City Council · afternoon

6:57Good afternoon.

6:59I'm calling back to order this recessed meeting of the Portland City Council.

7:03It's 2:02 on Thursday, October 29th.

7:06Keelan, could we please call the roll?

7:10Good afternoon.

7:11Clark?

7:12Here.

7:13Green?

7:15Here.

7:16Zimmerman?

7:17Here.

7:17Avalos?

7:20Here.

7:20Smith?

7:24I think he is.

7:25Here.

7:27Here.

7:28Thank you.

7:29Kanal.

7:31Pirtle-Guiney.

7:33Here.

7:34Ryan.

7:35Here.

7:36Koyama Lane.

7:38Here.

7:39Murillo.

7:40Here.

7:41Novick.

7:42Here.

7:43Dunphy.

7:44Here.

7:45Hank, would we please have your attorney read the rules of decorum for the chamber, please?

7:50Good afternoon.

7:51Welcome to the Portland City Council.

7:52To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.

8:05Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage.

8:09Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.

8:14Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.

8:17The presiding officer preserves order.

8:19Disruptive 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.

8:29If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.

8:32Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.

8:35Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.

8:39Additionally, council may take a short recess to reconvene virtually.

8:43Your testimony should address the matter being considered.

8:47When testifying, one, state your name for the record.

8:50Your address is not necessary.

8:522, If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.

8:56Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.

9:01Thank you.

9:02Thank you very much.

9:03Happy All Hallows' Eve Eve Eve to anybody who celebrates.

9:08Can we please call our first 2 items together?

9:12Item 13 and 14 are time-certain items.

9:15Document 2026-366, adopt the FY 2026-27 fall supplemental budget and make other budget-related changes.

9:26Item 14, document 2026-368, add budget and financial procedures code to create and direct the use of a subfund within the general reserve fund specific to the city's business license tax revenue.

9:41Add code chapter 5.90.

9:42Thank you very much, colleagues.

9:43These are second readings of non-emergency seeing no one in the queue or anyone hurriedly running to get to the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on 2026-366?

10:03Aye.

10:03Aye.

10:04Aye.

10:04Um, aye.

10:05Motion passes unanimously.

10:14Aye.

10:15Absent.

10:19Aye.

10:20Aye.

10:23Aye.

10:25Aye.

10:27Aye.

10:28Aye.

10:29Point of order.

10:31I'd like to cast my vote aye as well.

10:35Councilor Kanal votes aye.

10:36The ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.

10:40Thank you very much.

10:41And can we, uh, colleagues, is there any further discussion on our second document here?

10:46I suspect not.

10:48No, great.

10:48Can we please call the roll on 2026-368?

10:52Clark?

10:53Aye.

10:53Green?

10:55Aye.

10:56Zimmerman?

10:58Aye.

10:58Avalos?

10:59Aye.

10:59Smith?

11:00Aye.

11:07Aye.

11:09Aye.

11:12Aye.

11:13Aye.

11:15Aye.

11:16The ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.

11:19Thank you, colleagues.

11:20Item 15 is a time certain set for 2:30, um, which is not now.

11:26Uh, I would like to— can we call item, uh, 16?

11:33Please.

11:33Uh, document 2026-364, amend transportation fee schedule to establish an event parking rate within the Lloyd Event District and Zone V parking permit area, amend TRN 3.450.

11:50Thank you, colleagues.

11:50This is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance.

11:53Claire Adamczyk with Council Operations is here for a committee staff summary report.

11:56Welcome, Claire.

11:58Thank you, Council President and councilors.

11:59For the record, Claire Adams at Council Policy Analyst and staff to the Public Works Committee.

12:04The ordinance before you, document number 2026-364, was heard in the Public Works Committee on October 13th, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation to pass.

12:13The ordinance amends the transportation fee schedule TRN 3.450 to increase the hourly event parking rate from $5.40 per hour to $8 per hour in the Lloyd Event District and Zone V parking permit area in the Eliot neighborhood, as shown in Exhibit A of the ordinance.

12:32The event parking rate only applies when the Lloyd Event District is active and only to pay-to-park public parking spaces in the geographic areas of high demand as described by the parking assessment, which is in Exhibit B of the ordinance.

12:45The ordinance clarifies that the current $5.40 per hour rate for the existing pay-to-park public parking spaces in the broader Lloyd Event District outside of Zone V, which is the Moda Center Convention Center, remains unchanged.

12:59Future rate adjustments will be completed as part of the annual budget process included in the PBOT, or the Portland Bureau of Transportation fee schedule.

13:07The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts, economic and real estate development impacts, and community impacts and community involvement.

13:16One person provided testimony at the committee meeting on October 13th, and 4 people submitted written testimony on this item prior to committee action.

13:23Thank you.

13:24The general themes of this testimony included balancing the parking needs of residents with commercial business needs, with paid parking as a potential deterrent to customers of local businesses even on non-event days.

13:36A concern from a business owner who reports a nearly 65% year-over-year revenue decline following the Zone V expansion, forcing staff reductions and kitchen closure.

13:45A request from nearby neighborhoods for additional safety improvements, such as daylighting at intersections to improve visibility and safety, and a request for communication with PBOT to assess how parking management is working.

13:56In the event district.

13:57And finally, support for the changes as a component of the larger North Northeast Parking Management Plan.

14:02And that concludes the committee staff summary.

14:04Thank you.

14:04Thank you very much, Claire.

14:06Vice President Clark, this came out of the Public Works Committee.

14:08Any opening remarks?

14:10Yes, it did.

14:10Thank you, Councilor President.

14:12We had a nice discussion about this.

14:13It's really a good first step, as Claire mentioned, preceding the North Northeast Parking Management Action Plan.

14:21We heard all about the pressure in the neighborhood when there are games and more housing in the area.

14:28People are having a hard time finding parking.

14:30They buy a permit for their neighborhood, they can't find parking, they're still paying for it.

14:36So PBOT did— I think it was PBOT, or was it Plant?

14:38PBOT did a lot of outreach in the neighborhood, talked to a lot of people, went door to door.

14:45And I think for the most part, people think this is a really great idea.

14:49And we've done this in other places in the city.

14:52It's not that unusual.

14:54Okay.

14:54Thank you.

14:55Councilor Ryan may not like it, but— and anyway, um, it's also going to allow the city to highlight the neighborhood with, uh, Rip City Communications so they can highlight this new parking situation when there are games.

15:08Um, so I think it's a good bill, should pass.

15:11Thank you, Vice President Clark.

15:13Colleagues, are there any technical or clarifying questions?

15:15We have folks here from PVOT if there are.

15:18Councilor Knoll.

15:19Thank you, Council President.

15:21Um, So I voted for this in committee, but there was something that was still on the sort of unresolved issues list.

15:29So PBOT has met one-on-one with my staff, briefed me, and I also engaged with this on October 13th in committee.

15:37I mentioned that District 2 has been hearing from Lazydays Brewing about how they are negatively impacted and was told outreach would be done.

15:43So I have a question and a comment.

15:45The question is, what— has the outreach happened?

15:47What's the nature of the outcomes there?

15:49And thanks for being here.

15:50Good afternoon.

15:51Millicent Williams.

15:53Interim Deputy City Administrator for Public Works.

15:54Thank you so much for the question, Councilor.

15:57Uh, I am certain that pee bottles are on their way here.

15:59The agenda got switched around a little bit, so, uh, I am aware of what's happening.

16:04Uh, but yes, the outreach, the, the direct contact with Lazydays has happened.

16:10Uh, and it wasn't just, hey, uh, this really doesn't affect you, but rather, this is exactly how it will not affect you in terms of how, uh, Customers for that establishment will be able to park.

16:23We are doing a number of things to include A signs that will say this is not an event night, so parking on this block does not go up to the $8 that would happen if it were an event night for those who are parking at those metered spaces.

16:41There, the A signs will be available, and I was just reading an email just prior to coming down, within the next couple of weeks.

16:50And the business was satisfied with the way that the bureau was reaching out and engaging to ensure that their business would not be negatively affected.

17:02I appreciate that answer.

17:04That might be new information for me in that last piece, so that's why I'm hesitating.

17:11And so I'm going to— The A-sign part?

17:13No, the part about the business being satisfied.

17:16That was the communication that I received from the team, was that they were satisfied with the approach that we were taking, or that the bureau was taking, and they were looking forward to continuing to work with us to figure out how to best solve for that problem.

17:30I'm going to do some verification with my team about what they've been hearing, but I'll just say what I was going to say anyway before, which is that I have an interest in potentially filing an amendment to exempt Flint between North Page and Russell.

17:42Unless PBOT would want to update it themselves to remove that stretch.

17:46I know that there are other councilors, including potentially my D2 colleagues, who've been reached out to by this particular business.

17:53So yeah, I'm seeing a nod over there, so I'll let them speak because I know Councilor Ryan at least is in the queue.

17:59But that's, I think, the floating before testimony piece.

18:03Thank you, Councilor Knoll.

18:04Councilor Ryan.

18:05Yes, thank you, Council President.

18:06Because of the vote that y'all took in committee, I think all of us in D2 started getting notes.

18:11And what I learned is that the Panhandle, I'd rather call it a Panhandle than a finger, it's 3 blocks.

18:21And I'm not hearing any pushback from the more dense populated streets of North Vancouver.

18:29That's correct.

18:30Right?

18:31And North Mississippi.

18:32That's correct.

18:32It's when you, not Mississippi.

18:35Williams, Vancouver.

18:36Williams and Vancouver, sorry.

18:38But on North Flint, where you have the middle school and the park and there's some businesses, that's where the confusion was.

18:47And it's that confusion I think all Portlanders experience.

18:50It's almost like a satire comedy where you can park here from blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but if it's this day and it's this time, then you can't.

18:58And so you kind of stop and you try to read this 4 different signs and you conclude that you have no idea what it just said.

19:07And so they drive around, and then if they do park there after reading the sign again for like 5 minutes to try to understand it, they think they better pay.

19:17And then they realize it just cost them $8 to have one beer, and so they don't want to come back.

19:22So it's really impacted this business quite dramatically.

19:27And It was doing the walk.

19:29You know, it's always great.

19:30That's why we have, you know, regional people, geographic opportunities to go dig a little deeper.

19:36And so I would say that the thought, the proposal that you just mentioned, Councilor Kanal, about considering an amendment to not include North Flint for a few blocks where, again, it's mostly a park, mostly a middle school.

19:52I'm sure the parent drop-off people have been having some moments too trying to figure out these signs.

19:56Yeah.

19:58Really different than the other 2 blocks.

19:59So I think that that's something that perhaps the committee didn't have a chance to chew on as much when you did this deliberation.

20:06The sign, which, thank you, and I really do appreciate your staff.

20:09Hi, Matt.

20:10You guys, it was great.

20:11I do feel listened to.

20:12I think that meeting might have helped produce this.

20:15That's right.

20:16And it's— can you all see this visual?

20:19Yeah, it's not a very big one.

20:20I didn't know I'd have to use it.

20:21But it would be big.

20:22It would be on both the parking city— the parking kitty a sign, but there would also be large signs because I know Councilor Yu specifically spoke to the fact that you can't see the no parking during X number of hours signage that's sometimes posted over a place where a person would normally be able to park.

20:38So there's going to be something on the parking city signs or on the parking signs as well as A-boards to let folks know that this is what is or is not happening during these times.

20:48I think I understood that, but will the signs still confuse people because there's so many different—.

20:54The hope is not.

20:55We don't— we're not like a lot of cities that have 5, 6, 7 signs on one pole.

20:59We try to limit the number.

21:00A 5 on this one.

21:01Uh, we try to limit the number.

21:03And so part of what the— I'm— here they go.

21:06Yes, please.

21:07Thank you.

21:08Waiting.

21:08Uh, phone a friend.

21:09Uh, I was, uh—.

21:10So, but back to this, is it like a sandwich board, or—.

21:14Thanks.

21:14When I say a board, that's what I'm talking about.

21:16So do the businesses have to pay PBOT to get a sandwich board?

21:20No.

21:20Okay, that was a good answer.

21:22And I haven't had a chance to talk to the business person, so I would probably want to do that before I am definitive.

21:29But I want to acknowledge that I felt listened to in the meeting that we had after our outreach.

21:35And I think that Councilor Kanal and I will continue to listen.

21:39But I'm not saying that it's still not a good idea to consider excluding parts of North Flint from this legislation.

21:45I don't know if you heard that.

21:46I don't know if Councilor— I mean, if Director Cully heard the request for potential exclusion the entirety of Flint?

21:53Yeah, just making the panhandle a little short, uh, not quite 2 blocks instead of 3, maybe.

21:59Okay, thank you.

22:02Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

22:04Vice President Clark.

22:05Oh, thanks.

22:07I was just going to say, isn't this very similar to what we do at Providence Park?

22:11It's just— is it the same idea?

22:13It's the same idea.

22:14Uh, Providence Park has one rate during events, this would create a second— so there's one rate right now around Moda in that event district.

22:23This would create a second rate in the most parked-up areas, which is about 96% utilization during events.

22:32Right.

22:33So if we raise the rate to $8 in this one band, the idea is that it pushes, it pushes that folks that are currently parking there into the Uh, event district that where the rate is about $5.60.

22:47Yeah, we should put this map up.

22:50It'd probably make it a lot easier for us in this discussion.

22:53I don't know that I have—.

22:55I'm going to keep showing visuals from my—.

22:57That presentation.

22:58That's what I was thinking about when I was, uh, talking about, uh, the— well, I didn't get to talk about the subdistrict essentially, where it's just a very small band, as Wendy has mentioned, where that those couple of blocks goes to $8.

23:12Everything else in that blue, uh, stays at the $5.40 or $5.60, uh, an hour for the event rate.

23:18And this business owner who walks home, he, he lives in the area that's impacted in this—.

23:24And he likely has a parking pass.

23:26And so this is also addressing the need that has been articulated by those who have parking passes, who pay for those on an annual basis, and they can't find parking when they come home because there's an event that's going on.

23:36Yeah, and he said it's different in those 2 blocks than it is just one block over.

23:40That's correct.

23:42Yeah, I don't have the presentation.

23:46We can try to get it while we keep talking.

23:49Yep.

23:50I think sometimes we take things from committee, it's still important for the entire council to have some of those visuals when we have a first reading.

23:58Yeah.

23:59And Councilor, would you mind turning your binder around real quick so Kristi can see which of—.

24:03You know the map.

24:04Slides.

24:05He wants to see that.

24:06It shows the— it shows the Panhandle here.

24:09Yeah, on the very north end of Flint.

24:12It's a very lovely map.

24:14It's very clear.

24:15I'll keep it.

24:17Hi, um, Kristen Hull, PBOT's interim deputy director for planning programs and projects, for the record.

24:24I'm sorry for being late.

24:27Um, did you have a question about this particular slide?

24:30He wants to share the visual.

24:31You'd like to share the visual?

24:32There it is.

24:33There it is.

24:33There we go.

24:34Thank you, whoever did that.

24:35Was that Adam?

24:36Adam did that.

24:37Some magical person who we're grateful for.

24:39He's so great.

24:40Don't we love Adam?

24:41Okay, there we go.

24:44So this is the image that Councilor Ryan was asking about.

24:47And to your point, instead of making it a panhandle, you'd like to make it a finger, or a finger versus a panhandle, or—.

24:55I just wanted to change the language from finger to panhandle.

24:59Okay.

24:59It felt more charitable.

25:02Yeah.

25:04Understood.

25:05Okay, great.

25:06Councilor Kanal.

25:07Yeah, just to be clear, there's the text, uh, would say the Lloyd— this is, uh, the Lloyd Event District will not include North Flint between North Page and North Russell.

25:18That could also be North Tillamook and North Russell depending on the, the side of the street, um, that's simply adjacent to the, um, the park, which is the Page part.

25:28Or if you went all the way down to Tillamook, could be the part across the street from the school as well.

25:32Yeah, it's Harriet Tubman in the park there, so it'd be North Tillamook to North Russell on North Flint.

25:42That's the—.

25:42Russell, that's the proposal.

25:45And I—.

25:45Sorry, the, um, the block faces, um, approaching on Tillamook are not proposed to be part of the enhanced event district.

25:53Um, if we go forward one slide—.

25:55No, it goes from right now, it goes from North Tillamook to North Russell on Flint at, at $5.40.

26:01Right, exactly.

26:02Oh yes, okay.

26:02And so you would like no event parking on those blocks?

26:07Based on what I've listened to, I'm questioning why we would just— if we could narrow it by one block instead of having it be the 3 blocks from North Tillamook to North Russell, have it just be the 2 and not include North Flint.

26:22Is that what you've been hearing as well?

26:23Yeah, it would be the— so the, the— you can see here that the upper portion of the map, it's the west side and east side of Vancouver, the west side of Williams.

26:32That's what's being proposed that is not a controversial part.

26:36And then the east side of Flint is the part that we're talking about potentially excluding from basically where it gets a little covered up by the I-5 off-ramps at Tillamook all the way up to Northeast Russell.

26:48And there's Page is the unmarked street in between those 2 horizontal streets on this map.

26:53Okay.

26:54So that's the shorter version is from Flint, from Russell to Page.

26:58The longer version is Flint from Russell to Tillamook.

27:01Okay.

27:02But it's both sides of the street and it's north, not northeast.

27:05Colleagues, we have some folks who are signed up for public testimony.

27:08We've got some really good technical and clarifying questions, but I also hear some conversation around amendments and some other further discussion.

27:13So— Council President?

27:15Yes, Council President.

27:17I have a question.

27:19Related to the discussion that was just happening while this map is up.

27:22Do you mind?

27:23Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, go ahead, and then we're going to get to public discussion.

27:25Councilor Green, I will not skip you.

27:27I'll come back to you.

27:28It's after.

27:29Okay.

27:30I just want to make sure I understand the proposal that my colleagues in District 2 are bringing forward.

27:35This is the first that I've heard about this.

27:36So as I understand it right now, both sides of all 3 streets are under this permit requirement?

27:44Correct.

27:44Is that correct?

27:45Correct.

27:46Okay.

27:47And we are looking at taking an area that already has a patchwork of different types of, um, permit or not, paid or not, different levels of paid event or not.

28:00So there's already a patchwork here.

28:02So in the proposal that you are bringing forward today, what exists currently on North Flint Avenue on those 3 blocks?

28:12So the current zoning is and what does the proposal before us today put in place on North Flint Avenue on those 3 blocks?

28:21What is the change in this proposal?

28:24Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, I can answer that.

28:26Um, the ordinance today is simply to change the, um, the meter rate on the blocks that are outlined in red on the screen from $5.40 to $8 an hour.

28:42The proposal today that PBOT is bringing does not propose any changes in what Councilor Ryan has called the Panhandle, those blocks north of Tillamook on Flint, Vancouver, and Williams.

28:53And so that is outside of today's proposal, but it's definitely something we've been hearing about from both council members and community members through this outreach process.

29:01But the proposal today, as I understand it, does not expand the permit area at all.

29:06It just frankly further creates patchwork in terms of the pricing so that you can address those areas where folks weren't able to find street parking.

29:18Is that accurate?

29:19It addresses an area that where the land use is primarily residential, and we want to make sure that those residents who have purchased permits from the city are able to Okay, thank you.

29:37Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

29:39Keelan, can we please call our public testimony?

29:44We have Miranda Martin.

29:53Miranda Martin.

29:58Okay, that's all we had signed up.

30:01Okay, well, easy enough.

30:03Great.

30:04Miranda, if you come in late because you thought it was later on the agenda, we'll find you.

30:07Uh, Councilor Green, and colleagues, we are now into full council discussion, not just technical and clarifying questions.

30:12So Councilor Green kicks off.

30:14Yeah, I just, uh, thank you, Council President.

30:16I just want to clarify, this was a— which block are you trying to exempt?

30:21Councilor, it's—.

30:23We're not into discussion of the amendment yet, but I wanted to pick up on that conversation.

30:27Yeah, it's North Flint, so there's 3 blocks.

30:31There's Williams, Vancouver, and Flint.

30:33Williams and Vancouver have both commercial and densely populated residential, and they really do want this.

30:44Along North Flint, half of the site is the Harriet Tubman School in the park, and the other side is predominantly commercial.

30:51And it's where Lazydays is?

30:53And that's— yes.

30:54And they're, um, they've been impacted by this quite, um, considerably since it's been implemented.

30:59I, I guess I— what I think I'm struggling with is on that map, it does not look like that is part of the proposed 8.

31:06Am I missing something?

31:09No.

31:09Okay, so— oh, you're correct, it is not part of the proposed 8.

31:13It's the 540 that's that's the conversation.

31:15They have a lower rate.

31:16Yeah, but they're still being added.

31:18And the numeral 5 is this up at the top here.

31:22That vertical line that goes behind the 5, for those following along, is the road we're talking about.

31:29And so you want to—.

31:31What, maybe I'll wait for the amendment to be introduced, uh, see the specific language.

31:36I think my sort of reaction to this is if we're doing something ad hoc relative to the zone approach, then won't that just incentivize people to park over there during game day?

31:47Like, how does that not then just become the overflow spot for people trying to evade the $8 rate?

31:53Not a—.

31:54Well, they wouldn't because they want their customers to drink, right?

31:57And if they're at the Moda Center and their car is just parked there, it's just being stored there.

32:03Well, that's— hey, I always take the bus to the bar.

32:04But, uh, uh, I guess that's where I'm going with this, and I— maybe I'll wait to see the formal amendment because I think there's something I'm missing here, but I worry about the sort of patchwork deviation creating the very—.

32:18Oh, I always worry about stuff like this.

32:19This is rare for me to want to speak up on with such an edit.

32:23Um, the $8 area that was added, that is where the pain point has mostly been.

32:30Yeah.

32:30And then it's also been extended, hence you can see that this panhandle does really stick out.

32:37It's different than some of our event districts where it's a little bit tighter.

32:40So that's why we keep mentioning the Panhandle that has been called a finger.

32:45So it's down, it's, it's south of I-5 there?

32:48No.

32:50It's north.

32:51Well, though, I-5 is to the west, Councilor.

32:57I could go on a lovely walk with you over there if you'd like.

32:59Um, there's 3 blocks.

33:01In the panhandle.

33:05Okay, so you want to come out of the Zone 5 permit area, not come out of an $8 rate area?

33:12I think that's the thing that would be—.

33:13Absolutely.

33:13We're not talking about anything but see North Tillamook, and then you see North Russell.

33:18Yeah, just hang out in there, and then it's just on the very west side of that is North Flint.

33:24So you just want that, that block or just that sort of part to be not part of the shaded Zone 5.

33:31I'm struggling to see the value of adding that.

33:33Yes.

33:34And currently it's the confusion of the signage, actually.

33:37And I do want to thank you again for remedying that, if in fact these sandwich signs work.

33:42Because so I got to experience what their headache was about myself because I spent time reading the 4 signs to try to figure out what they were saying to me.

33:54And it was really clear that I didn't want to park there.

33:57So I can imagine— I got to experience why customers haven't been going there since those signs were put up.

34:03Okay.

34:05All right.

34:06Well, I think I understand what you're trying to do.

34:09I think the thing I— you know what, it's your district.

34:13I think I'll leave my questions be, but I do think it just creates an incentive for people to leave their parks there.

34:20Their cars there for a long period of time and get in the way of the commercial traffic.

34:25But I'll just, I'll just leave it at that.

34:26Thanks.

34:27Thank you, Councilor Green.

34:28Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

34:29Thank you, Council President.

34:30I just, um, I want to make a note about the underline and the $8 area.

34:36I had the opportunity to meet with PBOT about this.

34:41There has been a lot of conversation in my district about this parking area generally.

34:47There is a significant patchwork in this area.

34:49There are some places that are never paid and some that are always paid and some that are sometimes paid at different rates.

34:55And that's led to a lot of confusion.

34:57I just want to reiterate up here what I asked in that one-on-one meeting, which is that we increase information, information left on cars in the neighborhood before enforcement starts so that folks who live in the neighborhood who have not had the opportunity yet to purchase permits to reserve guest permits or to take advantage of the reduced-cost permits have the ability to do that.

35:25I also asked that when enforcement occurs, that if PBOT is going to try to ensure that this is an area where parking is available for residents, they put the resources toward enforcement, at least in the first few weeks of an event.

35:43Season to drive that point home, that this is not kind of a halfway done thing, um, and that there is clarity about when it's time to pay and when it's not time to pay, which it sounds like my colleagues in D2 have asked about as well.

36:00So I just want to confirm with you both up here today that those things are all underway so that this reaches its intended purpose, but residents and businesses who have folks coming for events or staff who are worried about those guest permits know what their options are, how to access those options, and also so that people have clear, like I said, information about that reduced-cost permit to make sure that there's not a barrier for folks based on income.

36:29All of those things are in progress.

36:31We've identified games or events in this early part of the season where we can really focus on enforcement, and we actually have staff In addition to our enforcement officers, PBOT staff out talking with folks about, um, about paying and understanding their responsibility to pay if they're parking in the event district without a permit, as well as doing additional outreach to residents in the permit area.

36:52And I will note that we've also begun some outreach on the Panhandle area north of Tillamook to talk about how we might, with the interests of all the, all the stakeholders in mind, come up with some proposed solutions to address the issues that Lazydays is having, but without disregarding the, um, the permit holders who live in that area as well and might expect to have their— the permit they've already purchased, um, be consulted before we make changes that affect the, um, usefulness of that permit going forward.

37:24So we've begun some outreach with— there are, um, there's one in place, uh, on Flint, one in place, uh, multifamily housing is right next door to Lazydays, um, where we have— I think we have, um, I think about 3 dozen permit holders in that area, um, total in that the Panhandle area.

37:44So we just want to make sure we're consulting with, um, the business owner, the school, and the residents in that area before you make any changes to the Panhandle.

37:52We are though immediately making some of the changes that Councilor Ryan referred to in terms of trying to improve the signage offering Lazydays some kind of graphical resources that can help with clearer communication in the short run.

38:07Thank you very much for confirming all of that.

38:09I appreciate it.

38:10And thank you for the work that folks at PBOT are doing to make sure that the balance here is working for as many folks in the neighborhood as possible.

38:20Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

38:21Vice President Clark.

38:22Thank you, Council President.

38:23It's my sense that this was really just a first step given the fact that games are starting.

38:30We need to do something now, but it's part of a larger effort to do the North Northeast Parking Plan.

38:35So that's still coming, but this was, I think, meant an interim step meant to deal with the pressure that comes from the games.

38:43Is that, is that right?

38:44Do you want to add anything about the, the coming plan, the larger plan?

38:49Um, we also have, have a prepared North Northeast Parking Plan We finished work on it long enough ago that we want to do some more stakeholder consultation to make sure new businesses that have come in also understand how that parking plan might affect their future and have an opportunity to participate.

39:09So we're refreshing that public engagement now and we'll be ready to come back to you early in 2027 with the full Northeast Parking Plan.

39:17The first thing we'll be asking you to do is directing us to set up a stakeholder advisory committee to do the plan implementation.

39:24So there's a lot of details to work out, but Councilor Clark, you're exactly right.

39:28It is— this is wanting to not— we want to make sure that we're responding to the needs of this particular group of neighbors at the beginning of the very busy event season, even as we continue that outreach and, and talking with all of you about the larger plan.

39:44I really appreciate you trying to get ahead of the game situation, but I think my colleagues in District 3 need to know that Thank you, Vice President Clark.

39:57Councilor Ryan.

39:58Yeah, I want to first acknowledge PBOT.

40:01Thank you.

40:01This has been a good dialogue.

40:03I do think that we have to continue to land the right action for just North Flint for 2 to 3 blocks, I believe it is, on both sides of the street.

40:14I've heard that there's one permit in that specific area, and I think that we need to make sure that we're the majority are in the part of the Panhandle that has— because that's where the issue has been.

40:25And I think that we might need to wait until we— I'd like to do more outreach with a couple of the businesses along there to see if this solves all of their problems, or if in fact it would be necessary.

40:41And that is what I heard when I was around them.

40:43Okay.

40:43Is to add those 3 blocks between Tillamook and Russell on just North Flint, nothing else.

40:52So if this first reading means that we slow walk it or you wait until there could be an amendment next week that we have more clarity about, if in fact we need one, that's where I'm at today.

41:05I don't think we just— I don't want to support this as it is right now.

41:10Okay.

41:11Until I know that we remedied this challenge that I don't think we were foreseeing, because you, again, you handled 90% of this really well.

41:19And the biggest headache that's been going on for years is the area that's $8.

41:23That's where I was always hearing from constituents.

41:26Thanks.

41:28Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

41:29Councilor Knoll.

41:30Thanks.

41:31So yeah, I think the multifamily— thanks for being here, Kristen— the multifamily that building that you're referring to, is that the one you're talking about on the backside of, of Lazydays?

41:43So the one that actually borders Vancouver, like egress is— okay, so that wouldn't be directly affected by, by this in the sense of residents having, um, the parking they would normally try to go to on Vancouver being, um, exempted, um, and, and therefore filled with, with, uh, eventgoers.

42:02But Flint would.

42:03And so this is the— Yeah.

42:04Agreed with— I think it's It's 3 blocks in the normal grid, 2 blocks in this particular area because there's long blocks there.

42:14But the amendment that we were looking at would be to the ordinance, Part B in the directives, just adding at the end the text that I read earlier, which is the Lloyd Event District will not include North Flint between North Russell and either, you know, Pager or Tillamook here.

42:35We can write that amendment.

42:36I, I'm assuming if you have— there may be a better way that PBOT would want to do it.

42:42Um, so I'm okay if you take the first try.

42:44I think that does what Councilor Ryan is talking about in terms of we, we need a second reading and then probably a third reading for it in that scenario if we were giving them time to come back.

42:53But, or we can just do this.

42:54I think that it's, it's a pretty straightforward sentence.

42:57It's like 13 words.

42:59So, you know, I don't want to necessarily move it if there's a particular reason not to do it that way, but I wanted to raise it.

43:07And we're going to— we're in the process of reducing to writing and sending to the clerk just to have it.

43:12But yeah, again, end of Part B, the Lloyd Event District will not include North Flint between North Tillamook and North Russell.

43:23Oh yeah, we— I think we need to do some investigation on how this was formed and what, what we might need to undo to take these blocks out and who we need to talk to.

43:38Oh, I don't think I introduced myself before.

43:41Uh, Wendy Cully, interim PBOT director, for the record.

43:44And the concern is that, um, there are some— and I am not the right person to answer this question, so I'm going to preface this— there are some staff has flagged for me that there are some code issues in terms of the actual process for making those changes, and I just want to make sure that what we're, what we're proposing today is consistent with the requirements in code.

44:02Our project manager for this work is on vacation today, and she would be able to answer all of those questions, but I just know she's flagged for me that there are some steps we would need to follow.

44:12And I appreciate you both being here and, and filling in.

44:14Sorry.

44:15Thank you, Councilor Knoll.

44:17Councilor Novick.

44:19Thank you, Mr. President.

44:20I just want to make something absolutely clear that I think I know the answer to.

44:23All that PBOT is coming up to us today to talk about is increasing from $5.40 to $8 along the red lines.

44:33The $5.40 and the 3 blocks that the 2 councilors are talking about is a pre-existing condition, not something that your proposal is doing anything about.

44:44That's correct.

44:44That, that pre-existing condition went into effect last January.

44:48Last January?

44:49Or maybe late December.

44:51Yeah.

44:52Thank you.

44:54Thank you, Councilor Novick.

44:55Councilor Zimmerman.

44:57Thank you.

44:58You know I love to unwind some parking increases, so I'm not going to do that today.

45:05Um, but I just— if this works for the neighborhood, if it doesn't work for the neighborhood, I just wanted to signaled to my colleagues, like, I hope that you District 2 councilors will make yourselves very clear for where you're at, because my plan is to support wherever the majority of you vote.

45:22Because, like, this is a great example of— I'm going to defer to the district councilors on it.

45:28And I say that mostly as advice for the county— excuse me, the city administrator and for the council president.

45:35And I'm just going back to practices with district councilors, district commissioners at Multnomah County.

45:43This is an item that would've absolutely been walked into every commissioner's office who represented that area to make it clear so that most of this discussion would've happened already so that there was deep clarity in a way that I think actually could be quite supportive so that we can just see District 2 looks like they are satisfied.

46:07We aren't in that practice very well, and I think we aren't in that practice because we are using committees as a crutch, and it ignores the district aspect often.

46:16So I would just use this as an example because this has been a good discussion, and maybe it didn't have to happen this long.

46:25So I, I just— there's a role here for districts.

46:29There's a role for walking the floor that the City of Portland hasn't quite gotten its practice into that I think would be a great return, and this is a good example.

46:36So I just wanted to highlight that of this should have been walked to the floor.

46:40District 2 should have been satisfied.

46:42If they couldn't be, then worthy of it, but offer that up.

46:45But hopefully to my District 2 colleagues, you will all make yourselves known how you're going to vote eventually, because I plan to support wherever the majority is at.

46:51Thank you.

46:52Thank you.

46:53And just, uh, to my colleagues, just to note, this is a first reading of a non-emergency ordinance.

46:58Uh, we are— we have the ability to I'd like to just sort of clarify for my colleagues that if we move this to second reading today, um, and next week the councilors from D2 determine that in fact this is a vital amendment that must happen now, uh, we can move it to a second, second reading in order to actually pass it that way.

47:18So, um, unless we are convinced that this is the direction we're ready to move to introduce an amendment.

47:24So, um, jumping back into the queue of colleagues, Councilor Ryan followed by Green.

47:28Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

47:29Yeah, I wanted to just read this from the gentleman who owns the brewery that we've been talking about.

47:35This was implemented on January 1st.

47:37First of all, I know we've kind of gone back and forth on the exact date.

47:40January 1st, 2026, to include the stretch of North Flint in front of our brewery, our sales have dropped to the point where my former staff of 9, including a general manager, 5 bartenders, 3 cooks, is now a single bartender and myself.

47:54With enforcement in full gear, we noticed the drop of sales around March, which continued through the summer.

48:02And this is— I really think this is me adding something that he didn't write— that's around the sign confusion that has caused this, which started as a cut to prep hours eliminated the closure of our kitchen in September.

48:18So implementing this in January has had a very big impact on this business in Portland, and we're trying to really be more sensitive to our small businesses.

48:27This is those of us in our district listening to that and realizing that a policy that we put in motion has had harm on this business.

48:37And so we're trying to fix that before we formalize it further.

48:41And so thank you for having more time to get this right.

48:45Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

48:47Councilor Green.

48:49Yeah, I— to, to Councilor Novick's point, the thing on the table is just changing the area with the orange stripes.

48:59So why don't you two bring forward a code change proposal to deal with that other piece outside of this process and let this piece move forward so we can actually put in practice the parking scheme that will actually help prevent these neighbors in this neighborhood from losing access to parking during a game.

49:19That would be my suggestion.

49:20Can I say something to that?

49:22It won't take long.

49:22I think it'll be helpful.

49:24That's like exactly what we're trying to do.

49:26And so I think that this dialogue we're having with PBOT, having you help create amendment with us, is the right action going forward.

49:34And we're not going to do that right now up here on the dais.

49:37So allow us between this week and next week to work together to see what that might look like.

49:41Is that fair?

49:43Okay, we're happy to help.

49:45Yeah, I think it's better than us crafting it.

49:47I'd rather have you stay in the game because this is what you know best.

49:51Thanks.

49:54Councilor Green, you still have the floor.

49:55Well, yeah, I think what I, what I'm saying though is now we have to delay— we have to keep having readings on this.

50:03If we're going to bring back an amendment next week, then it goes to another reading.

50:06So we just— we're just going to keep talking about this where we could just acknowledge that you're— you can create a side process and work on that with PBOT and get it right and bring it forward to the committee, and we could just move this to a second reading next week.

50:21That's, that's what I would advocate.

50:22So thanks.

50:24Thank you, Councilor.

50:25Councilor Novick.

50:29Yeah, I just want to second that.

50:31I mean, I don't— in general, I don't think it's good process to hold something we all agree on hostage while we deal with something new.

50:38Thank you, Councilor Novick.

50:40Councilor Kanal.

50:42Yeah, I appreciate this question.

50:45I think— I don't think that the intention here from Councilor Ryan, and I can guarantee it's not from me, is holding this hostage or trying to hold it up.

50:56And I think either way, we're going to— if based on what Councilor Ryan said, which I agree with, we're going to end this first reading and put it into second reading.

51:02The question is whether next week we would be bringing back an amendment that would require a third reading effectively, uh, if it should pass.

51:11But I would say that this is not a standalone document about the red outlined pieces on this map that we're all still seeing on our screen.

51:22It's part Well, more than 2, but it's the next step in the plan that included earlier the creation of the blue area altogether.

51:31So this is parts of a whole, and it may not relate— it's a correction to Part 1 at the next time we talk about it, which is right now talking about Part 2, based off of what we learned from the implementation of Part 1.

51:44So I do think it's relevant and appropriate to reference it here.

51:47Councilor Herbold.

51:49I think it's also worthwhile to try and solve the problem while we're in the next time we're talking about the same broader project.

51:55Having said that, you know, if we were to go to second reading next week and not pass an amendment, we would still finish this at the same schedule we would if this amendment was never floated or discussed or brought forward.

52:09So basically next week we'll have hopefully a proposal that's been worked with by staff and by a couple, at least, of the D2 councilors.

52:17Thank you.

52:19And then colleagues would know what the, what the trade-offs are of passing that.

52:24That's how I would view, how I would characterize what the discussion is on this and what the process is.

52:28I think I'm seeing Councilor Ryan nod.

52:30Yeah, I want to remind us that we have rules that would allow us to get this amendment right and then have an emergency clause on the dais and get 9/12 votes to pass it.

52:40And something tells me it'll pass.

52:42We're just trying to figure out this one thing.

52:43So the timing isn't off as long as we do the emergency clause next week.

52:49Yeah.

52:51Okay.

52:53Councilor Ryan, did you have further comment?

52:55Okay.

52:55Thank you.

52:56Councilor Novick, did you have further comment?

52:59Okay.

53:00Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, I'm going to now pass this item to second reading.

53:07Thank you.

53:08Can we please call our time-certain item, item 15, document 2026-343.

53:15Amend the Portland Zoning Code, Portland Comprehensive Plan Map, and zoning maps to facilitate housing production and post-pandemic economic recovery and revitalization in the Central City.

53:25Amend Title 33, Portland Comprehensive Plan Map, official zoning maps.

53:31Thank you, colleagues.

53:31This is the continued first reading of a land use ordinance.

53:35The oral and written records are closed.

53:38We have 2 amendments that have been pre-filed for consideration, and we have staff available for technical questions.

53:46At this point, I would like to— I am bringing with Councilor Avalos a technical amendment on behalf of our colleagues at BPS.

53:53And so I would ask the appropriate team member to come briefly describe the technical amendment for us before I pass to Councilor Avalos for additional remarks.

54:01Okay.

54:02Or not.

54:05Welcome.

54:07Thank you so much.

54:08Good afternoon, Council President, Vice President, councilors.

54:13Um, do we— yeah, so we have a brief presentation that provides an overview of the amendments.

54:22Um, they are— okay, so we'll bring that up and we'll go through that.

55:06Okay, pardon for that delay.

55:09Uh, good afternoon again.

55:10So my name is Patricia Dieffendorfer, a chief planner with the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.

55:15I'm joined here by Rachel Hoy, who is a supervising planner in the bureau.

55:20Um, As noted, we— this is providing a quick overview of the proposed amendments.

55:27Next slide, please.

55:28So there are 2 technical amendments, one related to development standards for ground floor residential uses and another related to making some minor updates to a greenway inventory map that reflects natural resource— the location of natural resources.

55:48Thank you.

55:49So to go into just a little more detail, this amendment, again, related to development standards that would be applicable to ground floor residential standards, just clarified provisions related to the fact that an entrance must be located from— and a pedestrian connection from the street, and setbacks and spatial requirements.

56:14Thank you.

56:15For porches and patios for units that, um, front— that are on the ground floor that front a street.

56:21And this is, um, these amendments were identified, uh, to— that clarify language that was consistent with what the Planning Commission's intention was, uh, related to this amendment.

56:32So you can see the gray are the, the change— the changes in the language.

56:37And if you go to the next slide, it's— there are 2— it's listed twice because there are 2 options.

56:41There's an option related to when, um, an entrance is raised above the sidewalk and when an entrance is more or less at sidewalk grade.

56:51But the provisions are the same.

56:54So next slide, please.

56:57And then this again just shows the map that is being amended or updated.

57:03It is a map in the Greenway Inventory, and it shows the areas where natural— the rankings of natural resources.

57:13And this amendment is necessary to support the recommended amendments in the proposal that, uh, that, um, adjust the location of the river environmental overlay zone within, uh, Tom— Governor Tom McCall Waterfront Park.

57:29Okay, so those are the 2, um, technical amendments.

57:33Thank you very much.

57:34Uh, Councilor Avalos.

57:37Yeah, thank you.

57:38Um, thank you, Council President, for helping to introduce this, uh, clarifying amendment.

57:43I think that ultimately this is just to more clearly reflect the intent of the Planning Commission, uh, Planning and Design Commission, um, and then specifically clarifying requirements for the street-facing entrance and setbacks and the small porch or patio areas that we discussed.

57:59Um, and these, uh, are technical.

58:01They don't change the policy intent or the underlying package, but they make sure that the code language and maps accurately implement what was intended.

58:07So thanks again.

58:09Thank you.

58:09So colleagues, at this time I would like to move Dunphy-Avalos 1, which incorporates both of these 2 technical changes.

58:16And I would— Second.

58:17And Councilor Avalos seconds.

58:19Thank you.

58:19So colleagues, is there any discussion of this amendment?

58:24Okay, pausing for a second.

58:30Seeing no one in the queue for discussion of this technical amendment, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Dunphy-Avalos 1?

58:37Moved by Dunphy, seconded by Avalos.

58:39Clerk Aye.

58:43Aye.

58:48Aye.

58:49Aye.

58:51Aye.

58:52Novick.

58:53Aye.

58:53Aye.

58:53The amendment is approved with 12 aye votes.

58:57Thank you, colleagues.

58:58Councilor Green, you have a pre-filed amendment as well.

59:01Uh, thank you, Council President.

59:02Colleagues, I feel like it's been a while since we talked about this, so, uh, Refreshing my notes here for myself.

59:09But on the item page, you'll see the proposed text.

59:12And so what Green 1 does is remove the discretionary shadow study for areas outside of the central city.

59:22And, or I should say, let me step back a little bit.

59:29Yeah, so, oh gosh.

59:31I'm sorry.

59:36Give me one moment here.

59:38Yeah, okay.

59:40So I reached out to staff.

59:42I received some recommended amendments from some community members who have, you know, thoughts and opinions about how the Central City Plan should go.

59:50Knowing that you don't want to just haphazardly amend on the fly planning documents, I reached I reached out to staff and BPS and asked for some guidance and some advice on these amendments.

1:00:04There were 2 of them that the recommendation was, you know what, this is not appropriate for this process.

1:00:09And so I didn't push those forward.

1:00:10But then staff said there is one that we actually do think we can amend.

1:00:15And that was a suggestion to remove one piece of the discretionary shadow review.

1:00:20Staff's rationale for that was based upon 3 figures.

1:00:24Yes.

1:00:25One is that residential lots adjacent to the central city are small, and at least a few of them will be 100% covered by a shadow at noon or 3 p.m. on particular days of the year.

1:00:38And 2, despite number one, because the proposal requires the portion of the tower above 100 feet to have a narrow floor plate, the resulting narrow slender tower will cast a very narrow shadow and will move very quickly.

1:00:51So this is really just about that unlimited height.

1:00:53Piece in the discretionary shadow review.

1:00:57And then 3, Waterfront Park is large enough that no individual building will cast a shadow that leaves the park 50% covered by shadow.

1:01:06So Patricia, would you be willing to sort of add some color to that from BPS's perspective?

1:01:13Sure, I can.

1:01:14We have a slide with the language.

1:01:15Oh, that's even better.

1:01:17I didn't know you did.

1:01:17So I think it was also online.

1:01:19It's been online since the previous meeting on this item.

1:01:23But just to clarify, I think Councilor Green summed it up pretty well that there was this amendment because this project proposed an unlimited height track, which is a new track, a new way of achieving height in the central city that doesn't exist currently.

1:01:43Because of that, staff used a combination of some existing regulations and tried to apply them to this.

1:01:49Thank you.

1:01:50Unlimited height option.

1:01:53And so in doing so, kind of in an abundance of caution, there was— we drew on a provision that exists in the zoning code currently that allows for shadow analyses, and specifically when you're within a certain distance of residential areas outside of Central City.

1:02:10And it introduces— this is already in the code that there's a that one instance is an instance in which you do not have to have— the shadow analysis is not subject to the standards of the code, but rather to a review body determining whether there's an impact or not.

1:02:31So we extrapolated that, but for the reasons that Councilor Green just outlined, in these 2 instances, particularly in the unlimited height where there is this narrower tower, we did— we are not concerned about— we're not as concerned about that.

1:02:46So removing that requirement seemed like a reasonable accommodation for this request.

1:02:52And just by way of just a note, the requirement will remain for shadow analysis in the existing base and bonus system.

1:03:04And so I think that that is kind of the overview of that issue.

1:03:08Thank you.

1:03:08And thanks for reinforcing that last point.

1:03:11This doesn't do away with the need to do shadow analysis.

1:03:14It's just that sort of, if you're going to go from 75 feet to 100 feet or sort of that larger piece where you're dealing with a narrow tower.

1:03:24Right.

1:03:24And it sort of limits the scope of that shadow analysis where there isn't the— it's not subject to the objective standard and subject more to that discretionary you know, determination of impact.

1:03:38And so keeping— not requiring that kind of doesn't involve using that more discretionary process as much.

1:03:48Thank you.

1:03:48And I see some hands going up, and I'll just leave it with a motivation of my own.

1:03:56We talk a lot about what can we do to make it easier to build in the City of Portland that are sort of of what are some non-direct budgetary impact things that we can do to subsidize the construction process.

1:04:08And any opportunity I see to take away something that adds a step to the process and hence cost and time, I'm always looking to do.

1:04:18And so working with BPS to say, hey, this doesn't undermine the broader sort of general need to make sure that someone doesn't lose access to sunlight and all that.

1:04:28I thought that that would be a good improvement.

1:04:31So looks like Councilor Clark, you're the first one in the queue.

1:04:35Are you going to move your amendment?

1:04:36Oh, I'm sorry.

1:04:37Yeah, I would move Green 1.

1:04:38Thank you.

1:04:38And look for a second.

1:04:40Second.

1:04:41Councilor Green moves Green 1.

1:04:43Councilor Novick seconds.

1:04:44Colleagues, to discussion?

1:04:46Vice President Clark.

1:04:48Okay.

1:04:48Thank you, Council President.

1:04:49Okay.

1:04:50Councilor Green, I'm trying to get my head around this to understand.

1:04:52Are we— how is this going to impact the housing development.

1:04:57I want to make sure I understand what you're saying, and because I feel like we need to get out of our own way lots of times.

1:05:03I think that's what you're saying, is how do we facilitate, simplify, get rid of things?

1:05:09But the, the shadow analysis exists now, so I want to understand, are we simplifying?

1:05:15Is this going to make it easier to build affordable housing or any housing downtown?

1:05:20What's the impact of this?

1:05:21Yeah.

1:05:21It's a good question, and Patricia can correct me, but they added an unlimited height track based upon an iteration with the Planning Commission.

1:05:31So the Planning Commission was like, we actually think we should be able to go larger in some parts of the city.

1:05:36And as part of that sort of add, they applied some existing shadow study guidelines to that piece.

1:05:44So it carried forward an underlying shadow study piece, but what I'm trying to do is say, well, because we're looking at skinny towers and because we're sort of narrow or very hyper-focused on a part of downtown, we shouldn't apply the shadow study to the, to the 75 to 100 feet piece.

1:06:01So I'm trying to take off that extra thing that the BPS added out of abundance of cautious— caution.

1:06:07Okay, I appreciate that, that you're, you're trying to facilitate more development.

1:06:12I'm trying to facilitate more development.

1:06:13I'm trying to say, is there a piece of red tape we can take away?

1:06:17Gotcha.

1:06:17Perfect.

1:06:17Thank you.

1:06:18Thank you, Vice President Clark.

1:06:19Councilor Zimmerman.

1:06:22Thanks.

1:06:23So why should we keep a shadow study whatsoever?

1:06:29You're asking a— oh, actually, I, I, I'm actually— I would like to first go to staff, but then I, I kind of want to—.

1:06:35I'll go back to you, Councilor, because as I go through the unlimited height section My impression is it's a headline with no substance, and I don't like that because we look like a city who has so many colors of what you can do in one situation if the block is this way.

1:06:57The fact that there was a person that came and said, if you just tilt the building, it'll be okay—.

1:07:02I get really worried here because, um, if you build and live in the central city, I think there's a general understanding of what that comes with.

1:07:10I agree.

1:07:11So tell me, what is the value of a shadow study?

1:07:13I've never even heard the word until this process.

1:07:17So the shadow study is a requirement that just allows for some modeling so that you can see when a tower is proposed, where the shadow of that tower is going to be.

1:07:32And in the code, there are objective standards currently that say you're looking at 12 PM and 3 PM on equinox and solstice days, 'cause those are the days where your shadows are the longest.

1:07:45And so either the shortest or the longest, I guess I should say.

1:07:50That requirement, it's very common to have a shadow requirement.

1:07:53It doesn't— I mean, the objective standards in the code currently say you cannot, and we have a slide that shows what it is if you'd like to see that, but it basically— Yeah.

1:08:03It says at those hours, those particular hours on those particular days, you can't shade, shadow, or shade an area more than 50 or 75%, depending on what it is that you're shading.

1:08:18And so when you— the code currently has this base and bonus system, and I think the requirement is triggered, maybe Rachel can confirm this for me, when you're using the bonus height.

1:08:28Okay.

1:08:29Yes.

1:08:30And when you're— the current base and bonus system, there's no requirement to kind of sculpt or narrow your building, your tower, as you go higher.

1:08:41So that is one of the reasons why the shadow analysis is there, because you can go— you can do essentially 100% of your floor plate all the way up as high as you can do whatever your maximum height is.

1:08:55The way you're describing that makes it sound like that's a bad thing, and I'm looking at the building next door to us, and I know we can't build that anymore.

1:09:04So I'd like to understand why we're framing it as a negative, because I, I'm not sure that I'm in the category of I want to go really high, but only if they're skinny little towers like we're seeing happen in some other cities.

1:09:17I should say, so the example you give, I think, of the Portland building, No, no, Wells Fargo Building.

1:09:22A real big building.

1:09:23Yeah.

1:09:24A real building.

1:09:25Well, what I was going to say is it's not about shadowing anywhere.

1:09:28It's specifically about shadowing open, specific mapped open spaces.

1:09:32So in the central city, generally, a building can shadow another building, and one tower can shadow another tower.

1:09:38That is not at all what the shadow requirements are trying to address.

1:09:43The shadow requirements are pretty narrow, and they are narrowly to address specific mapped open spaces, namely the park blocks.

1:09:51Okay.

1:09:52And then there's also consideration of lower-density residential areas directly outside of the central city boundaries.

1:09:59So those are the only— That's basically past 12th on the northeast side.

1:10:03Yeah, exactly, right.

1:10:05And that is an allowance so that if you go from lower, you eventually are ramping up, but we could have towers on the river in essence.

1:10:12But not at maybe 11th because that would hit the non-central city growth zone.

1:10:16You could still have the tower.

1:10:17You just would have to have an understanding of what kind of shadow is being cast on adjacent low-density residential areas and determine if that's a significant enough impact that, you know, that the design of the tower should be— again, that tilt, that's actually a way that you address some of those those concerns that if there is, if it's deemed that there's a significant shadow, then sometimes just the way you design the building, where you site the tower on the lot or how you orient the tower on the lot can actually make a difference.

1:10:52So that's, it's not meant, these shadow requirements are not meant to prevent tall buildings in the central city.

1:10:58They're very narrowly about tall buildings and how they would impact, they would shadow limited open spaces that are— Okay.

1:11:07And the peripheral.

1:11:09That is a very helpful explanation for me.

1:11:11I have a real tough time with the idea of a property is following the law, they are in land use compliance, but because the neighbors don't like it— and I mean neighbors very broadly, just people who seem to think they have a say on it— that there's an idea that they get to use, and they'll look and like shadow.

1:11:29Now we're going to go and we're going to— my pen just broke— we're going to do that about shadow and say we're going to hold this up for a year and a half through a land use and LUBA and all this other garbage.

1:11:38I really think that is preventing us from being effective.

1:11:43And it was also this idea that if you don't own it, you can still control it through law.

1:11:48And so this was giving me some of that, that flavor.

1:11:51And maybe you've helped clarify that, and I really appreciate that.

1:11:56Let me move to a next point, but relatedly in this height, because I, I am happy to see it, but not allowed in historic districts.

1:12:06And Old Town Chinatown is a historic district, am I correct?

1:12:11Yes.

1:12:11Yeah.

1:12:12I can't think of a place in this city that I would rather have a commercial rate contributing building than that neighborhood.

1:12:24And it is such a depressed— and I use depressed in every way in which you might think of the word depressed— So I'm not sure I'm willing to carve out corridors of memories for the sake of them when there's nothing else going on.

1:12:42Like, we've got to work on some stuff.

1:12:44So how do we square this there?

1:12:46Yeah, so just— this is simply applicable to the unlimited height.

1:12:52We're saying the unlimited height track doesn't apply in historic district because there's already a Yes.

1:12:59In many cases, there's a base and bonus option already there where the height has been calibrated to whatever the existing condition is.

1:13:08So in the historic district, the heights— the properties in the historic district have— I believe they also have bonus heights, correct?

1:13:18I just want to confirm that.

1:13:20They have a height that is a permitted height, and then they have a bonus height that is allowed, and it's calibrated to the area and what the resource, you know, what is trying to be protected there in the case of historic district.

1:13:34So all this amendment only applies to the unlimited height track, which is a brand new track, which was introduced through this project by the Planning Commission.

1:13:44Yeah.

1:13:45And we're just saying that unlimited height is not an option in the historic district.

1:13:50You still have the ability to, to do whatever the height is that's allowed by the base and bonus system of the, of the underlying code.

1:14:00I don't want to— this I'll close with— I don't want to argue it too, too much more because I'm not sure how vast of a difference it would be there.

1:14:09I just, I have this sense of if somebody approached if you approached one of those particular vacant lots in Old Town Chinatown and wanted to go to the moon with a building, I'd have a tough time saying, shucks, I don't think you should.

1:14:27And so that's what I'm wrestling with because I just don't know that I hold those same— that same land use value around it and am kind of a let's get to yes wherever we can in the central city.

1:14:41And I say that because I— I agree.

1:14:43I fundamentally believe that as you get out from the central city, the ramping up to heights is an important way that you get neighborhoods not to just reject wholly any sort of development.

1:14:54But as a guy who represents the central city, I think we have to take on the highest towers, and I would look forward to it.

1:15:01And I think it's actually a thing I hope I die when we have plenty of bigger towers in downtown Portland and we can look to that as growth.

1:15:08So that's where I'm coming from.

1:15:10Okay.

1:15:11But I— your amendment, Councilor, is making this shadow study applies less in this unlimited space as it was compared to what it was written originally.

1:15:26Yeah, I understand that correct?

1:15:28Yeah, may I just direct respond?

1:15:29So that's exactly right.

1:15:31Just the, the area in red lines there, it's simply saying relative to this Planning Commission addition and all this unlimited stuff, I'm taking out this shadow study requirement.

1:15:42Okay.

1:15:42All the other things you said there, I— we're in strong agreement.

1:15:45Yeah.

1:15:46So if you want to take on tall towers together, Councilor, let's do it.

1:15:50I just didn't want to go too deep.

1:15:52Yeah.

1:15:52In this, because I know that you can't really pass a feasible amendment at this stage in land use process if you try to do too much at this stage.

1:15:58So that was my motivation.

1:16:00Thanks.

1:16:00And I apologize for, for getting outside of just what Councilor Green's amendment was.

1:16:04I got to be reeled back in.

1:16:05So, but I appreciate it.

1:16:06Thank you.

1:16:07Well, we're just slightly outside, and this really is sort of a D4 issue.

1:16:10So just because we're kind of going down the rabbit hole in Old Town, I was just wondering, Patricia, what you— the way you were describing what you can build in Old Town, can you be a little more specific?

1:16:20Like, really, how high can you go in Old Town?

1:16:22Sure.

1:16:23Okay.

1:16:23I'm going to have to rely on Rachel for that.

1:16:26But I will say just as a bit of an intro to that, that Thank you.

1:16:32This project, again, was not meant to be kind of a major wholesale update to the plan.

1:16:39So keeping— there has been a long history of, you know, regulating height in the central city as it relates to view corridors, historic districts, in very, you know, fairly modest ways.

1:16:53So just want to say that this is— we did not go into the the base and bonus system.

1:16:58And, um, other than increasing— you, you remember the map where we increased heights, um, bonus heights in a lot, a lot of areas— we didn't change the basic parameters of how, how that system works.

1:17:10But as far as Old Town specifically, I think I'll turn it over to Rachel and she can— Sure.

1:17:15Good afternoon, Commissioners.

1:17:16Rachel Hoy with Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.

1:17:19Um, I'm looking at some of our maps here.

1:17:22I mean, there's parts of Old Town where, um, you can go up to 250 feet with your bonus height.

1:17:30Other areas where it's 425— I mean, I think the areas to pay attention to that are lower are the Skidmore, the Old Town, the Skidmore District, and 13th Avenue.

1:17:44Those heights are capped at 75 feet.

1:17:47So there's a lot of flexibility actually within and allows for bonus heights within Old Town, and for that matter, also in the Grand Avenue Historic District in the Central East Side.

1:18:02And maybe I'll just note one other thing.

1:18:05I think that illustrates that not all historic districts are treated the same.

1:18:09I mean, Skidmore has a very— it's a National Historic District, and it has a very particular existing data point as far as height.

1:18:18Whereas in other areas where heights are not as uniform, the height limitations are not as significant.

1:18:25Oh, thank you for that.

1:18:26It just sounds like there's a lot of variation in Old Town and heights.

1:18:31Thanks.

1:18:32Thank you, Vice President Clark.

1:18:33Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:18:34Thank you, Council President.

1:18:36You know, I appreciate, Councilor Green, that you went to the Bureau to figure out how to do this.

1:18:41And so we're hearing from the Bureau why works, but it was originally in here for a reason.

1:18:46So I'd actually like to hear from the Bureau why you had originally included this language and what goals we might be giving up if we choose to take it out.

1:18:55Yeah, I, I think that it was included just, um, taking more of an approach of abundance of caution and just using similar, um, approaches that we already have in the code and applying them here.

1:19:09But I think the significant difference and the difference that seemed, you know, was compelling was that we have the sculpting requirements, so the requirement that once you exceed 100 feet, you then have to make quite a narrow floor plate.

1:19:25You're limited to a 12,500-square-foot floor plate going up, no matter how big your lot is.

1:19:33And that essentially If you have a 20,000-square-foot lot, for example, and your tower is 12,500 feet above 100 feet, you have a lot of area around you that naturally minimizes shadows.

1:19:49And we have other areas in the central city that already have the unlimited height that I believe Pearl and River Place and South Portland—.

1:20:00I'm hearing why not to do it.

1:20:02I'm trying to understand why it was originally in here because we're supposed to have this policy debate, and I can't have that policy debate if I only hear why to take it out.

1:20:12So originally this was included.

1:20:15Was that simply to mirror code elsewhere?

1:20:19Was that because there could still be impact, and in voting to remove it, we would be accepting that additional impact?

1:20:28Why was it originally included?

1:20:29I think it was originally in there just to be, again, to be consistent with code and out of an abundance of caution.

1:20:36Um, I, I think that there we, we did acknowledge that particularly on the periphery of the central city, if you have towers that are at the edge of central city and, um, you know, that are near, uh, residential, low-density residential areas outside of central city, you will have shadow impacts to, to parcels.

1:20:58Um, but the the narrower tower does limit the extent of time in which a lot would be shadowed.

1:21:08So given—.

1:21:102 Questions.

1:21:13The narrow tower, the 12,500-square-foot limitation, is that for a single block, for a single lot?

1:21:23Could it be that on a city block you actually have I don't know what the right number would be, but let's say 6 lots that all build to that height, whatever that is, and they all can because they're narrow, but it ends up taking up the bulk of the block because you have multiples of those on one block.

1:21:41I'm trying to understand the cumulative potential impact.

1:21:44Yeah, there, there could be potentially more than one tower even though they're narrow.

1:21:49I mean, our blocks are small, and typically on an, on On a tower, you would need, you know, and I'm going to— Half a block.

1:21:58Like, you'd need half a block, so 20,000 square feet.

1:22:02So it's unlikely.

1:22:03I mean, if our blocks are 40,000 square feet, you'd have 2 20,000-square-foot sites on which you would conceivably have a tower.

1:22:13It could— you could do it on something smaller, but it's less likely.

1:22:16So, I mean, there are, you know, that is a consideration, but I think I think it is— there's a limited universe of what could happen.

1:22:28And with Tom McCall Waterfront Park, do we look at the collective impact of shadows?

1:22:35So presumably no one building would ever trigger this, and we would be asking people to do reviews for effectively no reason because the answer is never going to be too much of a shadow.

1:22:47Or do we, so is it just the singular impact of one building or do we look at the collective impact?

1:22:52We already have this much shadow, so you can't do another.

1:22:54I think we just, I believe we just do a single, you do not do a cumulative impact.

1:22:59You just look at the impact of the building.

1:23:01That's how the shadow regulations work.

1:23:05Okay.

1:23:07So effectively, because I think if this is, If we're removing something where we are going to be asking developers to take an extra step that will effectively never lead to a different decision, let's get it out of there.

1:23:22Let's simplify things.

1:23:24If this is going to mean that there are things that might not otherwise be approved but would be because we removed this, I want to make sure we understand the implications there.

1:23:36So just a couple of notes on that.

1:23:38One is that Councilor Herbold.

1:23:41In the way the system works now, the, the review system works now, any tower in the central city, most development in the central city actually goes through a design review process, right, through the Design Review Commission.

1:23:56So a shadow study wouldn't mean— the outcome of a shadow study wouldn't necessarily mean that you couldn't build the building.

1:24:03It would just be a piece of information that would inform how the building is sited on the lot.

1:24:11I understand that.

1:24:12What I'm trying to— and let me just say up front here, I've got a lot of colleagues who are ready to build absolutely anything, which is great.

1:24:21We need more housing in our city.

1:24:24I also have a lot of constituents who are in Portland because our city looks different from New York or LA.

1:24:32And that's because of our land use laws.

1:24:34So while I agree, Councilor, we need more housing, we need to build bigger towers, our downtown should look more like a downtown.

1:24:43This isn't just D4.

1:24:44This gets into D3 and D2 also when we're talking about our Central City District.

1:24:49And so I do want to make sure I understand what's happening on those peripheral edges.

1:24:53And there are places where part of what makes Portland a special place is that we develop intentionally.

1:25:05Our development needs to be easier.

1:25:07Our development is going to need to get denser.

1:25:11But I'm at least one person up here who still wants us to be intentional about how we do that.

1:25:16So if we keep this in, are there cases where we're going to say that's shadow actually is impactful and we need to review it?

1:25:31Or if we keep this in, functionally, is everything that comes up going to be something where we say that shadow is not enough of a shadow to be impactful, we just made you turn over another rock for no reason?

1:25:43In the case of towers on the periphery of the central city, that when they— the standard that would've been required, that would be required if this amendment didn't pass, for example, would be they would have to do a shadow study, and there's no specific standard that would have to meet.

1:25:59The code basically says the, the review body, which is— which would generally be the Design Commission, would have to make a determination about if there was a negative, significant negative impact.

1:26:11Okay.

1:26:12So to answer the question, in the case of Tom McCall Park, it probably would be just turning a rock, and there'd be— there wouldn't be much of an outcome from it.

1:26:19But in the case of development on the periphery of the central city, if there— if a shadow study was done and the Design Commission in reviewing that project felt— made a determination that there was a significant negative impact of that shadow, then there would be an opportunity to ameliorate that in the design review process by looking at other designs, how the building could be oriented, and whether that shadow could be minimized.

1:26:45Okay.

1:26:46So it has more significance, I think, on the So in terms of creating, I think Councilor Zimmerman referred to that step, right?

1:26:55We want things to be really tall and dense here and still tall and dense here and a little less and then out.

1:27:03This could, in that step system, have an impact, maybe not in total height, but in how those buildings were oriented.

1:27:12Yes, it could.

1:27:13Or alternatively, the Design Commission could see the impact, the, the results of the shadow study, and say, you know what, it does shadow some, some parcels, but it's, it's fast moving and it's only for a very limited amount of time, and we're, we're not going to consider it a negative impact.

1:27:29So it really, it would be, it's a very case-by-case situation and analysis.

1:27:36Great, thank you.

1:27:36That's really helpful to understand.

1:27:38I appreciate it.

1:27:39Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:27:40Councilor Novick, last word on, uh, this debate Um, thank you, Mr. President.

1:27:45I really appreciate this discussion, um, and I just wanted to clarify for any casual listeners that in talking about discretionary shadow review, we are not referring to the Supreme Court's shadow docket, nor are we addressing the shadow who knew what evil lurks in the hearts of men.

1:28:00Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:28:02Valuable as always.

1:28:03Absolutely.

1:28:04Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for debate, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Green 1?

1:28:10Moved by Green, seconded by Novick.

1:28:12Clerk?

1:28:13Aye.

1:28:15Aye.

1:28:16Zimmerman?

1:28:17Aye.

1:28:18Avalos?

1:28:18Aye.

1:28:19Smith?

1:28:20Aye.

1:28:21Kanal?

1:28:21Aye.

1:28:22Pirtle-Guiney?

1:28:23No.

1:28:25Ryan?

1:28:26Aye.

1:28:27Koyama Lane?

1:28:28Aye.

1:28:29Murillo?

1:28:30Aye.

1:28:31Novick?

1:28:32Aye.

1:28:32Dunphy?

1:28:33Aye.

1:28:34The amendment is approved with a vote of 11 ayes and 1 nay.

1:28:38All right, thank you very much, colleagues.

1:28:39This item is now continued to 2:15 PM on Thursday, November 5th, to adopt revised findings.

1:28:45It is tentatively expected to return then on November 12th for a final—.

1:28:49Point of information, Mr. President.

1:28:51Did we ever have an opportunity to ask questions and— You're right, I'm not—.

1:28:55I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

1:28:56I skipped a step.

1:28:57I think this is the 3rd time that we have not had an opportunity to have broader discussion.

1:29:03I over— I I skipped steps on my thing.

1:29:05You're absolutely right.

1:29:06Colleagues, we are in discussion of the underlying now, and we're not moving it forward quite yet.

1:29:11I apologize.

1:29:11Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:29:14Feel free to get into the queue for the now-amended underlying ordinance.

1:29:18Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, kick us off.

1:29:20Thank you.

1:29:20I have a couple of questions and pieces of clarification.

1:29:25There was a— and I'm trying to read through my notes and remember because it's been a couple of meetings.

1:29:30I'm going to try to be brief now, so bear with me.

1:29:34There was conversation in the presentation about food carts in paved areas.

1:29:42Does that extend food carts in paved areas of our parks to all of our parks, or is that still limited by the work that Parks has been doing around having vending of different levels in different parks?

1:29:59Thank you for the question, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:30:05We do have a representative from Parks here, so perhaps they could help answer the question.

1:30:11The code is really designed to expand the areas in which food carts are allowed.

1:30:17Parks was, you know, paved areas in parks was one example.

1:30:21And so I believe that Parks also has a process in place other permitting processes for anything that is going to exist in a park.

1:30:33So this just creates the sort of the floor, if you will, that it's, you know, it would be allowed.

1:30:39The allowance.

1:30:40Yes.

1:30:40Do we know if Parks is intending on changing the work that they've already presented to Council on where they plan on taking advantage of this?

1:30:49I don't know that.

1:30:50I would have to defer to them, but I don't think this would affect that one way or another.

1:30:54Council President, do we have anybody here from Parks?

1:30:56That's a good question.

1:30:58Come on up.

1:31:00Welcome to the hot seat.

1:31:09I do.

1:31:09Hi, uh, Laura Lillard, uh, Portland Parks and Recreation.

1:31:12I'm a capital project manager.

1:31:14Um, I, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have information about the particular item related to food carts.

1:31:22So I would have to come back to you to discuss this.

1:31:25And I know I have Marty Stockton, who I just asked if she also had any information about what this would allow.

1:31:33But it would be helpful to understand if this is changing, if this change is going to change Parks' approach, or if the list we've gotten about how Parks is approaching vending in different parks Understood.

1:31:48Okay, thank you.

1:31:50Um, there was some conversation about changes in the EX and CX zoning and how that relates to light industrial allowances within those zones.

1:32:06Are we increasing, decreasing, or keeping the same the total square footage of light industrial what we're doing is creating more flexibility.

1:32:22So in fact, I would probably consider it on some level an increase because currently in the CX zone, there is a limitation on the size of individual more kind of manufacturing industrial uses.

1:32:38And the proposal would remove that limitation so that within the CX zone, which is found, I don't know if you remember the maps, it's red on the maps, it's found in a lot of areas, particularly in the western part of the central city.

1:32:54And it would essentially allow more kind of manufacturing and production uses in those areas.

1:33:01What is happening in the— Councilor Herbold.

1:33:04Yeah, I think that's the, the EX.

1:33:06I don't believe we're making any changes in the EX.

1:33:08There was, there was some changes proposed to the IG-1, if you recall, and that was the— those are the industrial areas in the Central East Side largely, and, and there's some in the Lower Albina area.

1:33:20And, uh, those are changing to allow more retail sales space.

1:33:24Exactly, those are changing to allow more retail sales and service space.

1:33:29Do you know how much space is allowed now?

1:33:31I think in the presentation it said 20,000 square feet of retail sales space under the proposal before us.

1:33:38What is that changing from?

1:33:39It's 5,000 now, and it would be— it would allow 20,000 with a 5,000 square foot limitation on individual—.

1:33:47A limitation on individual?

1:33:50On 5,000.

1:33:51So right now it's 5,000 per site.

1:33:54The per site allowance is increasing to 20,000 square feet, but there's There's still a limitation for 5,000 square feet per premise, if you will, per business.

1:34:04So if you have multiple industrial businesses within a building, each of them could have that retail sales space?

1:34:12It's not really tied to the industry, I don't think.

1:34:14I'll let Rachel— it's just a max allowance on the site.

1:34:18Okay, so you can have more retail sales locations.

1:34:22Each one has to be somewhat limited though.

1:34:25Yes, 5,000.

1:34:28Yes.

1:34:28I want to raise here, colleagues, when we switch to more flexibility between our commercial and industrial space, that's great for that light industrial work that we need to make sure we retain in our central city.

1:34:42But it does mean that we move our industrial space to a higher value property by moving it to property that can be used for industrial or commercial.

1:34:52And I hear a lot about the frustration that it used to be possible in Oregon to try something out new because we had all of this affordable warehouse space, affordable industrial space.

1:35:07And one of the things that this plan does is move us toward more of that mixed commercial industrial space that has a much higher lease point.

1:35:16And And I want us to think about how we make sure we continue to have affordable industrial space.

1:35:24I have been asking some questions of Prosper Portland about how we might be able to use some of our economic development resources to help create those spaces within our city.

1:35:34I think that as we move forward with this plan, that becomes even more important.

1:35:38And I want to raise that here as a preview.

1:35:42I don't have anything specific.

1:35:43Thank you.

1:35:43Coming, but this is a topic that I am going to try to find a way for us to address.

1:35:48If we don't retain affordability in some of our light industrial spaces, we won't see the same things bubble up that we have in the past in Portland.

1:35:58And I think we have an opportunity to create more flexibility with our spaces and also make sure we have those opportunities for people to take a risk that our affordable industrial land in our central city has often allowed.

1:36:14I think that's the, the bulk of what I can interpret from our past meetings, so I'll stop there.

1:36:19Thank you.

1:36:21Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:36:22Vice President Clark.

1:36:23Well, thank you for that, um, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, and I assume you'll take that up in your committee at some point.

1:36:29I appreciate those comments.

1:36:30I just want to say how much I appreciate the work that you've done on, uh, looking at the central city plan in order to facilitate housing development and to remove regulatory barriers.

1:36:41I just wanted to express my appreciation for this, and it's— I've already started talking about it out in the public that this is coming and it's going to be great.

1:36:50So thank you so much.

1:36:52Thank you, Vice President Clark.

1:36:54Councilor Novick.

1:36:56Yes, thank you, Mr. President.

1:36:58I just wanted to note, as we— the Central Eastside industrial folks had proposed taking some blocks in the Central East Side and EXing them, taking them out of industrial.

1:37:10And I just wanted to note that, and I did a tour of the area, and there are places where I, as like the layman, was like, okay, why is this block industrial and that block not?

1:37:18So I'm not going to hold this up today, but I just wanted to say that I expect that we'll have further conversations about those specific suggestions.

1:37:27Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:37:28And actually put myself in the queue, colleagues, for a very similar comment.

1:37:31I was here back when we did the 2035 Comp Plan, and at that time, you know, state— we have state land use laws that obligate us to have a certain amount of industrial land inventory, and we are running out of that.

1:37:42And every time we take a block of currently zoned industrial land and use it for something that is not industrial, often through conditional use, that puts additional pressure not in the central city, but it puts pressure on places like Colwood Golf Course, which has been zoned as industrial in order to meet our industrial land inventory.

1:38:00And at the time it was said, well, we have plenty of actual demand or actual industrial space for the demand as we foresee it, so that we don't think Colewood Golf Course will ever get bulldozed and turned into industrial spaces.

1:38:11But, and while I'm enthusiastic about the new and exciting opportunities of what we could do in the Central East Side, we have to also recognize that that is inherently an industrial area that is tied to our infrastructure, tied to our legal requirements.

1:38:25Thank you.

1:38:25Obligations on the state.

1:38:27So I'm not asking anything different of this.

1:38:30I just want to flag this for my colleagues so that you know that every time we put, for example, a music venue on an entire city block of industrial land, that takes one full city block out of our industrial land inventory and puts additional pressures on open spaces that have been zoned industrial but are not industrial inherently.

1:38:49So— Councilor This is a problem for a future problem— project.

1:38:54This is a problem for a time when times are good and we are running out of all the, you know, land that is in such high demand.

1:39:01But it is a concern that I just want to make sure my colleagues are aware of.

1:39:04So, Councilor Green.

1:39:07I'm glad you raised that concern.

1:39:10I have been thinking about that in the context of my district, the CEI hub, the kind of Northwest Industrial Area.

1:39:17I know there's a desire to someday be able to get access to the river again, and if you're— for taking away certain industrial parcels within other parts of the city, that makes it harder.

1:39:26Same thing with your district, the area up by Prologis and others, you know.

1:39:29So, so just echoing that concern and not going to make an intervention here today, but thanks for raising it.

1:39:35Thank you, Councilor Green.

1:39:39Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, this time for reals, This item is continued to 2:15 PM on Thursday, November 5th, to adopt revised findings.

1:39:49It is tentatively expected to return on November 12th for a final vote.

1:39:53Thank you all very much.

1:39:54Thank you.

1:39:56Keelan, can we please call our last item of the day, item 17, document 2026-375?

1:40:03Appoint alternate members to the Community Board for Police Accountability.

1:40:08Thank you, colleagues.

1:40:09Usually we would place appointments that have passed through the Committee of the Whole onto the consent agenda, but it was indicated to me that a councilor would pull it from consent if I did so.

1:40:18And so in this instance, I, uh, put it on our regular agenda.

1:40:21So I am now going to recognize Councilor Kanal, uh, as a sponsor to provide any additional remarks.

1:40:27Councilor Kanal.

1:40:29Okay, well, colleagues, there was a— I'm, I'm going to let Heidi Brown, who is our our attorney be the person to explain the, um, the legal side of this.

1:40:38But I did want to just speak kind of both as a committee chair and as a sponsor here.

1:40:44So as part of resolving the issue that led us to originally consider and ultimately pass a document that removed an alternate from the Community Board for Police Accountability, there was a settlement in litigation that was filed, a condition of which includes reappointment of that individual, Bob Weinstein, to the Community Board for Police Accountability.

1:41:14This resolution does that and therefore fulfills the terms of the settlement, which is non-monetary in nature.

1:41:22I am grateful to be able to work with the mayor, who supervising the city attorney's office and risk management, handled that side of it.

1:41:31And then obviously council has to appoint any members, including new appointments of a previous member, to the Community Board for Police Accountability.

1:41:41So that's speaking as sort of a sponsor here.

1:41:43This came through the Committee of the Whole and was referred on there.

1:41:51Thank you.

1:41:529 To 2 with 1 councilor absent.

1:41:55And that was on the 21st, so last week, 8 days ago, in our afternoon meeting.

1:42:00And this would effectively give us 2 alternates.

1:42:03We currently have a full membership of the board and 6 alternate positions, 1 of which is full.

1:42:11This would now let us have a 2nd filled alternate position.

1:42:15Thanks.

1:42:15Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

1:42:17Colleagues, we are in discussion of this item.

1:42:20I see Councilor Green.

1:42:23Legacy hand.

1:42:23Great.

1:42:24Colleagues, are there any further— is there further discussion of this item?

1:42:29Councilor Avalos.

1:42:31I'll just repeat what I said in committee.

1:42:33I had grave concerns about this alternate to begin with, and so I don't plan on supporting this.

1:42:37Thanks.

1:42:38Thank you, Councilor Avalos.

1:42:44Oh, we do have people.

1:42:45And, uh, Thank you, Keelan.

1:42:47Uh, can we please call folks who are here to testify?

1:42:51Uh, we have 2 people signed up, uh, Alex Stein and Tommy A.

1:42:56Really quick.

1:43:06Okay, that completes testimony.

1:43:08Okey-doke, great.

1:43:10Colleagues, is there any further discussion of this item?

1:43:14Councilor Knoll.

1:43:15I just wanted to highlight for, I guess, in lieu of other folks being here, City Administrator, that, that some of the written testimony on this item asking about transparency for some of the materials, um, is something I just, I would encourage you all to read and hopefully respond to in some way.

1:43:30And I appreciate, uh, Mr. Porras submitting that.

1:43:33Thanks.

1:43:33Thank you, Councilor Knoll.

1:43:38Okay, seeing no one else in the queue To, to speak on this item.

1:43:43Keelan, can we please call the roll on this resolution?

1:43:49Clark?

1:43:50Aye.

1:43:52Zimmerman?

1:43:54Aye.

1:43:55Avalos?

1:43:57No.

1:43:57Smith?

1:43:59What are we voting on?

1:44:05Item 17.

1:44:05Yes, yes.

1:44:08Yes.

1:44:09Aye.

1:44:11Aye.

1:44:12Aye.

1:44:14Aye.

1:44:16No.

1:44:17Novick?

1:44:18Aye.

1:44:19Dunphy?

1:44:19Aye.

1:44:20The resolution is adopted with 10 ayes and 2 nays.

1:44:23Great.

1:44:24Colleagues, before I adjourn, I want to remind both my colleagues and the public that next week's meeting is virtual due to maintenance in City Hall.

1:44:32The public in-person space will still be available to watch and testify, but that will be in the Portland building.

1:44:38So please check the agenda website for details if you should do that.

1:44:41Additionally, colleagues, I have added a work session to our— to continue our conversation on the 3.02 council rules.

1:44:49That will be happening on Wednesday, November 5th, from 2 to 5 PM.

1:44:53My chief of staff will send more details on the format for our conversation by the end of the day tomorrow.

1:44:58And finally, committees are canceled on Tuesday due to the election.

1:45:03Please go vote.

1:45:03With that, we are adjourned.

1:45:05Happy Halloween.