obligated under, I'm guessing, state law to require this?
[00:19:28] Peter Wojcicki: Um, actually, I don't know if we're required under state law to have this. Um, what we're really trying to do is just get maybe more of the authorization. Let's say you're the renter, you'll pay the $200, but you say, hey, I've got it covered, I just want to get it painted so I don't have a problem. Hopefully your property manager or owner will be amenable to something like that. If we do have challenges, we can certainly come back and look at it again. Uh, and kind of review a process. We're just trying to make sure that, you know, it's— people are in agreement to do this and someone's just not out painting driveway clearances all over the city, which actually wouldn't be all that bad, but there's some costs there involved. We want to make sure we're getting them from the right people. And typically no one's going to complain about having a driveway clearance. It's crossing our T's, dotting our I's, just making sure that we're I appreciate that.
[00:20:22] Sameer Kanal: And as it relates to someone out there just painting driveway clearances, don't threaten me with a good time. I think that would be amazing if that happened. But I also wanted to ask, how is— what is the method for demonstrating owner approval?
[00:20:39] Peter Wojcicki: We would typically just ask for an email, you know, from the property owner. We were able to look in GIS and pull up Multnomah County tax records to identify who the property owner name or number is. If it's a property management company and something simply, an email from, you know, Larry's property management company saying, yes, I approve of having this done. Nothing too onerous.
[00:21:04] Sameer Kanal: That was the third question I was going to ask, was about how property managers fit into this. So do you have that record, or how would you cross-check that?
[00:21:13] Peter Wojcicki: Within our GIS and the tax records, they typically identify who the property owner is, and a lot of times the property owner is a property management company or identifies a property management company. Um, and it takes a little bit of legwork. We haven't— unfortunately, we haven't had to deal with residential properties. Most of our requests from property owners has been of, of businesses. Um, so, you know, the fringes, and those are related to time zone changes and things along those lines. But, um, if we do run into some hiccups with the, the property owner verification, we can look at dropping it since, again, it's not Uh, a bad thing to have a driveway clearance.
[00:21:53] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, and it's also not an area that— in the road itself and the curb, we're not talking about an area that is actually part of the property that is owned, right?
[00:22:00] Peter Wojcicki: That is correct.
[00:22:01] Sameer Kanal: So that, that's my reason for asking, is if this was on the actual property, that obviously would require property owner approval. 2 quick process questions on this. One, um, do you have a redline version for Exhibit A? Because I see it's just a straight replacement and just for, I think, transparency.
[00:22:21] Erica Namio-Kniebel: We can absolutely get that to you. Sorry, we don't have it right at the moment.
[00:22:24] Sameer Kanal: No worries. And then for this slide that had the diagram, do you have one showing the key would come out? It's that dotted line extended, right?
[00:22:37] Peter Wojcicki: Here.
[00:22:38] Sameer Kanal: Okay, perfect. That is what I was hoping to get. Great.
[00:22:42] Peter Wojcicki: Excuse me. Particularly like this example, We want to make sure that it's a 3-foot maximum extension. We don't want people— that's one of the reasons why we want it verified and permitted, because we don't want people putting a 5 or 6-foot-wide driveway apron. You know, then all of a sudden you've reduced parking on street because everybody's got a 6-foot-wide driveway clearance.
[00:23:04] Sameer Kanal: Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Do you have, in terms of the paint, It's just the color that's regulated, right? Not that it's—.
[00:23:16] Peter Wojcicki: Yeah. Yes. You go to Home Depot or Miller Paint, or actually it's Rodda Miller now, and ask for traffic yellow. They'll have traffic yellow.
[00:23:25] Sameer Kanal: Great. Thank you so much.
[00:23:28] Olivia Clark: Great. Thank you. That was one of my questions. It's called traffic yellow. It's not like a regulation paint or something that you have to buy. It's just traffic yellow. I had some questions just about the past. Has this been a very subscribed program in the past? You said there was a waiting list of 600, but have you had lots before? What's the volume?
[00:23:50] Peter Wojcicki: We were doing a couple hundred a year on average. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but it was quite popular, you know, a lot of people wanting it. And one of the other added benefits that we don't bring up on this is, is that after 5 or 7 or 10 years, we'd be like, it's— you're gonna have to pay again to maintain it. Whereas once you've gone through us and permitted it and you're clearly repainting, we'll make sure that's within the permit process that they identify that you're clearly repainting what was there before. You could repaint it every year. You know, it's nice and sunny out last day, you know, a week ago, you paint it for the for the fall and winter weather so it stands out.
[00:24:35] Olivia Clark: But you— what you're saying is you don't have to reapply to, to re—.
[00:24:38] Mitch Green: Correct.
[00:24:39] Sameer Kanal: Once—.
[00:24:39] Peter Wojcicki: That's one of the bonuses of, uh, making sure we go through this permit program. It becomes an asset in, in our inventory, and as long as you're maintaining it to the conditions that it was before—.
[00:24:49] Olivia Clark: So if a—.
[00:24:50] Peter Wojcicki: You call somebody in for parking enforcement and they all of a sudden realize that that curb line is now 5 or 6, it's creeped its way out real far, they'll be like, uh, I don't think this one's legal anymore. And, and we would be able to go back and pull the permit from the Amanda system to identify that it was permitted at 3 feet, not 6 or 7.
[00:25:08] Olivia Clark: Or it's so faded that, uh, you can't really tell. It's there, right?
[00:25:12] Erica Namio-Kniebel: Under this process, you pay the $200 and you're able to repaint it whenever you want, as opposed to paying the $363 or whatever every time you need to repaint.
[00:25:22] Olivia Clark: I think it's super. I don't think I've ever seen one. Have you ever— my colleagues, have you ever seen one of these? You've seen one? I don't think— I've never seen one.
[00:25:30] Peter Wojcicki: It's not often.
[00:25:31] Olivia Clark: I, I know I'm a violator. Um, I can tell you that I creep up, you know, into that past the 3-foot maximum. I'm, I'm, you know, I know I'm a violator, so this is, this is a good thing. It's a really good thing. Um, I did want to ask though, um, and some of my other, my colleagues may be interested in this, is I've had an interest for quite a while in having, um, Citizens have more ability to do more of these kinds of things in their neighborhood. And I'm wondering, um, and maybe— I don't know if Erica and Peter can answer this. I know there are other people from PBOT in the audience, but when you do a, um, a plaza or those kinds of things, when we close off a street, are we allowing the neighbors to do that painting? Is it—. How is that regulated? I'm just curious.
[00:26:21] Wendy Cully: Hi, Wendy Cully, interim PBOT director. Yeah, so we have different, um, things that happen in the right-of-way where we involve the public. One is street intersection painting that is, uh, almost exclusively by volunteers. People sign up, we help get the materials there, make sure that they have the right skid resistance and things like that. But those are largely, um, installed by the community and the neighbors. We are also working with some neighborhood associations right now, um, to allow them to paint yellow curb where there are already no parking signs. So like at intersections where we want to make it clear that you don't park all the way up to the corner, and it's already posted with a sign, we are— we do have some agreements, and we're trying to grow that to allow folks to paint the curb yellow there. And then we just have some one-offs where somebody says, can we do some painted curb extensions? And we work with them to get that done. So yeah, we do have a process for that, and our traffic operations section is really trying to grow that movement. I will caveat that with saying that we do draw the line on like having them install traffic control devices like stop signs and things like that. We have had those requests before, but because there are liabilities associated with certain types of pavement markings and signage that we do have to regulate those. Mm-hmm. And we, the city does have to take ownership and maintenance responsibility for those.
[00:27:48] Olivia Clark: Okay, I appreciate that, Wendy. I think I'm really interested in how we can push the envelope on this some, and we can talk about this offline, but I'm really interested in what it would take for PBOT to allow neighbors to do other kinds of striping, whether it's crosswalk striping, those kind of other safety measures. I'm glad you're, you're doing the the curb painting, I think that's great. Is there a, um, is there a fee for the other, the other activities you've described, the plazas and the—.
[00:28:22] Wendy Cully: Um, I think it, it depends. Typically the, um, community intersection painting, there, I think there's a small fee. And, um, but the plazas we do on, uh, PBOT does on their own or in partnership with, um, uh, a business or others that are going to help activate the plaza. So there's some some— we foot the bill for most of the initial installation in plazas, if they're defined plazas. But the curb painting for better visibility for no parking, we are not— the community's paying for that. So I think there's a mix of that as well.
[00:29:00] Olivia Clark: And so our neighbors would apply to the— you said the traffic— what was it again?
[00:29:05] Wendy Cully: The traffic yeah, right now we're— we have— we are making agreements with neighborhood associations, and I think, um, if folks want to, they would contact, um, 823-SAFE or 311, and they would get funneled into our traffic investigations, traffic operations section, uh, to talk about that. But again, we're, we're, um, kind of— I wouldn't say we're in the infancy because we have moved some of this forward, but we are still trying to figure out how broadly this can be applied, recognizing, you know, we've heard this from councilors before that, yeah, how can encourage community to be partners in this. So we're happy to keep working on that and flesh out what a bigger program might look like.
[00:29:47] Olivia Clark: Well, I, I know I'm interested, and I think some of my colleagues might be interested in promoting this, maybe in our newsletters or other ways that neighborhood associations can, can be involved in making these kind of safety improvements in their neighborhood. And maybe there could be a pilot or something like that to do crosswalk painting I know that's probably more of a liability issue for you, but I'm certainly interested in pursuing these options. I think it's also community building as well as safety and prevention. So I appreciate, I appreciate what you are doing and what you're willing to pursue.
[00:30:25] Peter Wojcicki: I, I think this would be an opportune time to talk about the Adopt-a-Catchbasin program as well for the neighbors as it's fall, going out there and clearing your catch basins. Loading that up into your, your yard debris bin. I definitely know that people see me doing that in my neighborhood.
[00:30:42] Olivia Clark: Would you mind maybe sending us a follow-up email on that about the Adopt a Catch Basin? And some of us might want to promote these kinds of things and promote the, the curb painting as well. I, I know I would. I don't know about my colleagues, but I'm definitely interested in this, and I'm glad to hear that you're working with the neighborhood associations. I really, really appreciate that. Any other questions or comments? Councilor Kanal, did you have another?
[00:31:07] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, thank you. I, I really appreciate you bringing up everything with relation to sort of expanding this, and thanks for being here, Director Cully. Um, I think the, the 2 places I'm most interested in this are, uh, soft daylighting, meaning the, the red paint, um, but not a physical, you know, as distinguished from hard daylighting with a physical barrier to parking there. As an interim step. And then crosswalks as well. I agree completely. The other thing I wanted to kind of float is the idea of if there is somebody who's interested in doing a lot of these, you know, I imagine the inspection and verification cost to PBOT is lower if there were 10 of these on the same street than, you know, 200 times 10. So some sort of way of either working proactively to sort of accredit a group or to do a bulk discount effectively if it's within the same area and could all be expected at once to try and allow folks to like to do a full block. I think that that would be really helpful to lowering the cost of this for PBOT as well as for the folks who are trying to do the right thing and paint. Thanks.
[00:32:15] Olivia Clark: Appreciate that. Great idea. That's a great idea. Is there— well, I don't know, Erica or Pete, are you the people that neighborhood associations contact for this or? Who's the point of contact?
[00:32:29] Peter Wojcicki: It's going to be my group, PBOT Parking Control. And that's our email as well, pbotparkingcontrol@portlandoregon.gov. We also have a phone number, 823-7275. But we take in all aspects of parking requests across the city. So businesses needing time zone changes and things along those lines or truck loading zones.
[00:32:50] Olivia Clark: Well, I'll bet you they have driveways they'd like to paint too. Um, but thank you, thank you all so much. Um, and great ideas, colleagues. So, uh, if there aren't any other questions or comments, um, would someone like to make a motion to move ordinance document number 2026387 to the full council with the recommendation passed?
[00:33:11] Sameer Kanal: So moved.
[00:33:13] Mitch Green: Second.
[00:33:13] Olivia Clark: Great. Councilor Kanal has moved, Councilor Green has seconded. The motion's, um, Ready to go, no more discussion. Uh, Diane, will you please call the roll?
[00:33:23] Rebecca Dobert: Uh, before I take roll, we do have one testifier.
[00:33:26] Olivia Clark: Okay. Oh, sorry about that. Whoops. That's okay. Just sped right over that.
[00:33:30] Rebecca Dobert: I have Alejandro Stein signed up.
[00:33:33] Olivia Clark: Terrific. We needed a speed bump.
[00:33:41] Rebecca Dobert: I don't see Alejandro coming to the table, so final call for Alejandro. Thank you.
[00:33:48] Olivia Clark: We'll assume he was for it.
[00:33:53] Rebecca Dobert: Let me go back to the vote then. So moved by Kanal, seconded by Green. Green?
[00:34:01] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:34:02] Rebecca Dobert: Kanal?
[00:34:04] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[00:34:05] Rebecca Dobert: Koyama Lane?
[00:34:06] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[00:34:06] Rebecca Dobert: Clark?
[00:34:07] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[00:34:09] Rebecca Dobert: With 4 ayes and 1 absent, the motion to refer the ordinance document number 2026 386-387 to council with the recommendation it be passed has, uh, been approved. Thank you. Great, thank you.
[00:34:23] Olivia Clark: Thank you all for being here. Great program, and we want to see it expanded. We'll, we'll work on that. Appreciate you. Um, colleagues, I'm going to ask you if you would be willing to take, uh, maybe a 15-minute break. Is that possible before we head to the next item? I really appreciate that. So why don't we come back at 10:15? Thank you. My apologies to the people in the audience. We had asked the committee to reconvene at 10:15, but I know a couple of our members are off working on something. Some of you you may know that, but we'll convene as soon as we get a quorum. I apologize. Maybe I hear them coming. Let's see. Thank you. Well, I just apologize to the audience. Okay, great. We'll reconvene now that my colleagues are back. Diana, could you please read the next issue?
[01:03:01] Rebecca Dobert: Item number 3, document number 2026-385, committee discussion on automated vehicles.
[01:03:09] Olivia Clark: All right, thank you, Diana. So, um, colleagues, at our last discussion, our last meeting, we were talking about an ordinance, and I think it's clear that there wasn't support for putting anything like that together. Um, however, today what I was hoping— and I've left, um, everybody's, um, chair, uh, a list of all the policy issues that were involved in that draft that we could kind of go thank you. Before we go through, um, and start a conversation, um, we, uh, I, I want to note that our government affairs folks are in the audience because this was partially on my part motivated by the fact that the legislature will try to, um, preempt our ability to regulate, um, our ability to have anything to do with, uh, automated vehicles, autonomous vehicles, just like they've done in, you know, the 15 other cities where, uh, there are autonomous vehicles operating. Those cities had absolutely no ability to influence that when their state legislatures preempted them. So that was my motivation, is what can we discuss, get on the books, whatever, to prepare for what will be coming from the legislature. I can guarantee you that the bill that was introduced In the short session, we'll be coming back. I don't know if it will include any changes or not, but I think that we need to be prepared for that. Hence, I want to go through what those policy issues are with OGR listening in on that. That was my motivation. So if there is a statewide policy discussion that would likely preempt our authority, I think we need to engage in trying to figure out what, what we absolutely will need when, when they're trying to preempt us. You know, I personally, I think I mentioned this at our last meeting, I have my, all my own reservations and my own concerns about the industry and the impacts that it's going to have on our labor market, um, safety. Um, there, I know that they will tout their safety record, um, their comparative but I want to be sure that we give our Office of Government Relations some ammunition coming from us about what may be inevitable. I think at the end, after we go through these policy concepts, I think we'll want to talk about a moratorium. And I know we mentioned that at our last meeting, and I think my colleagues may have the rudiments of a proposal for that. We also have PBOT in the audience. Yes. To answer questions, particularly on crafting any piece of this or crafting a moratorium. I think they'll, they'll want to weigh in on that. Just a little note too that in the Portland area, we do have different industries that are involved in this, aside from all of our friends, the drivers of Uber and Lyft. Uh, we do have, um, the North American Research and Development Engineering Office of JLR, which is working on testing vehicles, technology, and their components. We have Daimler in North America, which is in Portland. Their headquarters are located here, and they're working on self-driving trucks. Um, anyway, there— we have lots of angles to this issue that we need to be aware of. And it's important that I think that we allow our industry folks in the city to continue to do what they're doing. It's important to our economy. But we also really need to encourage safe operations of this technology. I think that's kind of the bottom line. That's, I think, what the PBOT research, the PBOT outreach showed, that safety is the absolute number one issue. Thank you. So, colleagues, we're hoping that our other colleague, Councilor Smith, may tune in or may show up at some point. I know she was speaking somewhere at 10:30, but why don't we go ahead, and if it's okay with you all, why don't we just start at the top of the list? We have the, I think, 8 policy concepts. Is it okay if we just kind of walk right down the list? Yes. We can go down the list or we can bounce around. Either way, we had a lot of good discussion at the last meeting, particularly on— which one was it? The privacy standards, number 6. We talked quite a bit about that. Let's just start at the top, if that's okay. The first item was establish Uh, AVs in the private fire code with definitions. I don't know that we need to get into that, but, um, I know that that's something that PBOT has been working on. Um, but maybe the people from PBOT— do we want them to come to the table now? Or the PBOT folks, do you want to— you want to join us in this conversation? We can ask you questions, or maybe we can have some feedback. I know— what happened to them? Where are they? Oh, there they are. Okay, I can't, I can't see you guys. Thanks.
[01:08:33] Mitch Green: They need some daylighting.
[01:08:34] Olivia Clark: Yeah, thanks, thanks so much for being here, for joining us. Um, we appreciate the work that you put into this already, quite a bit of work. Did you want to say anything about the first part, that establishing AVs and their private-for-hire I know that you worked on definitions. Do we need to say anything about that?
[01:08:59] Unidentified speaker: Sure.
[01:09:00] Shoshana Cohen: Shoshana Cohen, PBOT Chief of Staff. I think this one is sort of foundational to all the rest. If you're going to set up the regulatory code, this is the first step. But it is, you know, sort of dependent on if you are going to move forward with regulations or not. But it's, you know, we were just suggesting using industry standard definitions and establishing one of the key pieces of this is that the legislation that we saw last year at the state tried to say that automated private for hire were not private for hire. They tried to define them differently. So in order— if we wanted to regulate them at the local level, we'd want to sort of clearly— we believe that they are part of the private for hire industry, sort of the next iteration, but we would want to get that in the code to make sure we could regulate them.
[01:09:48] Olivia Clark: What I hear you saying is that— and folks, we can just have our a free-flowing conversation here. I don't want to have to, you know, regulate this very much. I think we should just be free-flowing. Um, but the legis— we want the legislature to do this, right? If they're going to preempt us, we want them to address this issue in a way that we want them to address it.
[01:10:07] Shoshana Cohen: Um, I mean, I think we don't want them to preempt us first. And, uh, we— if— yeah, that's a complicated way to answer. If there was going to be state legislation and it didn't preempt us, then I think we would also want to be clear that automated, you know, Waymos, other companies like that are part of the private-for-hire industry so that they could be regulated even at the state level. We don't— when they were trying to say they're a whole different type of—.
[01:10:41] Olivia Clark: That's what I'm trying to get across is what, um, what's important.
[01:10:45] Sameer Kanal: Can, can I ask a clarifying question?
[01:10:47] Olivia Clark: Yeah, sure.
[01:10:48] Sameer Kanal: Can you define what you mean by the word regulate before we even get into this? Because I think there's a, um, there's a connotation associated with that that means allow but create limits on. And I want to make sure that that is a shared understanding of what that term means, because if so, then I'd like to go to the very top of the page above the number 1 to the word regulatory in in the, in the header, uh, as a starting point. So I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page about how you're using that word.
[01:11:19] Shoshana Cohen: Uh, I believe we're using the similar way that, you know, just like the other private for hire, just like, you know, I mean, there's a whole bunch of things within private for hire. We've— we have regulated that industry for 100 years, I believe. Um, and that means, you know, having permit, making, making sure that we are able to put some policy framework around how they come in, that they, you know, they can't come— we require permits, we require, you know, there are vehicle regulations, there are rules around how many traffic violations drivers can have, things like that. Sort of all of the regulations, yes, that they can come in and we can put some rules around them, I guess, is sort of the basic question.
[01:12:02] Olivia Clark: So just to be clear, Um, we— I didn't get this from PBOT. This is generated by my office. We just, we just pulled it from PBOT. Yeah, yeah, this is our doing.
[01:12:13] Sameer Kanal: And this is helpful because it is summarizing what we talked about last time, so I appreciate that. Okay. Um, I, I, I guess my underlying question to that is, is the idea of a ban is not a subset of regulation, then? That's a separate concept. And so I would like— I think it makes more sense to, to go to first principles on this, but, um, I, I'll defer to your—.
[01:12:33] Olivia Clark: When you mean you, you want to talk about a ban versus regulation? Because I— my concern is that we are going to get preempted, and that's where I started, is that's why I want to talk about what are the things that are important to us. Um, and I'm happy to do that. Yeah, that's what I really— that's why I want to go through this list. This is the initial list of policy concepts.
[01:12:54] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Can we bring our policy?
[01:12:55] Olivia Clark: Absolutely. That's what I said. I want to deal with— well, I, I actually said a moratorium, but you've got concepts, you have a different set of concepts. So I think there's some parallels here, but, um, yep, can we just go down this list really quickly then? Sure. And we'll get to your, um, your handout. And I don't know if anybody in the audience has any of these, but I don't think we posted this. So the second part is— so I, I heard you, Shoshana, really appreciate that. Um, uh, The, the last form of the state legislation did not address number one in a way that we would prefer. Number 2 is the, the caps on the number and the phasing in the number. Just for context, um, I know that some cities have well over 1,000 cars driving around.
[01:13:49] Shoshana Cohen: I, I Right.
[01:13:53] Olivia Clark: I think that the PBOT draft, which is reflected here, talked about a phasing in. But I don't know that that is anything that we— if the legislature proceeds, if that's anything that they could put in something, or maybe notification of phasing. Yeah. Because I assume that's what the companies that want to have autonomous vehicles are going to do. They're going to, they're going to phase them in on their own. But I don't know if there was any, anything in the last bill that addressed phasing. Probably not. Okay.
[01:14:33] Shoshana Cohen: I don't think so. I think this is one of the examples of why it would be hard at a state, you know, if this were to happen at the state, we would, I think, lose this level of control. I don't know how we could do I think that's right.
[01:14:46] Olivia Clark: Uh, testing permit metrics, that's, um, that's not something that they discussed at the state level.
[01:14:58] Unidentified speaker: Uh, no.
[01:14:58] Hannah Morrison: Uh, hi, for the record, my name is Hannah Morrison. Um, so in the state legislation that was proposed last year, there was no framework around testing or commercial operations. There was no distinction. It would just have allowed kind of any operation.
[01:15:12] Olivia Clark: All right, skipping ahead then. Um, permit suspension. We sort of talked about 2 strikes, you're out, is sort of the way I phrase it. Um, do we want to— you have any comments about that, how we would regulate that, how they might regulate that? Do they even address that in the state legislation?
[01:15:33] Shoshana Cohen: Uh, the state— yeah, go ahead.
[01:15:35] Jacob Sherman: Uh, for the record, Jacob Sherman, Portland Bureau of Transportation. I think our perspective on the proposed legislation in the 2027 short session was that it was inadequate what was being proposed in terms of suspension or revocation. The triggers that were included in that piece of legislation really only allowed revocation or suspension if somebody was seriously maimed or killed from an automated vehicle. I think as we've discussed, you know, we have a very high standard for human drivers. The automated vehicle companies are often—. Yeah. Often touting their safety standards as being higher than human drivers. So what we've proposed here is let's hold an automated vehicle company to the same standard as human drivers.
[01:16:25] Olivia Clark: That's the 2 traffic violations, right?
[01:16:28] Jacob Sherman: Correct.
[01:16:28] Olivia Clark: Councilor Koyama Lane, did you have a comment on this?
[01:16:30] Tiffany Koyama Lane: On number 2?
[01:16:30] Olivia Clark: Oh, on number 2.
[01:16:32] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Where are we right now?
[01:16:32] Olivia Clark: We're on number 4, but that's okay. Okay, we can back up.
[01:16:37] Tiffany Koyama Lane: For going back to number 2, some of my reservations there are about the number of vehicles growing to 250 in one year, and then also reservations about removing councilors' ability to address fleet caps by allowing the city administrator that authority on future fleet caps.
[01:16:56] Olivia Clark: Gotcha, gotcha. Well, if, if the legislature preempts us, this won't be an issue at all. The company will be able to do whatever it wants.
[01:17:05] Tiffany Koyama Lane: And then for number— policy concept 4, I'm sorry, now I'm catching up to you all. I am wondering if staff can speak to how the city would address real-time issues like AVs blocking emergency vehicles. If you can talk a little bit more about that, if there's someone in distress.
[01:17:22] Hannah Morrison: Yeah, thank you for the question. So this is something that we would have to do a lot of coordination with our first responders on. In other cities, and part of our draft regulations right now are based on best practices from other states, and that includes a first responder interaction plan and training. So before being allowed to deploy, any AV company would need to do kind of really dedicated outreach, demonstrate to first responders exactly how they would, you know, interact with the vehicle if it was involved in an accident or move it out of the way. Also, we would require the AV companies to have a dedicated first responder phone call line that would be answerable within 30 seconds, 24/7. This is another kind of California best practice that we've pulled from. And then, you know, so I think the emphasis really is on response time and making it easy for first responders and making sure they know, like, they're trained and prepared for that incident.
[01:18:14] Tiffany Koyama Lane: I'm glad there's conversations with other jurisdictions.
[01:18:16] Hannah Morrison: Did you wanna—.
[01:18:16] Jacob Sherman: Yeah, yeah, thanks, Councilor Koyama Lane. I think in addition to that, we have regulatory enforcement staff who I think our Uber and Lyft friends are familiar with. These are staff that go out to the Port of Portland or Hail rides to make sure that people have permits in place, that their vehicles are certified with us. We'd also be utilizing some of that same staff to make sure that they were on the street, making sure that the companies were following the rules. And if and when they were not, they would be documenting those incidents and then working to take the appropriate measures.
[01:18:51] Tiffany Koyama Lane: And then in addition to talking to these jurisdictions about what's being applied and what their plans are, are you hearing about like lessons learned? Like, here's what we are planning, in reality this is what we're actually learning and what we're seeing.
[01:19:04] Olivia Clark: That's how they came up with this whole thing, is by interviewing the 15 other jurisdictions.
[01:19:08] Hannah Morrison: Yeah, constantly talking to them. And, you know, I think it's a really unique position where all of the cities where AV companies for hire are operating right now, they've been preempted, so they don't have the chance to create or update any regulations. It's really all like responding in real time. So we're learning from like what they're trying to scrap together with first responders or other people, like just responding without that regulatory power to change things. So it's a lot of like here's this working group that we've cobbled together, and here's how we're trying to coordinate with the companies and ask for changes, rather than the ability to require them to make changes. California is a bit of a unique place where they do have the statewide regulations, but as a whole, they're more kind of responsive than any other statewide regulations and more forward-looking regulatorily-wise. So we've pulled a lot of those best practices from there. So there's a bit of a distinction.
[01:19:58] Tiffany Koyama Lane: And which— can you share any approaches that were tried but clearly weren't working, That's a great question.
[01:20:11] Unidentified speaker: I think—.
[01:20:12] Jacob Sherman: I think, if I may, I think the general kind of lack of accountability at a city level has been one of those kind of lessons learned. So, you know, there's examples out of Texas, for example, where automated vehicles kind of continue to break the rules of the road. And so the city having no regulatory authority, no ability to intervene, to enforce the rules of the road, issue fines, no ability to suspend permits, no ability to revoke permits, you know, will pick up the phone and call an automated vehicle company and say, hey, can you please stop doing this? And there's no accountability in that relationship because at the end of the day, the accountability is at the state level or it's at the federal level. And so I think what we've heard from those jurisdictions is the frustration of having chaos sometimes happening on their streets and those cities not being able to do anything. And that's very different from the relationship that we have with our taxi companies, with our Uber and Lyft companies, with limousine companies, with horse-drawn carriages. You know, we have a relationship that's one of accountability where we can pick up the phone and say, hey, we saw this today, we'd like you to fix this, and if you don't fix this, Here's what comes next. So I think that's probably one of the biggest things that we've learned from our peer conversations, our conversations with peers around the United States.
[01:21:36] Shoshana Cohen: Yeah, I mean, this proposal essentially is the lessons learned proposal. And not that it is, you know, there are more things we could add, but it was sort of a first draft of taking all those lessons learned and saying we need this whole framework to try to account for those things.
[01:21:54] Olivia Clark: It sounds like the lack of accountability is at the top of the list, is that the local— the 15 cities that have this now that have been preempted, they have no ability to regulate, but California has found some kind of way through this.
[01:22:12] Hannah Morrison: Yeah, they have a state framework that regulates at some level, but the cities don't have a lot of that control. It's really— they have to kind of work with their state partners, and it's not always as responsive to immediate situations on the ground or each jurisdiction's kind of unique issues.
[01:22:25] Olivia Clark: Well, who would their state partner be?
[01:22:28] Hannah Morrison: So it's jointly regulated by the California Public Utility Commission and the California DMV. So it's also a somewhat kind of complex process where both of those agencies hold some regulations.
[01:22:38] Jacob Sherman: So you could imagine this being a scenario, and I think in the 2026 short session legislation, it would've been creating a framework through the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles. So you could imagine a situation where some automated vehicles are blocking the bus mall, for example. And in that kind of framework, we would be the ones picking up the phone, calling the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles, saying, here's what we're seeing on the streets of Portland, we're concerned about this. And then it would be up to the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles to decide, is that an issue?
[01:23:13] Olivia Clark: But that would have to be written into whatever the state is going to do. They would have to write that partnership in or that ability to have a backstop.
[01:23:26] Jacob Sherman: Correct. And I think our concern would be, would they be taking our concerns seriously? You know, how many instances in the City of Portland before someone at that agency decides enough is enough?
[01:23:41] Shoshana Cohen: Or are they even set up to? I think, I mean, that's the sort of the enforcement on our streets isn't really— again, there isn't a different framework. They don't regulate other private-for-hire at the state level because of those local impacts. And that's something we have over the last 5 or 6 or 7 legislative sessions, we have pushed back on that idea. Uber and Lyft have also wanted to set up a statewide framework.
[01:24:07] Unidentified speaker: I think that's a good point.
[01:24:08] Shoshana Cohen: With the similar consistency arguments and things like that and said, hey, we would like to do lighter regulations at the state. And we've said the impacts are on our streets, that doesn't make sense. So it's the same, you know, there's questions of if they would take our concerns seriously, but even questions of like, do they even have the ability? It would be— we're not sure how they would set it up so they could be responsive in the same way that we could be at the local level.
[01:24:34] Olivia Clark: Did you have another question?
[01:24:36] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Oh, I was just wondering, um, are there any other cities that you all are talking to that are in a similar space as us where we're like, if we get to decide this is what we want before we might get preempted?
[01:24:48] Hannah Morrison: Yeah, there are a couple of cities right now. Minneapolis and DC are actively working on draft regulations, and I'm part of a working group. I talk to them very frequently. And then there are a few other cities and some of those other states that I think are a little City of Seattle is another one that we often speak with as well.
[01:25:10] Olivia Clark: They're in the process of creating something, or they've already been preempted?
[01:25:14] Hannah Morrison: They have not been preempted yet. So they are also— they have regulations on the books that require a permit for testing, very similar to our draft regulations, and nothing for commercial operations yet. And they've not been preempted.
[01:25:26] Shoshana Cohen: Thank you.
[01:25:26] Olivia Clark: Thank you. And DC and Minneapolis, you said they're sort of in the same situation we are. They're working through, should we do something before we get preempted? Is that correct? Okay, great.
[01:25:38] Tiffany Koyama Lane: A lot of uncharted territory.
[01:25:41] Olivia Clark: Boy, I'll tell you. Uh, Councilor Green, you, you want to ask a question or make a comment?
[01:25:46] Mitch Green: Yeah, I just wanted to sort of respond to the, um, the handout you've given us and just kind of run through a couple things. So So, you know, I'm interested to see the legislative concept that's been handed out that we'll get into later. That's kind of the direction I'd like to go. But I think I wanted to respond to what we have here. Um, in a world where we don't try to just ban Waymo, we do need to put it in code. And I think, I think, like, I, I think the first sort of step, moving it out of administrative rulemaking that's really quite dated I think getting this documented and into code is crucial, and we should be doing that for, frankly, a lot of work across the city. I think for me, the most important pieces of this that kind of address my immediate concerns are sort of the safety piece. The limiting of loading and unloading in bicycle lanes is very huge for me. And the data privacy piece. Thank you. I just want to note that, you know, we started this discussion by saying that, you know, the AV companies are going to tout their safety measurements, but their safety measurements are in isolation, right? And so pedestrian safety is a holistic— it's the outcome of a holistic system as a whole. And what we do see is the presence of these autonomous vehicles vehicles increase deadheading and traffic. And so then, and I think traffic, I think, you know, safety is a function of traffic, right? The more traffic you have, the more likely it is that people are going to get in accidents and they're going to be frustrated. They're going to be moving fast. They're going to make that right-hand turn, that California stop, and they don't look right because they're looking left. That happens to me almost like anytime I walk my dog. Mm-hmm. Like, I almost get hit if I, if I go out on a particular route. So those are the things I worry a lot about. Um, you know, the last piece that sort of— I, you know, I think it's well-intentioned to establish the impact fee for sort of like the driver support piece. Um, but I think for me, if, if we're going to acknowledge that this could, could be labor displacing and, and frankly result in this displacement of a, of a, of a whole job, um, the fee would need to be so large that I don't— that I think it would just be like, well, why don't we just ban this thing? So that's how I think about this. And, um, but I wanted to sort of, uh, walk through these pieces so we can have that conversation. I, I, I, I don't want to accept that we'll be preempted. I don't think anyone up here wants to accept that either. But, um, if this is the world we have to go absence, uh, absent a sort of ban approach, then, then I think these elements are good, and I would want to tighten up some of, some of the things I talked about. So, um, perfect. Yeah, I think I'll leave it there for now.
[01:28:41] Olivia Clark: Okay, thanks. Thank you, Councilor Green. I think that was really my intent, was to identify what we think are the most crucial aspects of this, whether we go forward with an ordinance or whether the state legislature forces something upon us, how are we going to lobby that, um, what our interests are and what, what I'm learning from the other cities that have no authority anymore. We don't want to be in that position. Um, so I think identifying what our priorities are here to inform our, our OGR is, is really important. Um, thank you for listing your priorities. Did, uh, my colleagues on the over here Do you want to say anything about number 5, the bike lane, or anything like that? Do you want to make a comment? Or— Number 5.
[01:29:34] Tiffany Koyama Lane: I mean, I, I am really worried about how we're going to ensure that cyclists and pedestrians are not being put in dangerous circumstances. And that is going to lead into a bonus policy concept about what does it actually look like to just say no to this in general, to AVs. Um, but we can keep going.
[01:29:59] Olivia Clark: Okay. All right. Uh, well, we talked quite a bit about privacy last time. I think Councilor Kanal had made some really excellent points about the lack of privacy. Did you want to say anything more about that, Councilor Kanal, number 6, about yeah, I mean, there is one way to ensure that data is not shared with ICE, and that's not to create it in the first place.
[01:30:31] Sameer Kanal: One of the— not the company that's currently seeking a permit, but the second largest company in this space also owns a networked camera company which shares information with ICE that has been used in court cases. I'm referring to Ring cameras. I'm not familiar with Ring cameras. It's probably not the only one out there that's doing it. It's the one that there's a lot of documentation around. So that's a large-scale surveillance concern. I think once again with relation to the content of this concept number 6, the warrant signed by a judge is great. That's great. AV companies are prohibited from selling any data. I think I think seems like, um, it seems like it would provide a false sense of security. I don't know how we would enforce that, how we'd even know that that was happening if it was. And then in terms of written approval from the city administrator required, that should be a council ordinance before a single piece of Portlanders' data is shared outside of the city. I don't— I think broadly speaking, I don't believe that most of the things that are in administrative rule are because I feel like the moment we have the media attention move on from this issue area, that allows for the mayor to increase the, the caps, for example, to a number that's, that's so large as to be, um, meaningless. So I, I'm concerned about that sort of as an approach to things, putting things that are of high public interest into administrative rules so that the public is not engaged when potential changes occur and doesn't even necessarily know about it.
[01:32:08] Olivia Clark: Not like we've experienced that.
[01:32:10] Sameer Kanal: Yeah. And so with a, you know, with sort of the attempt, I think, at the highest level to create a sort of unitary executive here at the City of Portland, that to me creates a big concern around administrative rules that I think is not ideal but is what's happening. So yeah, as it relates, I could get deeper into surveillance part, but I want to I want to keep a focus on what's on here to the degree I can.
[01:32:33] Olivia Clark: I appreciate that. Uh, Councilor Cully, do you have any comments about number 6, um, data privacy? And Councilor Green? No? Okay. Um, I would like to ask, uh, our friends from PBOT just to explain again what the remote operators in code was about. I'm, I'm— I don't want to trust myself to explain it. Can you explain that, Hannah, maybe?
[01:32:58] Hannah Morrison: Yeah, yeah, I'd be happy to. Um, so with defining the remote operator there, this is actually based again off of something that California recently updated in their regulations. Um, this would require the remote operators, kind of this definition, to have a US-based driver's license commensurate with the vehicle that they're driving and be based in the US, uh, within code. And so, you know, we— the remote operators is something that I think we still don't know a ton about. This is something the companies have really kept kept under wraps from the public. There was a Senate investigation into this earlier this year, and it, you know, uncovered that some remote operators were based out of the country in places like the Philippines, actually, you know, operating the vehicles remotely if they got into a situation where they were uncertain about what they were doing. So this is something for us, we just want to make sure that they— anyone that would be potentially helping a vehicle navigate in a situation where they were uncertain had the appropriate driver's license and was It seems like a no-brainer.
[01:33:58] Olivia Clark: And Councilor Green addressed briefly the impact fees. Um, does anybody else want to say anything about impact fees? Sure.
[01:34:09] Sameer Kanal: I think—. Thank you. I think broadly I agree with Councilor Green, um, in terms of if you'd have to make them so high, you might as well just ban them. Um, and I think one of the things with I think that's a good point. In relation to Minneapolis, which is— DC may not be quite as comparable just because of the governmental structure, although they may be at a similar space along the way of making decisions. With Minneapolis, who does have a mayoral veto, they— the conversation there was if you're going to require a human driver or human operator in an otherwise automated vehicle, you're effectively banning it without just banning it. And that was one of the conversations that happen there. And I think it, you know, we'll do that if we need to, I guess, but I think we don't necessarily need to, to kind of, um, do the workaround. Instead, it makes sense to just say if you're going to require a human person in the driver's seat, you know, they should be the one driving the vehicle. So that, that's sort of where I'm at on, on that piece. Um, and so that, that kind of mitigates, I think, the, the impact fees. I don't know I don't know if there's been estimates done on what this would do, how much money this would raise, but my guess is it's not enough to replace the worker displacement. I'll also note that, you know, we're not necessarily able to tax, 'cause this is not just putting workers out of business, it's actually also outsourcing some of that labor. Because when some of the time when a vehicle is, Um, failing to move and someone is then taking over, a human is taking over remote operation of that vehicle, that person's not in Portland. So it's not simply that some of the folks, um, who drive for a living would lose their jobs, it's that some of those jobs would be moved overseas or other parts of the country. And I don't know how we address that with an impact fee. So I guess this is, again, it's like I don't want to have the impact that would have a fee So I don't know that I want an impact fee.
[01:36:06] Olivia Clark: I think that's— wasn't that kind of what we were talking about? Number 7, was they—. Yeah. Yeah, they're both— they're related.
[01:36:13] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, and I agree. So even if that happened, right, then maybe they're in another state. So that's still— it's not outsourcing in the traditionally, you know, understood sense of outside of the country, but it is still not a job that was here that's not in Portland anymore.
[01:36:27] Olivia Clark: Yeah, yeah, great.
[01:36:29] Shoshana Cohen: May I?
[01:36:30] Olivia Clark: Sure.
[01:36:31] Shoshana Cohen: This is sort of a— to be clear, this is uncharted territory and the city attorney's— there's, you know, just sharing thoughts. But as we were thinking about this, you could potentially try to also say it actually has to— the remote operators have to be an organ. I mean, again, we're in uncharted territory and I don't know what is possible, but that if you were to want to go that way, you could potentially think about that. And also just wanting to acknowledge, you know, again, the strongest job protection probably is the cap. And you could also put the cap in— you could put in code never more than 10% or something. You know, it could be 10% of the private-for-hire fleet. Sure. So there could be a way to do this that was a, you know, a harder stop with a cap. Does seem stronger than the fee, because you're right, the fee is never going to be enough to make up for it. But a cap at 5 or 10% of the total fleet in code might be a way to at least put some bounds around it.
[01:37:31] Olivia Clark: Well, thanks, Shoshana. I think just emphasizing that this is all uncharted territory. We have no idea what's going to happen. But I think it's important for us to have this conversation about what is important to us. And while some of us would prefer a ban, I'm just really anticipating that we may get, quote unquote, run over by the state. So it's important that we kind of talk through what are our priorities or what do we think are the most important pieces. And I think we've talked about safety and accountability and being able to hold the company responsible are important concepts. But as of just a little few minutes ago, some of my colleagues now have what they're calling an autonomous vehicle legislative concept. So which is something that you're thinking that we wanted to offer to the legislature. Is that the way I'm reading this? Or maybe I should just let you guys explain what, what your thinking is. Do you want to take it away, Councilor Koyama Lane?
[01:38:34] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Yeah, I first want to thank and acknowledge our friends who are here today from Drivers Union Oregon, thanks for being here. I tried to get here early. There was a lot of traffic. Would've maybe been even worse with Waymos all over the place too. Also, I want to give genuine appreciation for our staff who are navigating a lot and doing a lot of research and are being very responsive and clearly understand the importance of considering the long-range impact of AVs. Chair Clark, I appreciate I appreciate you continuing to give us time to discuss this, and I also appreciate your expertise and your understanding about state legislation and potential preemption and making sure that we're navigating this in a really strategic way. As we kind of previewed a little bit, nodded to in our last meeting, Councilor Kanal and I I feel really strongly that we haven't addressed one of the biggest questions, which is just, do we want AVs in Portland? And I think for many of us that answer is no. And seeing driverless vehicles on the road is something where there's a lot of concern around that. So Councilor Kanal and I want to introduce a sort of one-pager with a concept that would move Portland away from this idea of AVs and really prioritizes making sure that we're protecting privacy, supporting workers, keeping safe streets at the top. And if I can, so we did send an email of this to the clerk, so I know while folks can't see this right now, we'll make sure that that's available to you. And we We talked about the way it's outlined is we have the goal, which is clarify and use multiple municipal authority to ban autonomous vehicle operations in Portland public rights of way. And then it's there, we go through the problems, the proposed policies, alignment with agenda and city goals, and next steps for council action. And I'd be remiss if I wouldn't also just point out that Councilor Kanal has been really focused on this and worried about this especially their surveillance piece. And so really grateful to get to partner with him and his team on this. And if he wants to go in more about the background and go more in depth on the problem statement, that would be great.
[01:41:10] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Chair Clark. Thanks, Councilor Koyama Lane. So yeah, I think the goal kind of says it all— clarify and then use local municipal authority I think we've touched on several of the problem statements. We talked about worker displacement. We've talked about surveillance and data collection and potential transfer. We've talked about safety. Safety includes the safety of not only the people in the vehicle, but those who may be affected in bike lanes, those who may be waiting in their homes for an emergency vehicle vehicle to come to them that is delayed along the way to them by a deadheaded vehicle. It includes a lot of different elements of this as well. It also includes the impacts in terms of obstruction of transit vehicles, other vulnerable road users besides just cyclists, pedestrians as well. We've talked about the need for regulatory gap remedies. I think that has to do with what Shoshana, you brought up in terms of the definitions, I think that's a really solid piece of, of the work that's been done. And, um, as a side note, I, I, I do want to acknowledge again that, that, um, everything that PBOT's been bringing forward is what PBOT was asked to do. And so I really appreciate the work that's been done and the detail on that. Um, we've talked a little bit about accountability and liability and the question over who is responsible if and, and obviously when something goes wrong. And that's a very difficult thing that has not yet necessarily been hammered out in usually state law around the country. And then finally, there's a broader conversation about local autonomy. I understand that there's a desire to have a single market concept effectively. The state has an interest in having sort of commerce operate by the same rules in different parts of the state. And there's— I'm not disputing that. I do think it makes sense to talk about about the fact that we have a role as a city in regulating our right-of-way. That's not designed to be statewide. That's why the cities have that. Um, we also have, um, privacy. We have safety and emergency vehicle management, right, and freedom of movement for them. And workforce support are all things that we do at the city. Um, so this is not necessarily something where we're trying to take authority from them. It's trying to hold the line and prevent the authority from being taken from us. As we get into sort of proposing the policies, amending the definitions and all that exactly as written here, I think makes sense. Clarifying the city's authority and our operational standards, you know, there's a question, open question about whether permitting for testing should still be a part of this or not. But I think in terms of actual usage, that prohibition is clear, clearly a goal that Councilor Koyama Lane and I share. And ensuring that there's penalties if there is some sort of crossing into our jurisdiction from someone who's otherwise allowed to operate outside as well. What I think is really important to note is that this is the choice that makes sense because of its alignment with previous decisions of the City Council, previous decisions of this government. We've chosen to make, you know, our core values thank you. We have values around anti-racism and equity, collaboration, cooperation, transparency, fiscal responsibility. There's an element of 3 or 4 of those in this. We've chosen to create a data privacy and governance system. This aligns with that because the best way to prevent the sharing of data with the federal government is not to have it in the first place, especially knowing that one of the primary partners we would be working thank you. So the only thing that we would be dealing with if we would pass this would be someone who is actively sharing on a regularized basis data with the federal government. And it also aligns with our previous decisions in that space on Sanctuary City and Protect Portland Initiative just over a year ago in October of last year. So those are sort of the big picture pieces of this. I did also want to acknowledge, as I will do so, we We are not— we're not obligated to behave as though we know the future. We do not know what the state's going to do. They tried to do this last year. Fortunately for us, they did not do so in terms of preemption. I hope that we are able to stave that off again. But even if we're not, I think it's important that we don't comply in advance. Because because this is the— this particular industry is damaging to society the way that it is operating. Not in every single thing it does, not all new technology is bad, but in terms of this particular proposal and all that. Um, so I think we need to not assume that we're going to lose. I would like to fight. I would like to try and win at the state level. And the good news for us is we have an amazing and I think that part of this is also giving them the power and the direction to go out, to go forth and defend, right? It's not even conquer, it's go forth and defend us. And so I think that's the basic framework here, along with clarifying the direction we give our staff, because as I said, they've done a great job taking the direction that a previous councilor, Councilor previous Mitch Green, gave them. Thank you. Council gave them, and I think we need to update that direction, um, and supersede our old policy with a new one that, that says that all vehicles in Portland need a human driver. Thanks.
[01:46:46] Olivia Clark: Great, thank you. Um, so just a couple thoughts about that. Um, having worked for local government in the past and worked, uh, at the legislature and for a governor, there's only one governor that has made it a policy not to preempt local government, and that's Governor Kitzhaber. No mandates without money, and don't take away local authority. Since that time, there's been no hesitation to preempt local government. I think that's just an ongoing tension between state and local government. And while I didn't mean to comply in advance, I thought that, that we should be very prepared for what's coming. And I think we've had an excellent conversation, um, and really huge thanks to the PBOT staff that have been working on this forever, reaching out to all the other 15 cities that are suffering from the lack of ability to regulate. So I just wanted to position us so that we are smart about what may or may not be coming. And, um, I don't know that if something does happen, uh, that we can actually, uh, look forward to a veto on something like this at all. But, uh, it kind of comes down to simple politics, and historically local governments have been on the losing side. Yeah. So anyway, I think this has been a great conversation. Um, do we want to talk a little more about it?
[01:48:15] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Yeah.
[01:48:15] Olivia Clark: Go for it.
[01:48:16] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Go for I just wanted to say, I hear that, Chair, and I appreciate you bringing that expertise. And I think there definitely are times where you figure out how to do harm reduction or you find a good compromise. And I actually think that it's important that we have all of this information and we know that there are different routes to take. I do. I mean, the more that I'm in community too, I am feeling like there is an appetite for the public. They want to see us fight. And I even think about data centers and how much the governor has moved on that, how many legislators at the state have moved. I think this is an area that I could see some similarities. And so I don't think all this work that's been done is for nothing. I think it's important that we have like scenario A, B, C, but I, I would like us to very seriously consider this conversation. And, you know, maybe part of it is moving that Overton window, or, um, you know, maybe being able to think about changing some of the, the conversations statewide. Um, but I do think it's worth it for us to at least have this legislative concept of what would it look like if there was a ban.
[01:49:33] Olivia Clark: Absolutely.
[01:49:33] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Yeah, so thank you.
[01:49:35] Olivia Clark: Thank you. Absolutely. I think we have the rudiments of, of that, of what could be a legislative concept. Uh, Councilor Green, did you have your hand up?
[01:49:44] Mitch Green: I did, yeah. I just wanted to weigh in on this, uh, and, you know, thank you for your leadership on this, Councilors Koyama Lane and Councilors Kanal. And Councilor Clark, thanks for sort of entertaining this free-flowing discussion. This is, I think, how policy is supposed to be made in committees, as we have We can't talk 3 of us together about any of these things without violating quorum. So this is where we do it. So this sort of concept is exactly, I think, how policies start. And I really appreciate that. I tend to agree with everything that's been said, that I think that part of our work— and there will be differences of opinion on like theories of change and how politics works and all that. But I do think we have a moment to press a little bit and be part of moving the Overton window on some of these things. Yeah. Of these things. I can affirm that I think most of my constituent interactions reflect yours, which is to sort of say, you know, who asked for this? Let's not. Can we just— can we just not?
[01:50:42] Sameer Kanal: And—.
[01:50:42] Olivia Clark: Can we just not?
[01:50:45] Mitch Green: But I also want to say that I've heard some people say, well, hold on a second. Like, I do feel uncomfortable in a vehicle with someone I don't know. So we just need to be prepared for those conversations from folks who might want the AVs because they don't feel safe otherwise. And I just think we should confront that head-on and have an honest conversation about the balance of risks and trade-offs there. Mm-hmm. And I think that there's ways to mitigate all that. And I think if we resource the driver center, continue to invest in our drivers, we can meet that moment as well. I think these are the right problem statements and areas to amend our code, and I appreciate the kind of next steps for council action. I think it's important to sort of say, here's how we're going to amend code, but then we're going to pair this with a deliberate strategy with OGR to say, like, let's go on the offensive here. I kind of think it's on the offensive. Thank you. Personally. And I do think that there's opportunity to show support to those legislators who might be under pressure from these companies and say, look, you can stand up to them and we're here with you. We've got your back. And so I guess I'm kind of bullish on it, but I do— I respect your concern and risk and acknowledging the risk. Thank you. I think you've been in the Oregon State Legislature world longer than I have, and so I just want to honor that. And so this is a good discussion, and thanks for bringing this other concept. And I don't know how exactly it moves forward in terms of timeline, but I will help to the— we'll be able to support to the extent that I'm allowed to legally.
[01:52:36] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[01:52:37] Olivia Clark: Yeah, yeah, great, great comments. I, um, I hope, you know, I hope you're right. I hope that you're right, colleagues, um, about the changing winds, um, politically. Um, but I think we just need to be prepared. So I really appreciate the conversation. I, I get— oh, Trishana, you want to make a remark?
[01:52:57] Shoshana Cohen: Can I just ask a question? I'm just— is the intent to, um, ban private-for-hire AVs or all A/Bs.
[01:53:07] Olivia Clark: I think, why don't you give us a chance to talk about that amongst ourselves, and not in threes, but we can bring this issue back. I was going to say that we could bring it back in December if that works. I think the November agenda I was going to mention is pretty packed, but December we have time. So we can bring that back, and we can let you know well in advance what the intent is. So hold on to your hat, and thank you again for all the work that you've put into this, all the incredible research that you've done, time spent with the 15 other cities and those that are sort of in the queue in the same situation that we may be in. So I just really, really appreciate all of the work that you've done. Um, with that, I'd like to conclude this conversation if that's okay with my colleagues. No, no further comment. Thank you again. Thanks for all the audience members for coming today. I hope you enjoyed the conversation, um, got something out of it. We really appreciate you and appreciate your being here today, all of you, so much. So thank you. Colleagues, our next meeting is November and we are going to have a utility rate briefing. We'll have Councilor Koyama Lane's budget note under discussion and a chance to hear from members of the Public Utility Board. I have— could you guys take it outside? Could you, could you take it out, your conversation? Yeah, please take it outside.
[01:54:44] Unidentified speaker: I'm so sorry.
[01:54:44] Rebecca Dobert: No, no problem.
[01:54:47] Olivia Clark: It's the acoustics. I have read the pub report. I don't know if anybody else up here has, but I would encourage you to read their little report. And we'll— and you're inviting them, I believe, to, to, to be here on the 10th. We're also going to have, um, begin to look at a list of the technical fixes to the TUF. Uh, there isn't any other— I don't think there are any policy issues. There are some technical weeks that need to take place that we'll want to talk about that we'll have to bring as ordinances to take back to council. And I will not be here for that meeting. That will be chaired by Councilor Smith, our vice chair. So any other comments? So, okay, without further ado, I will adjourn the meeting of the Public Works Committee. Thank you.