The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-04-15

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (32,387 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.

watch the recording

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Before we start our official meeting of the Portland city council, we have a pre gavel celebration recognizing national public safety telecommunications week. This is councilor Kanal item and I don't see him online. So we'll get to his comments when he does log on. And in the meantime, I'd like to introduce our distinguished panel. I'm going to just actually start with dca bob cozzie and let him introduce folks from here. Dca take it away.

Well thank you. I actually get to wind things down with this group, so I'll pass it to interim director Steve mosley. Thank you. Thank you. I'm interim director Steve mosley of the bureau of emergency communications. Good evening, members of the council. Council president, council vice president. Mr. City administrator, I'm honored to join you all in honoring and recognizing our exceptional call takers, dispatchers and supervisors during national public safety telecommunicators week, which is this week, occurring right now from April 12th through 18. Each year, our center receives more than 900,000 calls from our community, including approximately 600,000 of those to 911. Over the past several years, call volume has continued to rise. Despite this, I'm proud to share that our team at boec has reduced 91 call wait times, an achievement that reflects both their professionalism and their commitment to high quality service and continuous improvement. Our telecommunicators show up every day, 24 over seven 365 to support our community, their ability to remain calm and compassionate and professional under pressure is what makes our entire emergency response system work. As we announced last week, boec has achieved accreditation and emergency medical dispatching through the international academies of emergency dispatch accreditation accredited center of excellence. This is a significant milestone and one we've been working very hard to accomplish. Fewer than 10% of 911 centers worldwide hold this distinction. This recognition affirms what we've long known that our team delivers top tier service and is deeply committed to providing compassionate, accurate, and life saving instructions in a moment's notice. Uniquely positioned to serve portlanders and all communities across Multnomah county, our team's commitment to quality and consistency and equitable care for every caller continues to raise the bar for public safety. We've achieved the highest standard in emergency medical dispatching, and I'm so proud of our team's efforts and accomplishments. Their commitment to excellence and collaboration across our organization. Next boec boec equity manager nikita thomas will share remarks on how we ensure our services are equitable and accessible to everyone in our community. Nikita.

Hello and thank you for having me. I am nikita thomas. I'm the equity manager at boec. My work centers around ensuring that all of our community members, regardless of ability or language spoken, has equal access to 911 and the emergency services. The. They are entitled to boec. We provide call processing through telephone typewriter, more commonly known as t text in one language interpretation services and multilingual call takers. In 2025, our call takers and dispatchers processed 580 t calls, 4558. Text to 911 calls, 8243 calls and 48 different languages through interpreter services in our. Six multilingual call takers assisted with calls in spanish, mandarin and russian. You heard me mention text 911, while voice calls to 911 allow for faster processing of information for callers who are unable to speak due to their abilities or safety, they have the option to communicate with the 911 call taker via text for emergency assistance. As we celebrate our staff during telecommunicator week, I want to congratulate them for the amazing work they do every day, every hour, and how they go above and beyond. For community members who don't have the same access to our services. Next, you'll hear from two of our extraordinary telecommunicators here, carolyn welch and erica gregg.

Good evening. For the record, I'm carolyn welch.

And I'm erica gregg.

We're here to represent the group of call takers and dispatchers that serve Portland and the greater Multnomah county at the bureau of emergency communications. It is an honor to be here this evening during national public safety telecommunicators week. It is true that we show up 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, regardless of what is happening within our community, our personal lives, or even the weather. It is a calling that requires diligent effort to maintain a positive work life balance. Being exposed to daily traumas of the community can have an impact not only on us as individuals, but also on our families and our loved ones.

We appreciate councilor Kanal for inviting us tonight, and all of you for taking the time to recognize and celebrate the work we do. We are also thankful for the support of our union, the Portland police association, as well as our partnership with boec public safety service area leadership and city labor relations. Finally, we could not successfully do the work we do without strong working relationships with the other entities we serve alongside police, fire, amr, corrections, road and maintenance workers, and the countless other labor groups within the city and the county. Once again, on behalf of our membership, thank you and happy national telecommunications week.

And good evening, council president, council vice president and council. I'm bob cozzie dc public safety. I'm so proud of these folks. I'm just beaming ear to ear right now. I had the opportunity to share these words with the community and public safety committee, and it's an honor to get to say this again, because our bureau of emergency communications 911 team really deserves this. Although I'm in a different role today, I can see even more clearly that boec call takers and dispatchers are truly our first first responders. These professionals are the calm voice on someone's worst day. They serve our community with dedication, compassion, and professionalism, often under extremely challenging circumstances. What they do is foundational to our work across the public safety service area, and I'm incredibly grateful for their continued service to Portland and to all Multnomah county. Congratulations to boec for your hard won achievement of accreditation in emergency medical dispatch through the international academies of emergency dispatch. It seems like yesterday when we embarked on the journey together, and I'm so proud of the boec team for literally proving to the world that they are a world class public safety dispatch center. I knew it all along, and how fitting that they gain this recognition in conjunction with national public safety telecommunicator week. I'll close by thanking our boec team for their life impacting service and expressing to them and to our entire community. Happy national public safety telecommunicators week. Thank you.

Happy communication professionals. Thank you all so much for being here tonight. We are on behalf of a grateful city. Thank you all for all the work that you're doing, and we're so proud of the recognition that our bureau has getting and the hard work that has gone in over the last few years to bring up our our staffing levels and to demonstrate world class talent. So congratulations to all. Counselors, any anyone to jump in the queue, feel free. All right, let's give folks a round of applause.

Thank you.

With that, I'm now calling to order the meeting of the Portland city council for this. Wednesday, April 15th is 6:10 p.m. Keelan. Can you please call the roll?

Good evening. Kanal. Pirtle-guiney here. Ryan here. Koyama Lane. Here. Morillo. Here. Novick. Here. Clark. Here. Green here. Zimmerman here.

Avalos present.

Smith here.

Henry here. And can we please read the rules of decorum?

Welcome to the Portland city council to testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at w w w.gov/agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order disruptive 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. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, our first action today is to approve our agenda. We have a total of seven items, including three pretty meaty pieces of policy to discuss. Are there any requests to amend the agenda? Pause for dramatic effect. Seeing none, do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? Seeing lots of happy nods, the agenda is approved. Keelan. Can we please move to public communications?

First up, we have hart. Pham.

Welcome. Come on up. Please introduce yourself. Share your pronouns if you'd like. And you have three minutes.

Hi, my name is hart pham. I'm in district three. I just came here to give some praise and condemnation for some of our councilors. Councilor Smith, I really like your authenticity and how you're straight up with when you see something wrong. Especially the ideological battles. You're a breath of fresh air. Thank you. Councilor Avalos and Koyama Lane. I don't I don't hate you, but your association with the peacock group, I think is my biggest problem. You can't have six people that can stalemate any piece of legislation you don't like, and all you need is one swing vote to do whatever you want. So it's just too dangerous. So I'm sorry. Prelude. I'm not going to have much nice things to say about any peacock member. Jamie Dunphy. That letter that the old lady wrote to you about your tattoos and how you ripped it up and took a picture and framed it and posted it online. You you publicly shamed an old lady. And that just made me lose all respect for you. I think a lot of councilors up here need to be reminded that you are a public servant, and you get paid $140,000 a year to be a public servant. That being said, you should have a little bit thicker skin, be more. You should be able to stand up to scrutiny without feeling the need to dominate everyone that disagrees with you. A lot of us have normal jobs, and we make less than $50,000 a year, and we have to practice that type of humility. So it's just really disheartening to see people that are supposed to serve me, that make 140 grand a year, dominate any voice of dissent. That being said, Dan Ryan, I really like you. I think you're the most human councilor Up here. I think if all the councilors were dropped in a room of 100 people, Dan Ryan would walk away with the most friends because he's able to connect with that spirit that connects us all. Angelina Morillo. Primero puedo habla espanol. Pero no prefiero a pronunciar su nombre como un gringo porque no me gusta su juego. Secondly, you are an expert gaslighter. I have to admit that, like when you were trying to elect a new council president and you said that the only reason that people aren't voting for Sameer Kanal is because he's like they're afraid of giving a man person of color power. You basically just called everyone that disagrees with you a racist, which was crazy. Mitch Green, you're insufferable. I hope you lose your next election. Councilor Zimmerman I think you're running laps around everyone. Really good job. I am a little bit worried about this housing thing. I hope you listen to patrick hilton back here. Lastly, Olivia Clark Elana. I don't know much about you, but I like you. You're on the pro-democracy national handbook. And the last time I testified when this one was trying to defund the mayor. I feel like you were the only one that were connecting with me. And you're from the west hills, which surprised me. I didn't think I could ever have anything in common with someone from the west hills. Lastly, if you're using the small donor elections program and you're a socialist, you're exactly proving that socialist socialism doesn't work because you will use public funds to advance your individual agenda.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next up we have addy Smith. Addy is joining us online.

Sorry, that was.

That was weird. Welcome, addy.

Can you hear me okay.

Yeah, we can hear you. Go right ahead. Please introduce yourself for the record.

Sure. Council president, before we start the clock, can we can we stop the clock just for a second? My comments are six minutes and six seconds long. It is very difficult for me to get to speak, so I just have quite just a few things I want to cover. Is that okay?

I can give you a I can give you a few seconds extra, but we are limited to three minutes for public communications, so I'm happy to give you a little over. But if you can, please try to be as succinct as possible.

I'm going to try and I appreciate your time. All right. Before, if you haven't started the clock, I'm ready. Hello, my name is adi Smith. Today is April 15th, 2026. I'm speaking before the Portland city council. I want to call out home forward for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to send its ceo to attend, quote unquote, housing conferences and networking events. These events will not teach her how to do her job. She is unfit and unqualified. I challenge home ford and its board chair, matthew gilbert, to hire me as ceo and will do in less than one year what she has failed to do as the ceo since they hired her and have annually increased her salary. Since 2022, her salary has been increased 59% since then. I also challenged the board to reach out to me if they would like to discuss hiring me and actually remedying home forward's ongoing problems and implement goals and a trajectory to get home forward out of operating near the red every year. The goal shouldn't be to get more funding by ignoring the problems. While additional funding is important, housing people in need is more important, and there is nothing to be gained by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars going to all these parties. I am a housing credit certified professional, a specialist in housing credit management, a certified professional of occupancy, a certified occupancy specialist, a tax credit specialist, a certified financial specialist, a rural development accredited compliance expert, and more. I've been working in property management for over 30 years. Currently, there are over 1000 vacant units and a waiting list for people to to move in. It should never take nearly 200 days to turn a vacant unit and fill a vacancy. Make it make sense. They're also operating on a debt service ratio of 1.12. 1.10 means homophobia is bringing in just enough money to pay its debts. Anything below 1.0 means it can't cover its debts. I would also terminate all third party management contracts and bring all management in-house. It's time to stop giving millions of dollars to nonprofits. They're stealing that money and paying themselves, increasing their salaries, giving themselves thousands of dollars in bonuses, and the people doing all the work. The on site staff in these apartment communities aren't receiving a living wage. Communities are suffering because the funding isn't being used to make them safer and habitable. Someone tell mackenzie scott to contact me, please. We need to talk about all the support she's providing through her organization. 92% of black women voted for the democrat in the 2024 election cycle. Since then, the democratic party has wrangled their hands written, strongly worded posts on x threads meta, the clock app. They didn't reach out to their colleagues and democrat led states with stewart at the. 92% weren't swallowed by the incoming administration. Unemployment payments have dried up, emergency savings and savings are gone. What are black, unemployed women supposed to do? There has been no plan to protect the most loyal demographic of the democratic party and democrat led states. Where are the incentives for banks to support business ventures or employers to keep us employed? Companies have laid black people off or terminated them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with trump's dei bts. It has everything to do with liberal racism, and especially in democrat led states. A.g. Rayfield is constantly bragging about his lawsuits against trump. Why hasn't he and governor kotek and the Oregon legislature found a way to incentivize or penalize companies that have helped increase oregon's black unemployment to over 9%? Black people make up less than 2% of oregon's population and 9% are incarcerated. Black Oregonians are significantly overrepresented in the state's homeless population, experiencing homelessness at a rate of over three times higher than the general population.

I need you to start wrapping up. Unfortunately.

Okay, okay. In the Portland metro area, black people make up 17 to 23% of the unhoused population, with people of color comprising 39 to 40% of total homeless population. I do have more that I want to add, and I appreciate you for allowing me to extend this if you can. If I can come back next week, I want to finish the rest of this, please. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. You're also welcome to email the rest of your testimony to us, and we will make sure that all councilors receive it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next up, we have don porth.

Welcome. Make sure to introduce yourself for the record.

Yeah. Well, ladies and gentlemen of the city council, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is don porth. I'm a retired Portland firefighter and the president of the nonprofit david campbell memorial association. I'm here tonight representing the dcma Portland firefighters and the 79 Portland firefighters who died in service serving portlanders who can't be here tonight. I hope I'm familiar to you all. I believe I've met with all of you or your staff over the past 16 months. I've written numerous communications, and I've encouraged our supporters of our project to communicate with you as well. I'm here tonight to make yet another plea to the city for help with this project, and I say help sincerely this. This has not been an ask to do the project. This has been an ask to partner with this project and that's an important distinction. Dcma members, all volunteers have contributed several thousand hours since this effort began in 2010. We've carried this project through our first phases one and two, which include the planning, the design, the engineering and the restoration of the existing david campbell memorial. We have one phase left to go and that's the the finish of the of the memorial plaza and the memorial wall. And there have been generous contributions to this project from select council members. And for that I'm very appreciative. Portland firefighters also contributed funds, including the initial seed money, to get the project rolling. And we continue to look for creative ways to fill the funding gap. As you know, a capital project is challenging because it can't really be phased in. It would be far more expensive to try to do that. It's difficult for grants and other things to to fund a project like that. So we continue to look for the help. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that this is a city owned project property and a city asset had the work that has been done so far been left to the city, I'm sorry to say. It probably wouldn't have been done or it would have been far more expensive and a bigger draw or drain on city resources financially and personnel wise. Now I know the city has a love for heritage and honor. Just last week, the thompson elk returned with great fanfare. Over a century of tradition restored after being lost to vandalism. But I have to wonder why we struggled to complete the Portland firefighter memorial. Portland fire has been in service in this city for 173 years. The messenger bell that can't be put back until we finish the project went into service, alerting portlanders and firefighters. 152 years ago, david campbell died 115 years ago, and the memorial in his honor was completed 98 years ago. Now, don't get me wrong. The elk is a fine indigenous animal and it deserves our respect. But so do employees who, in the course of their work as firefighters, put their lives on the line and lost, and the memorial to his legacy needs to be finished. But at least we have an elk, right? I've heard talk that the abraham lincoln statue may be the next historic restoration. Certainly, he was a great man and did much for our country. He gave his life for our country and deserves recognition and respect. But so do 79 Portland firefighters who died so portlanders could live. I was hired to city of Portland 42 years ago. So the budget woes are not lost on me. But there's been a lot of creative work that's been done over the years to get things done, and we'd like to find out how we can work together to do that and complete this project. Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

And if I can make one last comment, I just want to express my appreciation as a firefighter for boec and the great work they do. I'm sorry all the people left, I would have liked to have said thank you personally, but their work is critical to the work that firefighters, police and those out on the streets do. So it's fantastic to see them honored. Thank you for giving them that time.

Thank you very much.

Next up we have laura curry.

Hi there. Do you guys hear me?

You can hear you, laura, go ahead and introduce yourself for the record.

Thank you. Yeah. Laura curry, part of stadium hood. I am walking and you're on my phone. So I hope this comes through clearly I am, thank you. Thank you. First of all for the brief time here. I appreciate it very much. I am I'm here to speak to you about the budget sort of debate that will be coming up. And as part of stadium hood and currently watching through my neighborhood, it is super important that the police department, the services, the police department specifically for safety in my neighborhood is not cut, is not diminished. I understand there will be 12 police that will be retiring, and it's important that we continue to. Thrive, continue to strive to make this neighborhood safer. There's definitely improvement happening, but there is of course, lots of room for more improvement. And I want to point out that, as you all know, in the northwest, taxes here are disproportionately higher than they might be in the northeast, southeast Sellwood. And the reasons for that are, you know, varied. But we still pay an a lot of taxes for services. And because we are so dense and because there is such an accumulation of public services which are necessary, it puts us really at this flash point. And so there is a feeling of inequity, inequity in how we are cared for. And I kind of point part of this issue to the development of the pearl specifically. I don't live in the pearl. I live on the west side of the 405, but the pearl was developed for very wealthy people. And I mean, I don't know who can live in those places. I sure can't, but there's a rainbow out tonight. It's beautiful, you guys. Anyway, I am just appealing that we don't diminish the police. And that becomes that that remains a high priority for our budget issues. And I appreciate your time. Thanks again.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

Next up we have tanisha renee.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening.

Please introduce yourself for the record. And you have three minutes.

Yes. For the record, my name is tanisha renee and so lovely to see all of you again. I am the deputy executive director, executive director of williams and russell. And I'm just here tonight again to advocate for funding for ci and williams and russell. This is more than just a housing issue, but an issue of repair. Williams and russell is building in the albina area. Ci is building in vanport. And these are not just random places but symbolic and historically significant places to pass portlanders who have been pushed out and harmed by past policies. A previous amendment would have provided ci 1.5 million in williams and russell 1 million, and that would help us bring down purchase price for first time home buyers who've been denied access, pushed out or simply left behind from a young age. Housing insecurity touched me, and it kind of went through the rest of my or for the majority of my life, from foster care couchsurfing as a teen, when my mom would be in rehab and as a single mother just trying to get by myself. Rent assistance has been a tremendous tool for me to keep my family housed, and I don't want to diminish that. But I will say that since becoming a homeowner and with the help of the preference policy, a down payment assistance, a veteran loan, as well as just having a low interest rate and being able to purchase in the right time, has given me stable and secure housing for a lifetime. There are no services for homeowners to not only buy homes, but to keep and maintain their homes. There's no mortgage assistance when somebody is running behind in their mortgage, it is simply lose your home or file bankruptcy. That's a really hard pill to swallow when you are a home buyer and you really want to pass something down to your children, to your descendants and anyone else. So you're creating that generational wealth. So I really implore you to reconsider your decision and just help us get homes built now, homes that will have a great impact on the housing crisis and our community. It would not only help people buy homes, but it would help people keep their homes, maintain their homes and pass it down to their children, to their families for true general generational wealth that has been denied for so many people. And that's all of my time today. And thank you so much for hearing me out again. Have a good evening.

Thank you so much for being here.

That completes communications excellence.

Colleagues, next item on our agenda. Thank you. Is our brief update from the city administrator with any any status updates regarding ongoing responses to the federal interventions in the city. Administrator.

Thank you, council president. We do actually have an update on this matter. And just before I go into the update, just to provide some background context to our listening audience, before we talk about what's coming up new, just remember the city issued a notice of violation to the owner of the ice facility. And at that point in time, the building owner appealed that violation to the city's hearing officer. The building owner then asked the hearing officer to dismiss the appeal based on an allegation that the hearing officer was biased. The hearing officer rejected that allegation of bias and dismissed the appeal as requested by the building owner. Most recently, as you've received an update in a memo from our city attorney as it relates to this matter, the building owner has asked the hearing officer to reconsider this dismissal. The city has opposed this reconsideration, but the hearing officer has granted the reconsideration and reinstated the appeal. A hearing on the merits of the appeal is now scheduled for may the 5th in front of the hearing officer, and we will keep council updated as we receive new and updated information.

Thank you, city administrator. Keelan, can we please move to item for the consent agenda?

No items have been pulled from the consent agenda. I'll call the role Kanal. Absent. Pirtle-guiney. Hi Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green.

I jumped the gun.

Zimmerman I. Avalos I.

Smith. I Dunphy. I. The consent agenda is approved with 11 yes votes and one absent colleagues.

I just want to take a moment to brief moment point of privilege. I was holding my breath a little bit with that. This is a small but important step in our developing body. We just did something that was in the committee of the whole, and then moved it to the consent agenda without relitigating it. Nice work everyone, let's get back to work. Can we please move to item number six?

Item oh, wait a minute. Did you want to take up item five?

Wasn't that the.

Oh, sorry. Wrong number. I misread my own notes. Five.

Okay. Thank you. Item five document 2020 6-1 20. Adopt the fy 20 2526 technical adjustment ordinance and make other budget related changes.

Colleagues, this is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. I understand that there are some colleagues who have additional amendments to debate. I'd like to move to having our colleagues who have amendments to please bring them forward. Let's let's have the discussion. Councilor. I believe councilor Smith and councilor Ryan each have an amendment. Councilor Smith, would you like to lead us off?

I let him go first.

Okay. Councilor Ryan, would you like to read your amendment first?

Hello, colleagues. I am back with something similar. It was 6 to 6 vote. It was attached to another amendment. But I hope that some of you had a chance to just give this some more thought. Big picture. Sorry, I was not ready for this. These two additions are simply to provide clarity and priority to the most vulnerable, at risk of losing their housing. It's a way to really target and ensure that we're reaching those that I think everyone intends for us to reach. The first update here addresses the most common gap of people who miss a chance at receiving housing stability. Who are people that receive a notice of eviction for nonpayment of rent, but they do not have a legally filed eviction with the court system. This amendment will give them the priority access to rent assistance and ensures we keep the most vulnerable population housed. People who self evict due to receiving a ten day notice are a group of critically, a group critically missing from the rent support system, and I want to open that opportunity for them as well. So when we call, when we call out rent assistance, people should not have to show up to court and risk losing their home just to get rent assistance. The second update specifies that we have a funding category specifically for those who are already within the legal eviction process to maintain their housing. In the edits, you will see under number one a, we basically take the word we. We don't end it with before facing eviction, but we add to that giving priority to those who have received a notice of eviction in b, where it says 2 million in expanded funding for rent assistance and rapid rehousing for tenants facing eviction. And again, to bring more clarity to this who have a pending court date or active eviction filing. This is a way to ensure the urgency for these vulnerable populations that I think most people, when they think of this service, when it comes to rental assistance, they would be prioritized.

Thank you. Councilor would you like to move this now or just. We don't we don't have further public comment, so.

I would love to get a second. So we know that it actually is on the record.

Second thank you.

Councilor Ryan moves councilor Novick seconds. Colleagues, is there discussion over this amendment? Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Thank you. One thing that I continue to not understand is that if we say we care about protecting people before they are in crisis, but put a bunch of barriers to how we define that, and we don't care about people. We don't care about helping people when they're in crisis. This amendment, to me takes a flexible, prevention focused tool and turns it into a crisis only system. We should not be waiting until someone is at the courthouse door to decide that they're worthy of help. The entire point of this funding is to prevent eviction, not respond after the damage is already done. And once someone receives a notice that harm is already started financially, emotionally, and often, that's very irreversible, frankly. And so if we know a household is struggling, the most effective and cost efficient thing we can do is to stabilize them. And I believe that this adds more hurdles in a system that's already hard to access. When we add more conditions that we layer on people, more people actually fall through the cracks because people in crisis don't experience that crisis in neat little categories. And our policy shouldn't force them to. I think there's just this underlying assumption that I continue to hear on this dais that concerns me, that people need to prove constantly that they are in crisis before they deserve help. That's not how stability works. Most people who fall behind on rent, they're not gaming the system. They're dealing with job loss, medical bills, unexpected expenses. And so this is about preventing trauma, not managing it after the fact. And I think ultimately, we the way that we wrote this language was designed to offer the maximum flexibility we need to trust that we have partners, whether in the bureau or in community, that will be working with that can get those dollars to the right people. The last thing we need to do is add more barriers. I'm voting no on this.

Thank you, councilor Avalos. Colleagues. I put myself in the queue, just not not to the content, but rather to the process. We are in the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. If we pass any amendments today, we will either need to move this to a second reading next week. Or have to put an emergency clause on this. So if folks are considering this, please also consider that you will we will need to get an emergency clause on this because according to the city budget office, we have to pass the tao today. Passing it next week will not be acceptable. So if you are considering voting on any of the amendments, please also know that we will need an emergency clause which will require nine votes. Councilor. Novick.

Thank you, mr. President. In response to councilor Avalos comments, I would say that I wish that we could help all 30,000 families in Portland that are severely rent burdened, paying more than half their income in rent, but we cannot help all of them with $5 million. So I tend to agree with I councilor Ryan's proposal to address people when they are in crisis. But as to the council president's admonition, I don't want to vote for something and then find out that it's resulted in our not passing the tao. So I'm kind of hoping that we can all agree here that if an amendment passes, even if you voted against it, you will vote to provide the nine votes to make it an emergency without everybody committing to that in advance. I will say that if I vote for something and it passes, but then we don't have the votes to make it an emergency, I'd like to figure out how we can reverse my vote so as not to put us in that situation.

Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.

Thank you, council president.

I heard my colleague sitting to my left. The crowd's right say that he thought this was the original intent. And I heard my colleague to the other side of me say that this changes completely what the goal was. I am wondering if there's anybody who can help us understand how the what what difference there might or might not be in how the bureau would implement this with or without this amended language.

Is there anyone from the housing bureau here? Aye, Morillo. Dca donnie oliveira.

Thank you, council donnie oliveira for the record. So. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Pirtle-guiney to your question, we were just reviewing the language this evening when we got it. So what I'm saying is the preliminary general awareness, the preference is always to get intent and guidance from council for programs like this, but to not get so specific that it would have unintended consequences about about implementation. So in this particular case, we'd like more guidance, but without the specificity specificity that ties our hands in implementation. To that end, my recommendation would be the prior language that councilor Avalos had had drafted with us is consistent with our ability to deliver. And so that'd be our preference to go with that.

Does this language before us change how you would implement part? What I'm what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is I've heard two different intents.

It could.

And that's because we're moving at such a tight timeline because we're to the council president's point, we have to get this adopted today. We would want more time to do this analysis. And given where the language was to start, it was strong as is and would allow us to reflect the intent of what's being discussed on the dais. When you add more language at this time without a lot of feedback, it's hard for us to guarantee there's no unintended consequences.

Okay.

So the priority lens isn't helpful.

The intent of the priority language is helpful. Putting it in the ordinance may tie our hands in a way that we can't foresee, because we're only grokking this information right now. We would need more time to do that, that process. We understand the intent. Appreciate it. Not convinced that this language is helpful though.

Okay.

Council president, I'm struggling because I've heard a couple of different intents expressed, and now I'm hearing our dca say that the intent matters a lot, and I'm not sure how we square that, but it sounds like whether we adopt this or not, we may need to have some further conversations as a body about what the intent is, so that we can be clear for the bureau about what we're expecting to see. I think that making sure we have funds available somewhere for folks who have received a notice and are not yet in court, is important. It sounds like. I won't expand beyond that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney councilor Smith.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you. Dca oliveira, I have a question for you. If these funds are approved, how will we disseminate these funds for rental assistance? I had a $40 million ordinance that would actually go directly to the community based organization that is actually putting rental assistance on the street. And so I'm not quite clear how you all plan to get this money out on the street before June 30th. Are you going to do an RFP, or are you going to go back to your ARPA days and look at those folks? How are you planning to do this?

Thank you for the question, councilor. For each of these different tranches that are outlined in the in the original amendment, we would develop programs for that. In some cases, we would look for best practices. Is it the best intent to do an RFP to allow our community organizations to help us? Does the city have the capacity to disburse these dollars directly? Those are various options. Is their partnership with the county available? I'm sharing those as examples, but each one of these would require us to contemplate what is the best way to get the dollars out as fast as possible, efficiently and effectively as possible.

So these are one time only funds. So why would we create a program.

A structure to get the resources out? Councilor I'm saying there needs to be a vessel.

How do we get it out? Last time during COVID.

It was it was directly disseminated and we had partnerships.

A wise way to do it.

Yeah.

Creating a program will not help people who are in the stands upstairs or in the back who really want this money, because it sounds like you can slow roll this, it sounds like this money wouldn't even get out till September. And that was the reason why I identified specific community based organizations who actually do rent assistance, because we don't. And for us to set up a program and try to get this done during budget cycle and out to people who need it, because if we pass this today and it's an emergency, they're going to be expecting that money to be on the street tomorrow and it's not going to happen. So I don't want you to get all these folks riled up for that. We pass this money. I want you to tell the truth. What is the likelihood of this money getting out before June 30th?

I would just want to clarify. I would want to talk to the city budget office when we have access to these dollars in this in the bureau's coffers, right? There's a practicality of when the information, the money is released. But yes, councilor, we would want to do the due diligence to ensure that we have tracking systems in place for accountability. So we put a little time into ensuring that we have those safeguards in place, like we do with any of our housing programs. We want to make sure we're able to track.

I want you I'm asking for something else. I'm asking for you because you've you've put a timeline on a lot of different things, you know, in your head, because I'm going to tell you what I, what I learned from your Portland housing bureau person. He told me he couldn't get the money out before June 30th.

That's correct.

And that's what I wanted you to tell me too. And you knew that. But you didn't want to tell me. I asked you how long will it take to get out?

It won't be done by July 1st, 2020.

Okay. That's what I was asking you. Okay. First time I asked you the question, you said you didn't know. Then when I told you I talked to your Portland housing bureau and he said he couldn't get it out before June 30th, and that's what I'm saying. So I get so much foolishness when you all come up here and testify. So I'm glad you said that. So folks understand if we pass this today, y'all not getting no money. Y'all not getting no money until after July 1st. In fact, I was told it probably won't be until as early as September. So you're getting happy about money that you're not even getting ready to have access to. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Vice president Clark.

Thank you, council president. I was intrigued by what councilor Novick said, and I have to admit, I'm kind of confused about this. But if we're if we have 30,000 people, is that what you said, 30,000 people who are facing eviction?

No, I think the statistic I saw was that there's 30,000 households that are severely rent burdened, which means they're paying more than 50% of their income in rent.

So some portion of that 30,000 could face eviction imminently. We don't we don't know exactly how many. So it sounds like what councilor Ryan is trying to do is to try to ration the money in a logical way. I guess I'm asking you that.

Yeah, we're keeping it flexible. We just think it's important to prioritize those vulnerable portlanders that we keep talking about. And I don't think we've had that type of accountability in the system. And so it's hard for me to approve the big enchilada of this when we don't put in some more accountability measures.

Okay, so how do we do it now? Is does somebody have to be how do they prove they're facing eviction? Or how do we know it?

Well, it says giving priority to those who have received a notice of eviction.

Right. But I mean, how do we do it now if we if we don't have this language? Because presumably we have a program like this, right?

Yeah.

I think it's just asking for those receipts so that they would go to the front of the line.

So it's really trying to ration to ration the.

We haven't had the conversation about how we prove that someone is a part of this program. This is just putting some accountability to who would be a part of this program that would be prioritized. Okay, that's what I was trying to get at. This came up last week. I'm disappointed that perhaps we didn't follow up with the dca and the housing bureau, because none of that came up last week when it was a66 vote. This little sequencing awkward. I think I wanted you to go first, counselor Smith, because I'm looking forward to supporting your amendment. And then I thought with that amendment and then this amendment, I was ready to get on board. That's all.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Clark. Seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan, can we please call the roll on Ryan two?

Kanal. Sorry. Looking to see if no absence. Pirtle-guiney.

No.

Ryan. I Koyama Lane.

No.

Aye, Morillo.

I'm not certain that we're going to get nine votes to turn this into an emergency. If we keep adding amendments and every day that the staff work on this instead of the actual budget, is a day less that we have to analyze what's coming up. So no.

Novick I.

Clark aye, Morillo.

Green. No Zimmerman. I Avalos. No Smith.

No.

Dunphy.

No.

The amendment fails with four I votes, seven no votes and one absent.

Thank you. I lost two votes in one week. All right.

Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thanks.

Councilor Smith, would you like to introduce your.

Dan Ryan: Thank you. Colleagues. I'm sorry about that, councilor Ryan, because I really do adore you. And you have great ideas. I just kind of agree that it's putting all that weight on folks who need rent assistance. It's just going to just bog them down. But I'm trying to go to my file. So here's, here's, here's the deal. I can't go back and change things, but I can certainly be responsible for the things that I do. And I like my cfo biery. I like the city attorney and I like the dca oliveira to come up front. I don't really have a very complicated amendment. And all of you know, I want to direct council and our bureaus to put back in $2.5 million from the Portland housing bond for 2526, 1.5 million for self enhancement, inc. For home ownership development and $1 million for the williams and russell home ownership development. Now, this allocation that I'm speaking of is made from the portion of the $23,991,643 pot that c a li sent to us in a memo. And it's the Portland housing bonds that were budgeted for that were not budgeted in fiscal year 2526. So as I began to go through this whole process of trying to identify funding for the two and the only black community based organizations who are doing home ownership development that were taken out last week of the underlying ordinance in the housing committee. I'm trying to get them put back in because this actual ordinance has been around since December, and we kept pushing it out, pushing it out, because a lot of folks up here did not want to fund the broadway corridor. I held out against some of my sponsors in my district one, because I thought that broadway corridor was important. It's necessary. And so my $40 million ordinance got kicked off the agenda permanently by my council members, and it was led by the council president. And I like my council president, but I wasn't happy that he did that. And with that ordinance, it identifies specific community based organizations that will receive those renaissance dollars immediately. So here we are today. I'm trying to fix a wrong and right it today. That happened last week. I talked to several of my colleagues and let them know what I was going to do. But I was told by you all that I can't take that money out of the out of the housing bond money. And I'm frustrated. I have been just about as frustrated as I have ever been in my public life with this. Because it really reeks of institutional racism, anti-blackness, that mci and williams and russell were taken out, especially when all of us did a 12 zero vote that we were going to support racial equity in our george floyd ordinance and resolution. That's not what this looks like. This looks like something else. We fund the really affluent white developer. We fund the latino project, which I was very much in support of hacienda. I was fighting for that. I feel like I'm in the color purple because I've been fighting ever since I got here, and that is my entire city life. And now to watch my colleagues vote to take c.I. And williams and russell out. I am furious, and I know it seems like I'm really. But I am furious inside. And then to be told by you all earlier today, before we came here, that I can't use that money now. I respect my colleagues. They voted to have social housing. You all suggested that I take the money from social housing. I don't want to get into a big thing with my colleagues about something they supported and they did last week. But I am concerned and I'm very troubled by their decision to take out c.I. And williams and russell. So I'm saying to my colleagues. The pot that I was told yesterday that I could use, I'm being told today that I can't use. And I'm being told that the only way that I can get this paid for is to go, Steve, go into the general fund money, take it out from there. Mitch, go into the 8.8 million that you put in or go into the fund that has the revolving loan and the social housing that has about $18 million in it. I'm not going to tell you, because if I come up with it, you're going to vote no, no, no, no, no. So I want one of my smart friends that I can see over there. Councilor. Morillo. Councilor Green councilor Novick. And I want councilor Avalos to have some input too, because she's the chair of the housing committee. I want y'all to come up with the way in which we can pay for this 2.5 million, because I don't have an avenue without taking some of your money, each one of your pots, I could say, oh, I'm going to take $500,000 from. But would that be fair? I'm really not right now trusting what these folks are telling me right now. I'm not trusting it at all because they've written contracts that they said that they have to be obligated to. Since when do we have to be obligated to money that has not been appropriated, that is wrong on every level? City administrator. It don't sit well with me. And you know, it doesn't you know, it's not right that you all have obligated this money before we even appropriate it. It's wrong. It's against Oregon budget law. It is. Am I right, robert?

If I'm going to give you that type of answer, I'd prefer to do it in an executive session.

Okay, well, then you know the answer then, y'all. It's against Oregon budget law to allocate and obligate money before we appropriate money. But we got to get to that next week in the oversight hearing. I'm not going to go there because I'm so furious right now. So I'm going to ask y'all, how do you want to play for this. Williams and russell. We need $2.5 million. Where do you want to take it from? Any ideas?

Perfect.

Councilor Smith, thank you for raising these questions. And I think consistently what I have said, I'm only going to speak for myself and not for my other colleagues, is, as you know, we've had many discussions about this. I don't like that council has become a grant giving body where we are giving millions of dollars away without proper vetting, in my opinion. I think that in order for me to feel and I know that this is the way that government does things, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it. I think that in order for me to understand if I'm going to give out about $3 million or more during a time when we are cutting core government services and core staff, I need to see the pro forma. I need to see the gap financing structure. I need to see if the unit costs are competitive. If this is shovel ready, I need to see proof because if we are giving out millions of dollars in one fell swoop as a body, then if these projects don't generate affordable housing quickly, that falls on us and nobody else.

Right. And I and I hear you.

So what? Here's what I'm thinking. Sy did call me today. We had about a ten minute conversation. That's not enough time for me to understand a project. And then I had back to back meetings the entire day. They had no conversations with me prior to this. So it's very hard for me to understand the proposal, what's going into it, all of those things. And I think many of us share that experience. If we are going to be a grant giving body, which we can be.

We're not. We're an appropriation body.

If we're an appropriation body, then we need to have the same knowledge and information that a grant giving body would have. We would have to vet this and have it be a competitive process.

Right. And I didn't have all that information last week when we voted for all the other projects. And so I appreciate it.

I didn't, I didn't though. I did. So I'm only speaking for myself because I said the same thing, even for the projects that are for latinos. I'm latina, I'm south American. The immigrant projects help people like me that still, to me, there was not proper vetting. And so to me, there is a process issue here. What I'm wondering is, can you work with these organizations in the next two weeks to create an ordinance and bring that back to us so that we can pass the tao today, and that we can actually properly vet and get all of that information so that we can feel comfortable pushing this through.

You're asking me to do something that we didn't do for the others. And I.

I think the others should have gone through that as well.

So so don't ask me to do something for the black organizations that we didn't ask for the other organizations to do.

And just to interrupt.

Interrupt briefly, here we are at ten minutes and 45 seconds.

I hear you, mr. President, but you're you're one of the reasons why we're here like this, because if you would have kept it and let me put mine on the docket, we could have voted on it before. So please give me some. Give me some grace right here. I'm asking my district two people, these are your projects in your district. Do you need some more information?

No.

Council president permission to respond?

Sure.

You know, I'm not sure why some folks got more information than others, other than the fact that I know that there are times when people bringing information are worried about inadvertently violating public meetings laws. But I've been given some pretty significant, pretty significant information about both of these projects, showing that they have been vetted and received other public funding that they are nearing shovel ready. This is gap financing, trying to close some of those final gaps that they are, in fact, tied to offering varying levels depending on the project, but varying levels of affordable housing. Given the restrictions in the state funding that is attached to the project. So I feel confident in the the variables that were raised by my colleague.

Okay, I, I agree with you, councilor. And so I'm going to go to Steve because you wrote the amendment that started this whole thing.

For the record.

I was actually not finished speaking either.

Angelita Morillo: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: The I just want to be. And I feel like maybe I'm doing something that I'm like speaking the unspoken that we're not supposed to speak about how these grant dollars are given sometimes, but. Some of these projects, if you map them out, are very, very expensive in a way that makes me question how we should give out dollars. Anyways, some of the things that we approved cost around $998,000 per unit. If those are the dollars that we are giving out, then we should buy every immigrant a mansion in the west hills. My mom would love that because that's the type of thing that I think as a government, we need to assess when they are saying that we need this information. I want to trust you. Councilor pirtle-guiney. It sounds like you've gotten a lot of information, and I'm saying I have not gotten that information. So that's why I voted no on the other projects, and that's why I don't feel comfortable with this. I do, I am totally interested if this becomes an ongoing conversation, but if we are going to be giving out millions of dollars when we are preparing to lay off a lot of staff at the city of Portland, when we are cutting core services, then we need to be vetting these things. And that that is all I'll say on that.

Okay. And I hear you and I appreciate what you just said, because you all have more information about ci and williams and russell than we had about your data privacy. You brought a tad of privacy ordinance together, and you didn't even have a budget for it. And we all voted for it. We didn't know what the hell we were voting for. We don't even know what the budget is.

So point of order. Is this germane?

Yes. Yes, ma'am it is.

Why is it germane to talk about a data privacy office? I council president, I would like you to interrupt.

I brought.

The councilor Issue. Not germane.

She brought the issue of we're going into into budget cycle.

We were at 15 minutes now. Councilor.

No, ma'am. No, ma'am.

Councilor Smith I'm going to if there is any further.

I have one more question.

Okay.

Give me some grace. Mr. President.

We are at 15 minutes.

Okay. Steve Novick, you started this and you put an amendment to the chair's amendment to put in social housing and take out c.I. And williams and russell. Are you willing to give up 2.5 million of your general fund to get this passed today?

Councilor, I am not and I went into the housing committee meeting saying that my biggest priority above all was to get the full 8.6 million to the general fund, because I want to avoid layoffs. But you're also right, councilor That I was the one that introduced the amendment to strip out all of the references to specific projects, because in theory, I agree with councilor Morillo that we should not make those decisions, but you can't bring.

Those corridor.

But I was going to. Yes. And then I turned around and contradicted myself because I said I'd give some grace to projects that I'd heard a lot about that happened to be those too. But at this point, councilor, I agree with you, I think, and at this point I will seem wishy washy and all the people that voted for me because they didn't want to see another on the one hand, on the other hand, politician will be mad at me, but I think I'm over the past week have been compelled by you and by councilor Pirtle-guiney observation last week that although maybe in the future we should decide we're not going to give out money to specific projects, that hasn't been the understanding. And those projects were in like every iteration of this until I showed up for my first housing committee meeting. So I think I screwed up if I had my druthers, frankly, where I would take it out of is out of the the rent by down piece. And the reason for that is that I think that we, I was a bit councilor Zimmerman has talked about, do we know that these housing non-profits that are in trouble are in trouble for their own, you know, for their own fault or for things out of their control? And I don't know know enough about that, that the answer to that question. So I would actually be willing to take it out of that pod, but I don't know if we have the votes.

For that. Let's put a motion on the floor. Let's take the 2.5 million out of the 8.8 million by down. Can I get a second?

Oh.

A motion.

There is an open motion right now that has been moved and seconded.

So yeah, the the amendment as drafted has been moved and seconded. You would need to withdraw it and then reintroduce an amendment with new with a new source.

I will withdraw amendment ssmith three and replace it with a new allocation from the $8.8 million draw down and not come from the Portland housing bond funds. And I'm sure you'll. You'll like that over there. Dca oliveira. How do we get a vote on this?

We are. I have a new motion. And is there a second on the new motion then?

So there is a second. Can I ask a question of staff? Sure. I'm curious if we aren't able to do this today, or if doing it winds up throwing everything into a cocked hat with passing that, not passing the tor in time. Is there any reason why we can't take up these issues subsequently? Can we can do a budget amendment to move to move some of this money around?

That is correct.

Councilor so as long as the money doesn't like go out the door tomorrow, we could revisit these decisions later on.

Correct.

Okay, okay.

So to the new account scarlettsmith for amendment.

Yes.

Colleagues in the in the queue to debate Smith for councilor. Novick.

I already expressed my support. Councilor. Subject to the condition that if we wind up with a75 but not a nine votes, then I'll probably switch my vote.

Thank you. Councilor Novick councilor Green.

Steve Novick: I guess I am now in the queue for Smith4. It was Smith three a moment ago now. Smith four I'm going to be a no on this. I think this is a highly responsible way to amend a tor. I understand the frustration that you're coming with, I really do, and if you're looking for a pathway to get these things funded, I'll tell you what I would rather spend. Two, I would rather spend $2.5 million on this than sweeps. I'd rather spend $2.5 million on this than graffiti abatement. Those are things that I can negotiate.

With housing money.

I'm talking about general fund money. Councilor I'm talking about we're about to go into a budget setting process, and I'm not going to support this amendment, because I know what the good work that the $8.8 million is going to do for debt buy downs, to make sure we can deliver to the 3,060% ami levels in our community, which we desperately need to do. Right. But if you want to ride on an amendment that takes money away from literally cash that we burn in a, in a, in a wheelbarrow on a one time basis and do.

Something burning cash in the. Wheelbarrow only.

For councilor Green is recognized.

Mitch Green: Get home ownership.

Councilor Smith, you're out of order. Only councilor Green is recognized.

Mitch Green: If I may, if I may, I have the floor. I've been.

Talking to me. He's asking me.

If I recognized.

I have a floor, and you can respond to my stuff when I'm done. What I am saying is I don't love the process of doing the allocation by name for all the reasons I've already articulated, but I also hate burning money, spending it on things that are just remove graffiti. Today it's graffiti. Tomorrow we throw someone's belongings away. Today they get them again and they're just displaced again and again. That's wasteful to me. This is not this. This does make an investment for some folks who have been disenfranchized. I'll work with you on a budget amendment for that, but I'm not here today for this.

You know, there's a councilor Dunphy. Mr. President, I understand, and none of these questions and none of these concerns came up last week when you all amended the.

Point of order. Does councilor Smith have the floor? And if not, could you please put order back to the dais? Thank you.

Councilor Smith. I will certainly call on you when we get in the queue, but there are folks in the queue ahead of you. Thank you, councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thank you, council president. I think your idea, councilor Smith, is operational. It's implementable. I'll remind folks that the original thoughts around the rent buy down, which is us helping buildings have been government financed, refinanced so they can rent lower was actually it started at like 1.5. It was about two. And that actually wasn't from a can we do more? Should we do more? That was actually a what can we get out the door before June 30th? What's really reasonable? So I think that by reducing it by this two and a half. While it looks like that that chunk is taking a hit in in operations in terms of who's actually going to get refinanced, I don't see it having a substantial change on the ground with these buildings and their vacancies, which is criminal. I think that the buildings who are ready to go now will be able to execute the six remaining. And if we see that there are buildings that remain in the queue, I'll remind you, a lot of this conversation is because we asked a question. I asked a question of the former housing bureau. What do you do with the rental services money last summer? And she does nothing with it. So this money I just paid my rental service fee last night. It's April 15th. It's coming in. We can do this again. We can do this again. And that's why I guess I think we should support this. Councilor smith's points here are valid. These projects can be positive for district two. And if we get to the point where we can execute $8 million in rental refinancings, then I don't think we will be out of money with the new budget. We should keep our eye to that. I see no change on the ground happening. If we remove two and a half from it and allocate it to these projects, so I'll be supportive. Councilor Smith, thank you.

Thank you, councilor Zimmerman, councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Thank you. Not sure where you all are still sitting here, but I would recommend you leave now. I'll give you out. Yeah. Because I think it's weird that you're on display. So I I'm giving you permission. Yes. Yeah.

Thank you all for.

Being here.

You might have to come back when I talk.

Don't go too far.

That's fine, but you can. I don't need you for this panel. Thank you. All right. So. I have a lot to say, but let me just start here. Let me because this has gone through so many iterations and there's been a lot going on behind the scenes. I've had a lot of conversations with folks. And so I just want to talk through how we got here because I think there has been a lot of confusion, and I do get why. And I want to state where I stand on this and it applies to this amendment, but it also applies to the underlying. So when we started this work, what became known as slow the inflow, the purpose was very clear keep people housed, prevent people from becoming homeless. That was the focus. That was the strategy. And at some point that conversation shifted. Project specific allocation started getting inserted into the process outside of a consistent framework. And that changed what this ordinance was doing. And I want to name that plainly because not everyone agreed with that direction when that happened. So when we brought forward keep Portland housed, it reflected where the conversation had moved. After all of that, it was an attempt to move something forward that could hold a coalition and reflect where council was at that time, but including those projects did not change my underlying position. I never believed that we should be allocating housing dollars by inserting individual projects into an ordinance like this. So when an amendment came forward that removed those projects and brought us back toward a more system based approach, I did support it. That to me was not me changing my direction. That was me taking an opportunity to bring this back to its original intent. And I want to say that directly, because I know that people are asking, yes, those projects were in the ordinance and yes, I supported removing them. Both of those things are true because my responsibility is not to lock us into a direction that I don't believe is equitable or sustainable, just because that's where the process went. My responsibility is to correct course when there's an opportunity to do so. And I took that. And I also want to name something that's come up as a result of this process. Since these projects specific allocations were introduced, I have heard from a number of other organizations and projects, many of them doing critical work, many of them just as deserving of investment. And so I continue to ask myself, how are we deciding how are we allocating these dollars thoughtfully with a process that is responsible and accountable? Because the projects in front of us right now are not necessarily the result of a consistent, vetted process to determine where the greatest community benefit is. They are the ones that were brought forward, often based on timing and relationships and access to this body. And I want to be really clear to those projects. I am not saying that those projects don't have value. I am not saying that they would not benefit the community. But what I am saying is that I have no way to evaluate that fairly when I'm not looking at the full universe of need through a consistent and equitable process. If there are ten projects that could deliver impact, but we're only looking at 2 or 3 that made it into this conversation, then we are not making the best decisions, we're making the most convenient ones. And that is why process matters to me. Because equity is not just about who gets in front of us, it's about whether everyone had a fair shot to be considered. That is the definition of equity. I also want to speak to something that happened earlier in this process. Back in January, we had community members show up believing that new funding was made available to them, and I understand why they showed up. If you're told that there are resources available, especially in a moment like this, you're going to fight for those resources. That's not my issue. My issue is how they were brought into this conversation because when funding gets introduced outside of the clear process, it creates confusion, it raises expectations, and it puts people in the middle of something they didn't design and they don't control. And I don't think that's fair. It's not fair to them. It's not fair to the public. It's not fair to this body. It's not fair to governance. And so we should not be putting people in a position where they are asked to fight for something without clarity and a fair process behind it. I've also had a number of conversations out of outside of this chamber, and I want to acknowledge something directly. There is real mistrust in our housing systems, especially from communities who have been left out again and again. And that mistrust is real and it's grounded in experience. So I understand why people are skeptical. I understand why people might not agree with my approach in this moment. But I also need to say this. I've been in this role for a little over a year, and in that time I have been working both publicly and behind the scenes to change how these systems function. Because I care about longevity, this is not just about one project or one moment. This is about consistency. What is consistent, durable, accessible over time. Because if we don't change these systems, we're just going to keep having the same conversation every single time funding comes up about who gets included and who doesn't. Lastly, I want to ground in what this ordinance actually does. This is not just future tools or long term strategies. This ordinance includes significant investments in rental assistance, eviction defense, housing stabilization, investments that we know disproportionately benefit communities of color who are most at risk of displacement and housing instability. So this is not about choosing between communities. This is about making sure we are addressing the crisis in front of us, while also building something that can meet the scale of the need that we're facing. So the last question I have in front of us is, what are we building if we're going to continue to make decisions this way? Project by project, based on who gets brought forward, that's not a system that is decision making based on access and timing. And I am not willing to call that equity. Equity has to mean that there is a pathway clear, consistent and accessible for everyone. So my vote today is about how we govern. It is about how we're going to continue making decisions through one off allocations, or whether we're going to build a system that's fair and consistent and capable of delivering over time. And I'm choosing to focus on building on that system. And it's why I'm voting no.

Thank you. Councilor Avalos councilor Smith yes.

Candace Avalos: Cfo biery. I want you to level set. How much money do we have to to appropriate in total?

Jonas biery I'm sorry. Councilor how much money do we have to appropriate in total?

How much money is out here on this island? That was unbudgeted. I think you told me last week it was 137. It was 145 and then you took eight off. And so because it was already appropriated.

So I want to and I apologize. I'm trying to sort out the proposed amendment here. So I don't know the amounts off the top of my head, so I apologize.

I remember what you told me last week.

So there was 100. So 106 was the amount that was originally identified. Yes. As we've discussed.

That was.

That led to this discussion. And then there was an additional amount I can't recall at the top of my head. 24 or something like that, 24 million, which was reflected in the city administrator's memo of a month or so ago, which were funds that were unbudgeted to be spent in this year.

Yes.

So different from the original 106, which was sort of unbudgeted.

Different from the first 21 million that we found. So the issue has been also that as we were trying to to appropriate these funds, we kept coming up with additional monies and I think it was 145 million. And you said eight of it was already allocated. So it took us down to 137. So we had about 81. We're only appropriating 56 million that was approved that that people agreed to in an amendment last week. And we would only be appropriating. 56 but the reality is, and I want you to tell me if I'm if I'm right on this, the reality is we could appropriate we could decide as a council to appropriate the entire. 137 couldn't we.

No, ma'am. I don't believe you can, because some of those dollars have already been appropriated just in not the housing investment fund and so.

Signed contracts already.

So they're not transferable in that way? Yes, ma'am. They're budgeted. I believe this is referenced in the amendment that was proposed budgeted in the housing bond revenue fund, I believe it was called and appropriated in that fund and being spent within budget law from that fund. For the contracts that have been signed.

We have more than 56 million that we could appropriate. If we wanted to go up to 106, we could.

That may be possible. Councilor I think some of that is a legal question around restrictions around those dollars that were not appropriate in the original ordinance.

Because that's what we do. We're we're we are appropriating, not a grant making. We appropriate the budget and where the money's go. And so the real issue is how we got here to begin with, because our Portland housing bureau failed to budget over $100 million. And that's. And they failed to tell us that they had money in all these different pots. So that's why we're here today. We have more than enough money to pay for this. The other issue is Steve councilor Novick. I love you and I, and I appreciate you trying to close that $169 million gap. But for my choice, because you're appropriating 8.6 to public safety in parks, I'd like that to go in workforce development in my apprenticeship program with summerworks, which we already did. That's where we could use some additional monies. So I didn't get a chance to get any of those monies. There was no process to, to allocate those dollars either. So we all know that we've kind of stepped on and off of process right now. And I'm still talking and I don't. That's okay. You can put your hand up. So what what I'm trying to say to everyone here, everybody has has missed a process and, and really councilor Green, you got a gift from me because when I did my $40 million ordinance, we only set aside $1.8 million for the buy down. And I heard you say that if we did more, we'd do more. And when I came back, I had your $8 million in there. And so for you to be so self righteous about me asking to take 2 million when we only have 1.8 million. Councilor when I'm talking to him.

I appreciate the president. I need you to keep the tone above using phrases like self righteous.

Okay? Really?

Yes.

Okay, I got some other words. Great.

You got city administrator laughing.

None of this is funny really, but it makes you want to laugh because it's comical. But what I'm saying to you, Mitch Green, you did a very impassioned speech and I'm with you. You know I'm with you when you write, but you're not right on this, bro, bro. You're not. Because all you had access to was 1.8. And now that you've got folks to buy into your 8.8, and you don't want to give 2.5 million of that to black organizations who were a part of this policy from day one. Day one. And I hear what my district one councilor is saying, she don't want to support black organizations. That's cool with me.

Point of order. Can we not impugn the character of our colleagues, please?

Well, she already it's the truth. What is the truth?

That is not true. Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Has done against him. Colleagues against him. Last week she voted against him. So she didn't want to want them to go forward. So I'm just telling truth. I'm not impugning. Councilor under.

Robert's rules of order, members of the council board or other governing body are expected to speak to the issue, not to personalities. This means that remarks about an individual's personal characteristics such as appearance, background, ethnicity or other non-related non-issue related issues are considered inappropriate and not germane to the discussion. I gave a.

Voting record. I gave a voting record, sir. And that's the truth. I gave a voting record. So understand the difference between empowerment and what a voting record is. I challenge you to understand what the difference of the two is. So anyway, this has gotten us fighting. See what y'all need to understand? That we are a group. The Portland housing bureau failed to budget 100 and some odd million. We should be fighting them. We should be saying we're going to we're going to appropriate as much as we want to, because you guys failed to do your job not fighting against one another. We got enough money to do everybody's project. Everybody's. So then it becomes a personality issue. It becomes, I'm not going to give you that because that's going to be your friend. It's not an executive director of a nonprofit in this city that I don't know. I've been in this business for a long time, so that doesn't cut it for me. What cuts it for me is black folks have a 26% home ownership rate compared to white people who have a 53% home ownership rate. And then when you look at the asian home ownership rate, they got a 63 point, a 63.1% home ownership rate. That's the problem. That's why I want to give ssi and give williams and russell this money so that black folks can also own homes in this city that they've paid taxes to. That's why I'm doing what I'm doing. And yes, yes, miss Morillo, I'm going to die on this issue right here because we didn't make everybody else go through the same process. We did not. And it's not fair. Let's take a vote.

Thank you. Councilor Smith. Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you. Council president colleagues, if we want to slow the inflow, we need to provide rent assistance. And we also need to provide homeownership opportunities. I have said that since day one on this process, that has been one of the two things that I have asked for as we've tried to come up with, at some points, what was described as maybe a compromise and at some points has not been. I am looking right now at a presentation from December 9th where an entity was called out by name for funding. In fact, the very original. Before we had a d1 proposal recommendation here had $9 million set aside for home forward, an organization called out by name. So when I hear that we can't call organizations out by name or home ownership opportunities, but that was in the original. I am looking at the presentation from December 9th. I find that suspect. I also am seeing in that original proposal that there were dollars set aside to be spent specifically for affordable housing within the north northeast preference policy catchment area that was removed. These two projects happen to be in that area. We could restore that priority. That was in the original. I will be honest, I do not love the amendment on the table, because the second thing that I have said from the start was a priority for me, were these mortgage buy downs that will allow us to lower rent in a permanent fashion in our affordable housing buildings, and create space for security upgrades that are critical in buildings in my district. I don't love it. I loved some of the other funding ideas better, including restoring the funds from the bucket that the funds were put in when they were taken from here. I am certainly supportive of the idea of having funds for acquisitions and looking at how can provide housing from the city in a better way, which I think that revolving loan fund will. I want us to think about further capitalizing it in the future. But that is where these dollars originally came from. If there are more votes for this proposal than the other, I am willing to stomach reducing this bucket, though. I don't love that. But I want us to all be honest about what we have done in the ebbs and flows of these many proposals we have had before us. And when I hear people say they will not invest specifically in these projects, when investments in the north northeast preference policy were part of the original. And when I hear people say they will not invest in named organizations. When a named organization was part of the original, I find that suspect. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Councilor. Koyama Lane.

Thank you. Council president. One question I did have when I saw this amendment was why urban league wasn't included. And I don't know if councilor Smith, you want to respond to that, but I think part of it is then there was a conversation of, oh, maybe we could add urban league. And then I heard there was another councilor That wanted to make sure we had our house in, and it felt back to the same position we were in before, where we're now trying to piece this together and it becomes a slippery slope.

Mr. President, can I can I respond to her?

Absolutely.

I wasn't fighting for that. I was fighting for home ownership. I was fighting for home ownership. And even if we can't take these funds out of the the buy down, because I think the reason why I didn't take it out of the buy down the first time is because I think you need a code change for that councilor Green. So really the only place to actually take this from, and I can amend my amendment is to take it from the revolving fund. Maybe that might make it more palatable to you to vote for. If we take it out of the revolving fund. So we can go to so we can put this to bed, y'all, we really need to put this to bed because me and councilor Elana pirtle-guiney had a town hall meeting Saturday in district two. And let me tell you the conversation about anti-blackness on this council. That was an issue. People asked me, why don't they want to pay for home ownership for black organizations, when the whole thing was that they never wanted to pay for broadway corridor? And how did the black organizations get thrown out and broadway corridor stayed. Now I'm in support of broadway corridor, but it doesn't look good. But this council kept it and they threw out the black organizations. It just doesn't feel right. So I think I would like to. Is that keelan?

I think I still have the floor.

Oh, okay. When you get finished, I'll ask.

Thank you for answering that question because I was confused why those were there, but urban league wasn't. Thank you for clarifying. And for the record, I said this to you before. I respect how focused you are. My chief of staff, mary lee, has known you for decades. The first thing she told me, she said, Loretta Smith will fight so hard and she's very determined and she won't back down, especially for the black community. I see that, I respect it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Could I amend my amendment? Because I just found out I would have to do a code change. The only place that I can take the 2.5 right now is from the from the, the revolving loan.

Okay. You would.

Again need to withdraw the previous motion and introduce, I guess it would be. Smith five yes.

Smith. So keelan, help me and walk me through this. I want to take out my previous amendment on Smith four and I want to change it from the buy down money to taking the 2.5 million out of the revolving loan.

I believe that's what Smith three does, is that.

But we're on Smith four.

Yeah.

You could go back to Smith.

Three because we didn't vote on it.

So I can go back to Smith three and amend it and amend Smith three to put. Instead of going to the housing trust fund, which has the 23 million. I want to go to the revolving fund loan fund and take it from that pot. Is that is that the good pot, robert.

Point a point of clarification. I don't know what's on the floor. So where are we at?

Like I'm taking my my previous I'm taking my.

Previous many times.

Yeah, yeah, I got out of your back backyard.

You stole my backyard.

Don't make me laugh because I'm, I'm really trying hard to be mad right now. So thank you.

Thank you. Robert taylor, city attorney. If I want to make sure I'm following the conversation, if you can withdraw all of your pending motions to amend. So now we have a clean slate in front of us.

I'd like to have a clean slate and withdraw all my amendments and come back and bring in $2.5 million, 1.5 million for self enhancement, inc. Home ownership program, and then for william williams and russell, $1 million for them, and have that come out of the revolving fund.

Am I right that that was the motion to amend that was reflected in Smith three.

I think so, I cannot remember.

I believe that was Smith. Three yes.

But it said 20 when I pulled up Smith. Three it said 23 million. So I know that's the housing trust fund, money.

Information council president. I believe. Smith. Two was the housing trust fund and Smith three is the revolving loans and social housing acquisition fund.

Okay. Well then Smith three okay.

Councilor Smith has moved. Smith three is there a second? Second councilor Pirtle-guiney has seconded. Colleagues. Is there debate over Smith three. Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: I'm going to support this. To me, the important thing was establishing the idea of and giving some seed money to the revolving loan fund. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference to me. If it's a $2.5 million smaller. I also want to say that I agree with virtually everything councilor Avalos and councilor Morillo said about giving money to specific organizations, and I'm not planning to do that in the future. But in this messy process we've gone through, which I take some responsibility for because I sort of threw a bomb into it just last week. I'm going to vote for the vote for councilor Smith's proposal.

Loretta Smith: Thank you. Councilor Novick councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: I just want to be very, very clear about what's at stake here and the trade offs of taking money from these funds, because if we use the money that we have in the towel right now, which is 18 million to give out initial loans of 3 million to 6 different projects and charge minimal interest to maintain buying power and set repayment terms for ten years. In 30 years, we will have turned our $18 million investment into 72 million. That's what's at stake here. The other alternatives don't do that. We're trying to create a long lasting investment that will generationally change affordable housing, and that is going to directly impact all the people that we're talking about helping today, because our communities are the most impacted. So I just want everyone to be clear eyed about what they're voting on. And we have talked about this long enough and this was supposed to take 20 minutes. So hopefully we can finish up soon.

Thank you. Councilor Morillo. Seeing no one else in the queue. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Just one last thing. This is not a loan. This is a grant. I want to take it out of the the revolving loan fund and make a grant, an appropriation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan, can we please call the roll on Smith three.

Kanal. Nope. Absent.

Pirtle-guiney I.

Ryan I.

Koyama Lane o.

Morillo no.

Novick I.

CClark I.

Green no. Zimmerman I. Avalos no.

Smith I.

Dunphy no.

The amendment fails with six I votes, five no votes and one absent.

Colleagues, we are now to the underlying non-emergency second reading of the technical adjustment ordinance. Is there any further debate on the underlying bill? Keelan, can you please call the roll?

Kanal absent pirtle-guiney. I Ryan.

No.

Koyama Lane I.

Aye, Morillo sorry, can you explain what we're voting.

On the tor.

The whole tor. Okay, finally, I'm sorry I.

Novick I.

Clark I.

Green I. Zimmerman no. Avalos I.

Smith no.

Dunphy I.

The ordinance passes with eight yes votes, three no votes and one absent colleagues.

The time is now 740. We are a little over 100 minutes into this meeting. I'm going to give us a ten minute break. Everybody, please, back here at 750. Thank you. And we are back. Welcome, friends. Can we please call item number six?

Just a second.

Thank you friends.

Item six, document 2026 dash 106. Direct city administrator to develop accelerated timeline for the inner east side area planning project and identify future area planning and zoning actions to advance housing production goals.

Claire adam, seek from council operations is here with a council report. Claire, take it away.

Thank you. Council president and councilors for the record. Claire adams, city council policy analyst and I served as staff to the climate resilience and land use committee, where this item was heard on March 12th. The the resolution before you. Document number 2020 6-106 directs the city administrator through the bureau of planning and sustainability to submit an expedited report to council outlining options for increasing housing capacity in the inner east side through potential zoning concepts and approaches. The report must be delivered no later than 90 days from the date the resolution is adopted, and must propose a timeline for delivering proposed zoning changes, as well as identify any barriers for delivering these zoning changes to council no later than June 30th, 2027. The resolution further directs the city administrator in collaboration with relevant city bureaus, to provide the following information in the report. Information on the methodology and metrics the city will use to evaluate affordability, displacement, risk and equity impacts. Description of interview coordination and budget planning needed to support timely implementation of proposed changes. A summary of how preliminary zoning concepts align with infrastructure capacity issues and the capital investment needs in the study area, and projected revenue from additional property taxes and ratepayers gained through the development of new housing units in the study area. The committee approved an amendment to the resolution to include in the city administrator's report to council the identification of any barriers to council consideration of zoning changes within the inner east side study area. The full impact statement on this item includes information on community impacts and community involvement for public testimony in the committee. Three people testified during the committee meeting on March 12th, 96 individuals submitted written testimony on this item prior to committee action. The general themes of this testimony included expediting plans to increase density in portland's urban core and create financial feasibility for projects, historic single family zoning protections in inner neighborhoods that have contributed to the displacement of lower income residents, in particular black, indigenous, black, and indigenous communities. The climate benefits of increasing housing options and walkable transit rich areas by reducing car dependance. Suggestions for policies to support long term affordability and economic growth, including incentives for cooperative housing and allowing small scale commercial use in residential areas, and finally, support for mixed use and mixed income development and a desire to ensure housing is accessible to people with disabilities and to families. And that concludes the committee staff summary.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, claire. And this came out of the now former climate resilience and land use committee with chair's Novick and Morillo. I don't know who was in charge that day. So I'm going to look to the two of you to figure it out.

I have no idea.

I'm happy to speak.

To that. Okay.

Councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Resolution rip to the climate committee. That was a that was a gut wrencher. Yes. Thank you everyone for being here today. I should I just go over what the resolution does? Do folks want an overview? Okay, so essentially what our resolution does is it directs the city administrator to come back to council within 90 days to create a concrete plan to accelerate any east side rezoning, including geographic scope, preliminary zoning concepts, affordability and displacement methodology, infrastructure alignment, revenue projections, and lessons that we've learned from past planning failures. The goal is that city council would be able to vote on this by June 30th, 2027. If that's not feasible, we want to have a lot of transparency about why and what the fastest legally defensible timeline can be. This zoning change is not going to put 10,000 units on the ground tomorrow, but this is a really critical part of starting that process. And as you all know, I really hate do nothing resolutions where we're just directing bureaus to do things that they were already planning on doing. And so this is a bit different to me because Oregon law requires factual findings on infrastructure capacity, housing need, displacement risk and development feasibility before any legislative zoning changes. So without that record, the ordinance would just get challenged by luba

And we would lose setting and we would lose that hearing, which would set back this effort by potentially years. So this resolution is how, as a council, we can force the fastest legally defensible path. The 90 day report has specific deliverables that it has to. And this is one of those rare moments that a resolution is going to be really important. So I want to be just immensely thankful for all the people who are in the halls today. This is the culmination of years of work from organizations like Portland neighbors welcome that led a coalition of 20 organizations of housing advocates, environmental justice groups, climate activists, transportation reformers, and this resolution was developed in direct partnership with them over months of engagement. These are incredible organizations that built the grassroots consensus for more housing and high opportunity neighborhoods. So thank you all. I hope that we can take this step today in order to build more housing in Portland and to create it affordable and in proximity to things that people need their work, their schools, their, their friends. And hopefully this can just get us on the path of making a more affordable Portland.

Thank you. Councilor. Morillo. I want to give a brief opportunity for your co-sponsors on this councilor Avalos or Green to also say any opening remarks.

Thank you so much, councilor Morillo for letting me join in with. Work was underway. I just want to I just want to share that I was sitting at my desk one day and I was just really frustrated looking at all these other cities and saying, lord, I see what you've done for these other cities. I want the same for me that are just like going fast. And I was like getting ready to be like, I'm just going to drop something. And I was like, hold on, that's not how you do things. You can't just you can't just introduce land use changes on the fly. And so I reached out to folks who I know a lot know something about this Portland neighbors welcome. Shout out to those of you in the crowd. And they said, councilor Morillo already working on this. So I was like, great, let me, let me lend my support. Let me help. I, I think that I, I think this is so urgent because if we do not take every step to make sure that we are not the barrier in the planning process to zone our city, then we are basically putting the next generation further and further behind in terms of the cost that they have to bear for housing. And it just reproduces this cycle of of ongoing poor land use, frankly. And we're working against ourselves. And so we really want to be the pro housing production city council. I think we are. I think this resolution helps us get there. I think that we're going to hear from the community. I could probably say a lot more, but in a time of budget scarcity, this is something that doesn't cost us anything but making sure that we're prioritizing staff time. This is not a subsidy. This is not any kind of a tax break. This is just let's focus and let's get this work done. I'm really happy to see us get to this point. I know we've been working on this for six years in the community, so I'm going to hand it over to councilor Avalos, who I know you've been at the beginning of this for a long time.

Thank you. Yeah, this is a big day and we have been really working hard as advocates to get this moving. And so I'm really grateful to my colleagues, councilors, Morillo and Green for co-sponsoring this and just working this move forward. And I think all all I'll add to the comments is we know that Portland continues to face a significant housing shortage, and we need to be producing far more housing to meet demand. But at the same time, many of the areas that are best positioned for housing, places that have access to transit and jobs and services still have these zoning constraints that limit what can be built. And we know that that is due to exclusion of giving access to all families, to these amenities, that communities have been able to build wealth and exclude others from having that same wealth. And so the inner eastside is one of those areas. It has that strong infrastructure. And so we want to take advantage of our zoning to accelerate this kind of community that we're trying to build across the city. And it's important to note that this is not a zoning change today, but it is about moving faster on the analysis and the policy work to get there, because land use decisions take years. So the work that we start now determines the housing outcomes that we're going to see years from now. And so I am grateful again to my co-sponsors and excited to see this across the finish line.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councilors. Councilor. Morillo. Do you have more of a staff presentation? I know we had this in committee and we don't do full presentation, but I have a note here that you may have just as a reminder for our folks, since it's been a little bit since this was in committee.

I do not have a staff presentation.

Great. So colleagues, we are now going to move before we move into public testimony. And there are at least a handful of folks signed up to testify. We're going to move to technical or clarifying questions. Folks in the queue. Are you in queue for councilor Zimmerman? Do you have a technical or clarifying question?

Yeah, I think it's great. I'm just in the presentation that was presented. There are two maps of the area that this talks about, and they're signaled with 21,000 possible homes and 143,000 possible homes. And and I'm wondering if there's anybody can talk a little bit about why so much of the map on the right is not got that yellow density because, I mean, it just seems very interesting. I'm just trying to understand what. Since we've designated much of a larger area, it seems like the focus is in a couple of key spots. And I was curious about the differences of that zoning. Can anybody speak to that?

Sorry. Which map are you looking at.

On the presentation for April 15th? It it's the last slide and it has the the cutout of where this is. Right. So it's southeast Portland and some stuff above 84. But then in the south part of southeast Portland, it's got a lot of density with yellow there. And I'm just what are we designating here? And it looks like that's where we're expecting growth. But I was hoping to better understand it because the map for all of this is much larger.

Thank you. Councilor for the record, this is Eric engstrom. I'm the director of the bureau of planning and sustainability. Excuse me. I've got some allergies going. I think the map you're talking about is one of the maps we prepared as part of our analysis, which was us running a capacity estimate of where growth may occur if we hypothetically released a lot more density in the zoning. And the patterns you're seeing there have to do with some of the underlying property values today and where the the model that we ran is showing the tipping point would be reached to encourage redevelopment. And I think it's because the, the northern part of that study area has higher property values. And so it's harder to tip those properties to, to a point of development. It may or may not actually play out that way when we if we zone it. But that's what the model was suggesting.

So I should interpret that more about a feasibility prediction than it is about a legality. Correct.

That's not a zoning map. That's a feasibility estimate map that we prepared.

That's great. I appreciate that clarification. Thank you. Thanks for bringing this y'all.

Thank you. Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor. Novick.

Thank you, mr. President. I just wanted to put an amendment on the table before this public testimony. We've gotten a variety of emails from folks who haven't previously heard about the inner east side area planning project. And some people are concerned that the council's taking final action today, and there hasn't been adequate opportunity for public engagement and comment. And as the way I see what we're doing today is basically we're saying to bts, if we're going to do something and you please help us figure out how to do it in less than three years. And that does not mean that there's not going to be discussion in the planning commission and council and further outreach and involvement. So I just wanted to add, whereas in between there's. Whereas now that says whereas the council finds that this prior engagement provides a substantial foundation. And then below that, there's a. Whereas the council has previously found, including through adoption of the housing regulatory relief project. And I just want to add. Whereas that says. Whereas council recognizes that although the prior engagement has been meaningful, many inner eastside residents are still unfamiliar with the inner eastside area planning project and the passage of this resolution is not intended to suggest that there will not be further outreach and opportunities for public comment before the planning commission and the council.

Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Yes. Thank you, thank you, council president, could the permitting director come back up here? I have a question just before we actually talk to folks, is this something that you're supporting? Do you support this, this policy that they're putting forward?

The bureau is supportive of the resolution. Yes. This is a project that's in our work plan. It's a high priority for the bureau.

Okay. That's what I need to know. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Vice president Clark.

Thank you. I just had a quick question because I'm not on the committee. I didn't get the history. How do we decide on this particular boundary? I'm just curious. Can somebody explain that? Okay.

Oh, I'm so sorry I misspoke earlier. I guess we are going to have a guest presentation, if that's okay. From heidi hart with Portland neighbors. Welcome. I think I misunderstood that or didn't see it on the agenda.

Okay.

If that would help answer some of these questions. I think it's a very brief presentation.

Is this something that was already already in the planning? We're expediting something that was already on the books. Is that right? And then my question is just how do we choose this particular boundary? That's all.

And if I.

May, because I'm totally supportive.

In in 2023, I believe this was discussed as part of the housing production strategy. I think that this went to the planning commission. So I think that there has been discussion around this particular boundary in the context of recognizing that there are high opportunity areas that are infrastructure rich, that are not getting the the really the density that we deserve. And so it was it wasn't not arbitrary. It was a sort of sort of saying, look, we should start somewhere. And so there was some intentionality around the boundary. But I think we're going to hear we might hear from heidi.

Who was it primarily because of transit corridors or.

A big part.

Of it? Okay. Yeah. All right. I look forward to supporting this. I want to hear more about the history though.

Okay. And typically we do not have presentations at full council. I understand it's been a little bit here. So if there's some additional clarifying information that we can get from heidi, I don't is she online or is she here? Oh hi.

Can I have. Yes. Okay. Hello.

Good evening, president Dunphy, vice president and members of the council. I'm heidi hart, and I'm a volunteer lobbyist for Portland neighbors. Welcome. We're here today on behalf of the inner eastside for all campaign, and we're grateful council is taking up this resolution. Next slide please. Portland neighbors welcome is a grassroots organization dedicated to making sure that every portlander has a safe, stable, affordable place to call home. We work on land use policy because we believe zoning is a significant tool that the city has to make that true. Slide three. The inner eastside for all campaign is simple in its vision. We legalize apartments and neighborhood corner stores in portland's inner eastside for floors and corner stores. These are neighborhoods that already have many wonderful things frequent transit, excellent bike infrastructure, proximity to jobs, and beloved commercial corridors. The only thing missing is more types of homes. For more of our neighbors, the inner eastside should be a place where anyone of any age or stage of life can make a home. This isn't just our view. This resolution has broad community support. Business and industry groups like Portland metro chamber, multifamily northwest, and the home building association of greater Portland, along with land use, environmental transit and bike and pedestrian advocates, all have endorsed this resolution. So as housing Oregon, a statewide association that represents 147 mission driven affordable housing organizations and over 130 pieces of written testimony were submitted to this committee to this council, with 95% in favor. Portland is ready to build homes for all our neighbors. Next slide please. This didn't happen by accident. Before 1924, mixed uses and multiple housing types were common across these neighborhoods. Then zoning changed. Over the following decades, apartments were effectively banned across most of the inner eastside. In the 1970s, the city zoned the area for racist, ageist, and anti tenant reasons. That history is embedded in the map you're looking at right now. Nearly two thirds of the inner eastside is still zoned low density today. As a result, new homes get pushed to busy arterial streets or pushed out entirely to neighborhoods in north and outer east Portland, where neighborhood where neighbors already face higher displacement displacement risk. I live in buckman, and I love my neighborhood. I live in an apartment on a quiet street with little car traffic and lots of tree canopy, which is possible because the ten unit apartment building I live in was built in 1963. Even with the residential infill project, it would still be illegal to rebuild my apartment today. Next slide. The residential infill project in 2020 was a meaningful step, and it's worked. We've seen a significant number of homes built that simply could not have existed under the old zoning. These are homes built by local developers without requiring outside investment. That's the proof of concept. Zoning changes fundamentally alter what's possible to build and what's not. But you can see on this map that while there are many residential infill projects built in other parts of the city, very few of them are being built in the inner east side. Land values here are significantly higher when you're spreading development costs across fewer units on expensive land. The math doesn't pencil. You need to make it legal to build more homes on one lot in order to make projects viable. Right now, portland's building has slowed down catastrophically. We can't control interest rates. We can't control the broader economy. But zoning is within this council's control and it doesn't cost anything. This is a single best lever the city has and we should use it. Next slide. Under existing zoning, the inner eastside has capacity for roughly 22,000 possible homes, most on arterial streets. I believe this is the slide that was referenced previously with the conceptual zoning modeled in the inner eastside infrastructure assessment. That number jumps to over 143,000, more than 120,000 additional homes for our neighbors, more living options for all ages, ages, and stages of life. More residents to support neighborhood businesses and schools. More city revenue as lots redevelop. This is what upzoning the inner eastside makes possible. We are grateful for all the work that has done on the https, the inner eastside infrastructure study and now on the inner eastside area planning project. We are committed to being real partners in seeing this work through. What we need now is a clear signal from council that this is a high priority. We need the direction and political backing to rethink, process assumptions and move with urgency. This resolution asks for a 90 day report laying out a path to zoning changes by June 2027. Pass it. Give bts the mandate they need and we'll be there every step of the way. Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here tonight. Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Yeah.

Thank you. Council president colleagues, I have an amendment and let me just key it up. It's just something to include in the study that I hope is there. Colleagues. I, I continue to be an advocate for building more housing. I supported legislation this legislation in 2024, which this seems to be pretty much the same. And I'm glad we're lifting it again in 2026. So I remain supportive. I would like the study to include a lens that addresses what I hear at every neighborhood association meeting the past five years plus, and frequently in any dinner conversation I'm in, whether I want to hear about it or not. And they go, it goes something like this. Yes, yes, I want more density and more housing in Portland. I'm just concerned about capacity issues. We have a lot of really narrow, tight streets where parking, garbage collection, just watching children navigate the street can can become a struggle. And then when you add an emergency vehicle trying to navigate that street, it adds even more stress to folks. So my point is, I want to make sure that bts and PBOT include this into their criteria. When rezoning the different streets, not all streets are the same. We just need to be thoughtful and partner with our neighbors on this topic. Again, I'm sure you all hear these same conversations in your meetings with neighbors. My amendment, then, is to simply seek to add explicitly that we expect to see information in the report that addresses the capacity of these narrow streets as we seek more housing. It's on number four. It just adds at the end, including an announcement of street capacity impacts on our local streets related to street sidewalk safety, multimodal transportation, parking, garbage recycling. I would hate to do this study without having this lens. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Ryan. Councilor Zimmerman, are you still in the queue? Okay. Councilor Smith, are you still in the queue?

Okay, wonderful.

Keelan, can we move to public testimony, please?

We have seven people signed up for this item. I will call people up in groups of five. Please come up to the table, state your name for the record and go ahead and address council. First up, we have blair, glennon, indy namkoong, jake atlas, aman. Rutherford Green, vicky payne.

Welcome folks. Come on up. State your name for the record. Feel free to share your pronouns and you have three minutes.

All right. Hello. My name is blair glennon. She her. I'm a resident of district two. I live just north of where the east Portland zoning changes would be. I'm very much in favor of what I've read about this, so I'm in favor of of this. However, with the zoning changes, the Portland city council and admin will. Should also push for increased public transit to make sure these changes are as effective as possible for the city. I am aware that city council does not fund TriMet, but you all often do weigh in on issues that are funded by the state and or county. The transportation infrastructure we have invested in our paved roads, so increasing bus service would be the easiest way to increase public transit service. We do have a bias against busses here in the us, but I feel like that is absolutely possible to overcome on the local level. I have taken TriMet since I moved to Portland in the fall of 2020. I took lines 70 and 20 here, both run through the proposed area. However, line 70 was very crowded and it does not run on a frequent schedule. I believe it's every 30 minutes line 75, which also runs through these boundaries, already had cuts this year. Not everyone is able to ride a bike or afford a car, so I would just like you to take that into consideration. Some reasons I hear from my friends that they don't take public transit more often are that it doesn't come often enough, it doesn't relate enough or it is not convenient to where they're going. Increasing public transit could increase the economic and social opportunities for vulnerable communities. It is always hard to fund public transit and other public services, and a revenue based private ownership system such as ours, but it is essential to increase public transit, to increase livability as we make these zoning changes. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Awesome. Good evening, president Dunphy. Vice president clarke, council members, thank you for the opportunity to comment today. For the record, my name is indi namkung. I'm here on behalf of verdi, and I think I've just hit the mark where I need to officially register as a lobbyist. So that's forthcoming. I'll note it for the record, that's who I'm here representing. Our mission is to serve communities by building environmental wealth through social enterprise outreach and advocacy. We are a community based organization rooted in cully. In district two. We are one of the more affordable neighborhoods in Portland and one of the most racially and economically diverse. And we are not part of the inner eastside, but we have been supporting inner eastside for all since 2023, and we are returning to express our support of this resolution that would direct city staff to complete the zoning work for the inner eastside by June 2027 at the latest. Now, over the last few decades, many people have moved to cully and further out neighborhoods like ours because the rising housing costs in closer in neighborhoods have pushed them away from the city center that's away from the services, the frequent transit and the amenities that we see in inner Portland. And that's been happening because outdated land use policies have been artificially suppressing more homes in the high resource and high opportunity neighborhoods of the inner east side, protecting exclusionary zoning and banning new apartments where they previously been allowed. The result of that is that we've let neighborhoods like albina and outer southeast Portland carry far more than their fair share of burden in building the homes that are growing city and population has needed through the 90s and 2000. While wealthier, whiter inner neighborhoods with more historical power in city hall largely retained their exclusive single family zoning. And when the neighborhood's best suited to develop without displacing, people won't pull their weight than development pressure and less affluent residents get exported to the places that economically vulnerable people already live. Our 2023 housing needs analysis identified neighborhoods classified as economically vulnerable that included cully, foster-powell, and almost all of district one. Those are the places where people are most likely to be displaced if we ask them to carry the burden of solving our housing crisis alone. And given that much of our buildable land is located in those economically vulnerable areas without some intervention, that is exactly what we are primed to do again. But inner eastside for all can be that intervention by bringing more homes to the part of the city that can welcome more neighbors most easily, we can ease the pressure on more vulnerable areas. You've heard from other speakers, and you will hear from other speakers what thoughtful zoning changes, driven by both data and values can offer to current and future portlanders who might live in a home that this plan makes possible, or start a business that serves their new neighbors. And by ending a half century of exclusive zoning and bringing more homes to the inner eastside, you can also offer other vulnerable areas of our city like ours, the opportunity to develop without displacement so that we can be a part of our neighborhoods futures. Please vote yes to advance any side for all. Thank you so much for your time and your work.

Thank you very much.

My name is aman rutherford. I didn't look at this ordinance, so I'm just here to say live experiences need to be to be heard. Let our voice be heard. And that's what I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Jenkins joining us online.

Hello. Good evening and good night, council members. My name is jake and I'm a member of Portland neighbors. Welcome. And I work in construction as a project engineer and site superintendent. Today I'm here before you furloughed a casualty of our local construction industry's recession with a number of issued building permits at their lowest level since 2010. It's hard to feel much hope. And yet, because of this resolution before you, I am hopeful. Portland is a national leader in writing our prior exclusionary zoning wrongs, and that progress has meant that a meaningful portion of the units being permitted right now are newly legalized infill projects that may represent my best opportunity to get back to work before floors and corner stores. Proposal for the inner east side will open up an abundance of opportunity for workers like me, and for our neighbors wanting to live in this high opportunity area and these small wood framed buildings on quiet streets. A version of the garden apartments that already define the character of these neighborhoods. We have officially declared a housing emergency. Yet the status quo process for this project and similar common sense zoning improvements takes far too long to a worker without a paycheck or a family without a home. Every single thing we can do to boost housing production as fast as we can makes a meaningful difference. During the COVID 19 emergency, we didn't spend years developing the perfect process to implement protocols. Within weeks, we referenced the best available science, quickly assessed the risks, risks and benefits of different policy choices, and then acted because the cost of perfect being the enemy of the good was measured in lives. The Portland housing emergency was declared over ten years ago and was an emergency to many of our neighbors well earlier than that. As a result, this crisis feels less acute, mysterious, and scary compared to COVID, not unlike how content we are doing. An activity as dangerous as driving, whether with COVID or the housing crisis, lives are lost or upended, communities are split apart and every aspect of our shared welfare is degraded. The inequality of our historical zoning process is clear. The rationale for upzoning the inner east side and enacting many other changes is, frankly, evidence based. Let us adopt this resolution to speed up our ability to plan more homes in the aye, Morillo opportunity in our east side. It's not only what we need to do to help mitigate the crisis. If we dream about our ideal city, not for ourselves, but for our children and our future neighbors, I'd wager this is a critical step towards that dream. We can't control interest rates or wall street, but we can control our own red tape. The crisis in my industry is suffering a death by a thousand cuts. Please take this opportunity to accelerate the low cost healing that we need. Let's make sure that when the economy shifts, we're already breaking ground on the homes that Portland needs. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Vickie payne is joining online.

Welcome, vickie.

Hi. I'm vickie pain, a north Portland resident, here to share some warnings based on my neighborhood's experience with the 2018 north interstate corridor rezoning, which I think is relevant to the proposal you're discussing today in southeast Portland. While growth and housing options are absolutely needed, blanket rezoning has not totally fit in my mostly single story east kent area, allowing 3 or 4 story buildings and three houses on a single lot has proven a bit jarring and in some cases blocked sunlight, causing at least one of my nearby neighbors to move. Although there is a new two story for you four unit corner townhome on my street that successfully fits into its immediate surroundings. A 40 plus unit building planned across the street from it, a lot less so. Blanket rezoning fails to ensure compatibility, especially in historic neighborhoods, and risks losing neighborhood character or hurting existing homeowners. Today, you guys are talking about neighborhoods that I assume bring in some larger tax dollars to the city and county, not mine. That was already lower income to begin with, but I will let you know that due to said multi-family infill, I just successfully had my property value reduced by $67,000. Sorry, not sorry, but less tax dollars for you. Furthermore, the rezoning did not include zoned parking, leading to increased neighborhood congestion. Despite southeast Portland having strong bus systems, new residents may still rely on cars given current low transit ridership and lack of jobs in the immediate area, raising questions about how to guarantee workforce housing will actually serve the immediate area. Something I I think needs to happen, but we need to ensure that it's actually going to be for a workforce in the area. Large apartment buildings are much better suited for major thoroughfares like interstate or southeast. We've got Hawthorne, clinton division, not necessarily their arterial streets. I'm aware of a house behind a house in the grant park neighborhood, for instance, that the smaller home in the back sold, but the main front house has been sitting on the market for months for 80 $800,000. You know, I know many places worked. And of course, some people are okay living on top of their neighbors, but many others aren't. And I've seen a lot of new development like that sitting vacant. How do we ensure we're building what people actually want to live in? The families that I see moving into apartments near me typically don't stay more than a few months. I think they're moving into houses. And I'm recalling, you know, the exodus into houses over apartments during COVID. And we still have very low return to office rates, even if these on a whole house or property for their families when they got kids. I appreciate council president dunphy's caution against speeding up more production, given the number of existing vacant units. Maybe we should shift our focus to creating more affordable starter homes, which young families want. As we've seen, their numbers are greatest in district one and maybe think about attracting more jobs and businesses to district one. And but obviously also as the city as a whole. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next up we have wes ayres and patrick hilton.

Come on up. Welcome. Go ahead. And. If he wants to go first.

Oh, okay.

Hi.

I wish my family got along as good as all of you guys do. We could have christmas together sometime.

Hi.

My name is patrick and I'm representing developer greed and wall street globalism investment in real estate. What you guys are doing is amazing. This is so good. Un zoning is an urban renewal miracle. You guys will get the city government will get more tax money on bigger buildings. And it's a developer's dream. It's a blank slate. It's like mar a lago. We'll call it porta lago. All of the inner east side can be anything developers dream of. I'm boggled that reaganomics is the most progressive stance to take in Portland today. But it happened. It finally happened. I heard all of this. The more you build, the more affordable. So trickle down economics is alive and well in Portland. And even though cities that we could look at and see that this does not work. Seattle, Vancouver, bc, build, baby build, get rid of everything. Start over, make it bigger, better, more density. Seattle is still one of the most expensive cities in the world. Vancouver is still one of the most expensive cities in the world. And if you want to live in seattle, you're renting. There are no houses. What you're talking about when you say affordability is unclear, what is the affordability you're talking about? When Loretta Smith was talking, she was mentioning ownership. What about home ownership? Focusing on that in these inner eastside areas, you have the opportunity to do infused affordability for ownership, and you can maintain the character of these neighborhoods, which are important for the regional economy, the state economy and the national economy. Portland is a special place. It lives in my heart. I love it, and to watch it get destroyed is not only just sad to me, but it's an economic mistake. Tourism is billions and billions of dollars for our city. We have lost so much tourism money. If you care about immigrants, if you care about low income people, you will care about the hospitality industry. You will care about film and tv. Billions of dollars. Portland is a cinematic city. I'm an urbanist and an architecture guy. I got a weird background in all of that, but I watched the city and I study it and it deserves to be here. Ten years we have let things get built. The residential project infill project happened. What are we getting? Cheap beige, gray, vinyl sided, four story buildings that are stained and old looking before they're even opened and they are not affordable. Inclusive zoning is a joke. You get a $200 discount on a 1200 to $13 apartment. That is not affordability, that is not permanent, that is not creating neighbors welcome at all. These are transitory places where you get in, you get out because the algorithms are set to make sure that they get a certain amount of your income, and that is what they're going to get. I have lots and lots to say about this. I believe in this city. I believe we can do this together. And people like me, and I'm a working class guy and I live in the uncool part of Portland, and we need development out there to take those parking lots and gateway and all these places and make them into permanent, affordable ownership homes for all these people that need ownership, because that's how you get equity. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening council. Thanks for.

The opportunity. Opportunity to speak. My name is wes ayers. I'm a resident of district two and inside the inner east side for all. And I'm the principal of ayers design build here in Portland. I've worked in multi-family housing design, development and construction since 2005. I've served on the Portland board of directors, and I work with architects without borders. I came here today in support of of this amendment or for the east side for all. My firm specializes in helping investors navigate design, permitting and construction for infill, multiple multiple family housing, both affordable and market rate from inception all the way through completion. And we even help operate right here in Portland. I have spent two decades learning exactly where the city's housing process works and where it doesn't. Really familiar with the code, Portland declared a housing emergency in 2015, and portland's own housing production strategy targets about 6000 new units per year to close the about a decade of under production. Building at roughly half that pace, and every renter in this. The inner east side is the right place to act. Adjacent to the central city transit served infrastructure in place. It's a high opportunity, high value neighborhood where hard working people can't afford to live. And that's the inequity we're here to address. Large portions of portland's urban core remain zoned exclusively for single family homes, and Portland built its identity on density over sprawl. On growing up and not out. So that reputation, I think, is worth protecting by making buildable density real in the neighborhoods closest to our urban core. This is a policy choice, of course, and the resolution this resolution begins. The effort to correct it. We have projects ready to develop. We have investors who are interested in, you know, developing in the east side. We have designs that we put together, you know, over the years. A lot of them are just stalled a few units shy of being financially feasible. So Portland needs substantial up zoning, not just zoning reform and not just modest adjustments. Bonuses don't compensate for the cumulative weight of the stacked restrictions. I've submitted written testimony on all this. I get a lot more detailed than that, but I just want to I know what the code allows. I deal with this, you know, monster on a daily basis. And right now it prevents meaningful housing production by keeping portland's urban core at a suburban scale. And this council has the authority and the ability to change that. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

That completes testimony.

Thank you. Councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you so much, council president. We have two members of the community here for invited testimony, and I would like to call them up. Cassie wilson, who will be speaking for a thousand friends. And matthew williams speaking for southeast uplift.

Come on up.

Good evening, council members. My name is cassie wilson and I'm the legislative manager for 1000 friends of Oregon and a disabled rancher in the kerns neighborhood. I support the resolution directing city staff to accelerate planning work for the east side. When I moved out of my parents house in boring two years ago, I looked at housing options all across north Clackamas and east Multnomah county, but ultimately ended up in Portland because that was the only place I could find housing that was decent for accessibility. And in my budget earlier this month, I moved again, but only 13 blocks because I have come to love living on the inner east side so much. I love its proximity to transit, job opportunities, civic events, entertainment, and community. However, I don't have the choice of living anywhere besides the most air and noise polluted corridors, because those are the only places we've legalized. The types of buildings that include housing that is accessible for me right now. Right now only older, smaller apartments and single family homeowners get to benefit from the tree canopy, noise reduction, and lesser traffic that comes with even just being a block or two off a main corridor. While there are many approaches to addressing these issues, legalizing multifamily housing in these neighborhoods is an important tool in the box. We need to continue to grow up, not out. I lived in boring in 2020, during the labor day wildfires, when the entirety of Clackamas county was under some level of evacuation order. While housing accessibility was the main thing that drove my decision to move to Portland. Risk of natural disasters also played a role. I don't want to live out on the edge anymore, where I could risk having to evacuate again. And lastly, the city should see what increased accessibility standards could look like as part of this zoning reform. As we seek to address the housing shortage, we must also be addressing the accessible housing shortage. I urge your support for this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is matthew williams. I'm with the southeast uplift neighborhood coalition. Since 1968, we've worked to build inclusive, participatory communities in Portland city. Three, that includes the southeast and northeast neighborhoods on the inner east side. Not all of the ones discussed today, but we value diversity and those participating neighborhoods. We also recognize that without a variety of housing types and supply, we limit who can afford to be our neighbor. Emerging households today are being displaced out of our city, and families are having to settle elsewhere. So the sewing study being discussed is an important step in creating that opportunity for, and allowing a variety of housing types within inner eastside neighborhoods. This is why the southeast uplift board directors representing community leadership from across district three supports the study for rezoning the inner east side. This did conclude months of outreach to the district's neighborhood leadership. The support is also reflected in the district three community priorities survey. In late 2024, over 1900 residents shared their priorities to share with the new city council. One of the results was a majority, deeming adoption of the eastside for all proposal among top priorities for the city to consider. So this rezoning study is the start of an important conversation about how we welcome people into our city and ensures that as Portland grows, it grows inclusively offers choice for both the people here today, as well as the people we hope will become our neighbors in the future. So thank you for your support of the eastside rezoning project.

Thank you very much. So, colleagues, this concludes our testimony. I need to make a quick program note it is currently 840. We are a full 50 minutes over. We still have an entire item after this, and we have 11 people signed up for public testimony on that next item. We have two open two open amendments on this item. And if we do not start our next item by nine, we cannot begin reading it. So I urge us to get through this in 20 minutes. And it is my intention to hear testimony from anybody who has signed up for the next item, and we will move the debate and vote until tomorrow afternoon. So.

Point of order.

Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Yeah.

Council president Dunphy, the next item is an emergency ordinance. So if it ends up being 901, when you start it, you're okay. I have no opposition to your approach to it, but I just didn't want to mention that.

Thank you. Okay.

To the debate of the underlying resolution now. Oh, wait. Yeah, we're going to.

Point of information which ordinance or which amendment are we debating right now?

Well.

For the two councilors that have amendments, would you like to do that first or should we move to councilor Council debate further first?

We should see if these get through.

Yeah. Okay. So councilor Novick, I'm going to recognize you first.

Thank you, mr. President. Yes, I'm moving my amendment data warehouse causes clause that simply says council recognizes that although the prior engagement has been meaningful, many inner eastside residents are still unfamiliar with the inner eastside area planning project and the passage of this resolution is not intended to suggest that there will not be further outreach and opportunities for public comment before the planning commission and the council.

Second.

Councilor Novick moves councilor Pirtle-guiney seconds colleagues in the queue to debate councilor Smith is missing councilor Zimmerman to the amendment. No councilor Avalos to the amendment. Councilor. Morillo to the amendment. Councilor Green to the amendment.

Mitch Green: Yes, I'm going to support this, but I have to note that there has been extensive public engagement on this question that has gone to the planning commission. There was a housing production analysis, needs analysis, housing production. There's volumes of testimony that we've done over the course of three years. So I appreciate that you put it in. I'm going to support it because it doesn't take away. It's just a good signal that we're we're not doing a zoning map today. Okay. I think there's been some confusion around that. So I'm going to support.

Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor pirtle-guiney, to the amendment.

Thank you, councilor Novick, for bringing this forward. Despite all of that process that councilor Green just noted, I have heard from constituents over the past day or two that they were not engaged yet. And I do think it's important to let folks in districts two and three know that there will still be opportunities for them to learn more and engage as this process moves forward.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney colleagues, any further debate over Novick one? Seeing none, keelan can we please call the roll on Novick one?

Kanal aye, Morillo.

Pirtle-guiney I.

Ryan I.

Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark I Green. A Zimmerman I Avalos. I Smith absent.

Dunphy I.

The amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one absent.

Thank you, councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Yeah. Colleagues, this is simply to make sure that we include analysis of street capacity impacts on narrow streets related to street sidewalk safety, multimodal transportation, parking and garbage recycling service.

Councilor Ryan moves. Is there a second on Ryan? Second councilor Vice president Clark seconds colleagues, is there debate on the the Ryan. One councilor I'm just going to go very quickly through the folks in the queue very quickly. Councilor Zimmerman to the amendment. No councilor Avalos to the amendment.

Candace Avalos: Yeah. Thank you. So I appreciate the intent behind the amendment and the focus on infrastructure and impacts. But at the same time, I do want to be mindful that we're not adding a new analysis requirements that could slow down the 90 day report and the overall timeline of this work, partially because my understanding of is that some of this level of analysis, particularly around transportation systems, is more appropriately handled through the transportation planning work that PBOT is already undertaking. I think it's important that we stay focused on the purpose of this resolution, which is to move quickly on evaluating zoning changes to support housing production. So with that, I wonder, I don't know who the staff are in the room. Can staff clarify how this amendment would impact the timeline for the 90 day report, and whether it introduces new analysis beyond the current scope?

And how you're working with PBOT? Who's doing that study, as was just mentioned?

Yeah, I believe we also have PBOT staff in the room and other public works staff in the room in case there are questions. But yeah, we're, we've embraced the 90 day deadline and we'll be bringing back what our approach to this planning effort will be, including the ways we're going to look at infrastructure and analysis. So we can include our understanding of how we would approach those topics. We're not going to have the answers to the questions raised by adding those topics, but I don't think it adds too much to the to our work.

Thank you for your answer. And yeah, I appreciate that. I still remain that this feels like it is more about transportation related issues. And I want to focus on the housing zoning issue, so I don't plan on supporting the amendment. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Councilor. Morillo to the amendment.

So sorry, Eric. Eric engstrom, for clarity, that you think that this will be okay to add for the 90 day report for us to get it in time.

We'll be able to give you an overview of how we would approach the different issues that we've identified, whether it's transportation or other infrastructure issues, and the list that was added with this amendment can be part of that. We're not going to be able to give you the answers around how what the solutions would be to like dealing with the narrow street or what the what the changes this might imply to recycling services or those sorts of things. But we can, we can talk about our approach.

Gotcha. Okay. So it might not be as extensive as councilor Ryan wants, but you could provide something for us to look at for future things. Okay. I just wanted to be clear.

Thank you, thank you.

Councilor Morillo councilor Green to the amendment.

Mitch Green: Yeah, I'm just looking at a inner eastside for all infrastructure assessment. That is 658 pages long that was presented to the climate land use sustainability council in September of 2025. That engages on the transportation question. I'm not inclined to add another layer of new transportation assessment to this scope. I think it's implied by what we're going to get from the final report back. And so I'm just going to kind of hold the line on making sure that we're moving swiftly and we're focused. So I'm not going to support this today.

Thank you councilor.

Green point of order, councilor. I just have to say that we reviewed that. And it doesn't address parking or garbage meaningfully.

Is that a point of order or is that a debate?

It is.

I don't know, it just was a factoid. And if anyone thinks that when you do construction, it doesn't impact the the right of way. Please. Okay, thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal to the amendment.

Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I just wanted to get a clarification of intent from councilor Ryan here. I wanted to understand the interpretation of whether or not you're you're looking for the new information to be the way you can read it, whether or not it's that you're wanting that to be included in the summary or included in what may be required. And if you could just speak to a little bit of, I'm trying to understand if this is looking for things that might, if we're looking at capital investment that may need to be required, especially in the multimodal transportation space, in the context of the city not being the one who makes those investments, I'd like to make sure that this isn't like asking for the things that we can't do. Does that make sense? Or if you could just kind of tease that apart? For me.

I don't know if it made sense to me, but I can say that this just comes from countless conversations when every neighborhood association for the last five years and every other portlander that just bumps into you, they just want to understand that we assessed the the right of way. And we have many narrow, narrow streets. We've heard testimony about that. We've actually emergency vehicles can't get through, and we have to just make sure that we dot our eyes on this before we move forward. And so this should just be part of the study. It's all inclusive and it asks us to just go a little bit deeper.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

It's crosswalking. I don't see just one bureau. I see planning sustainability as connecting with multiple bureaus, especially in the public space and in public, in the public right of way.

Yeah. Appreciate that. Understand the intent. I think I'm interpreting now from what you just said, assessment as, as aligning with how I was reading it. So I appreciate that.

Yeah, I just didn't want to face more neighbors that said that we didn't bring this into the into the lens.

Councilor Ryan, you're next in the. Queue to the amendment.

That was a.

Okay, great. Councilor Zimmerman to the amendment.

Eric Zimmerman: So I'm trying to I'm trying to think about the map that this encompasses. Right? So there's some areas that are are just very, very different from one part of southeast to the next in terms of how they're, how you drive them, how you walk them. And I so part of this, this makes a lot of sense to me, given the swath of land that this map shows, because that the narrowest narrowness matters and 60th is different than 25th. And I guess I am kind of failing to understand the controversy here. Just from a like a guy who's driven or ridden, whose parents grew up in southeast Portland. These are streets I know very much. And like you just kind of know, like, this is going to be a tough area, especially given like the changes in the recent years. And this area is a little easier to get through. I it seems common sense to me that as zoning changes or development impacts are assessed, that you would make an assessment based on the boulevard, the avenue, the street, the path that they're near. I guess I, I want to support it. I don't know what we're missing here. I guess I'm not I'm not since I'm not understanding something because this seems implementable and I'll be supportive. So I always hoped that planning and, and the implementation of planning or, or our aspects and our goals is also taken into the facts on the ground that each street and each neighborhood are slightly different. And in this swath of land, you see such huge differences from irvington to ladd's addition to richmond to. Getting closer out to the, you know, foster powell areas. And so I'll be supportive. Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Colleagues, we have ten minutes until we need to move on to the next item. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney to the amendment.

Thank you. I it sounded to me like the controversy was around the potential to slow this down. And I just want to appreciate the questions that councilor Morillo asked. I think that gives me the assurance that there doesn't need to be controversy here. I appreciate that we got those answers on the record about the timing.

Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney councilor Morillo to the amendment.

Angelita Morillo: Are we allowed to do friendly amendments on amendments?

Friendly amendment is not a thing.

No, they're all gone now. I like that was the only time we were nice to each other. Yeah. Okay. Could we add a language? Just saying. Including where appropriate, for a councilor Ryan's amendment? I think if we add that, then I will be a yes on the amendment.

So the motion at this point would need to be in order to change it. We could either pass the amendment and then add an additional amendment, or we councilor Ryan could withdraw his amendment and reintroduce a new language with that language in it.

If you want that to be friendly to me with this amendment.

We're not allowed to do friendly amendments.

You can't just take it.

Okay, sorry. New language. Can you define appropriate?

No. I guess I'll just I mean, I'm going to be honest. I think it would just be a no. Otherwise.

I think what to councilor Zimmerman's point, the I can think of the for streets just in my area. And each one is a different size. So people that live around there know that you don't go down certain streets because they're too narrow. That's all. And so I want to make sure in the study that we take that into consideration as we're doing this, planning one size does not fit all. That's all.

Yeah, that makes sense. I think that would be for bts to determine their.

Okay. Colleagues seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan can we please call the roll on? Ryan one.

Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Koyama Lane. No aye, Morillo. No Novick. I Clark. I Green. No.

Zimmerman I.

Avalos no.

Smith oh, sorry. Absent.

Dunphy I.

The amendment is approved with seven yes votes, four no votes and one absent.

Thank you very much. Did we already do the Novick one? Yeah, we did. Okay. Great colleagues to debate to the underlying now amended bill. Anybody councilor Pirtle-guiney to the bill.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I just have a couple of questions. If director engstrom is available to come up.

Just as a heads up, we have eight minutes.

We'll ask any questions very quickly with very few words in your answer. Director engstrom, we are asking you to prioritize this work. What are we deprioritizing.

I thought I was going to be able to answer that in the budget process. We are going to be able to take on fewer other planning projects during this period of time. So that's going to be a trade off. I'm going to I'm not going to know the answer to that until we have our budget. Probably.

Okay. I guess I'll want to know more as we move through the budget process. If we pass this on what it is that we're losing the way that this is written, I have had it described to me, frankly, by by advocates and my colleagues very differently. And I want to make sure I understand what it is that I am voting on today. Does this presuppose the plan that will come before council, or does it just ensure that you bring us a plan of some sort more quickly?

I think it's asking us to bring you a plan. I don't read the resolution as directing the specifics of what that plan looks like.

Okay.

So the feedback that you will still be taking from portlanders could influence what comes before us, even if we pass this resolution today.

Absolutely.

Okay. Finally, I've heard different accounts of how big and how dense, what is what, what is presupposed, perhaps in terms of the maximum scale of density that we're talking about here, or is that not presupposed at all.

The the given is that it would be denser than what would already be allowed with the middle housing legislation that's in effect now. So that's a given. But we would generate some alternatives during the public involvement process and and use that to develop the final proposal. So, you know, right now the full range of our different zoning designations are on the table for discussion.

I know we have advocates who have a very clear plan in mind that they would like to see. What I'm hearing from you is this does not necessarily move a specific plan. This just says we need to continue this process. We've said it's a priority. Let's do it more quickly. Let's make sure we hear from portlanders and get it right. Also, is that accurate?

That sounds right.

Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, colleagues.

We have five minutes left. In four minutes, I will be asking us to suspend the rules in order to break our own rule that we don't start an item at 9:00 councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thanks. So as a representative of one of the areas that's going to happen, if this should go forward as a renter, former member of that committee that passed it through where I supported it, and as a member of Portland neighbors. Welcome. Very supportive of this. I think that the report has a lot of particular advantages that can help us explore any of the particular implementation pieces that we need to. Understanding zoning trends and displacement from high opportunity areas is is essential for making smarter and more humane planning decisions in a rapidly changing world. And that particularly affects the context of district two. By studying the needs, pathways and strategies and assessing how people move, we can anticipate and respond to challenges instead of reacting to crises after the fact. I think this was a really responsible way, and I'm grateful to the sponsors for doing this, not only to comply with state law, but just to ensure better implementation. And the underlying need for the rezoning is, I think, clear. I really appreciate the testimony. So I won't repeat it except than to say that the four floors and corner stores is the slogan, but it helps describe, I think, really in a clear way, what we're looking at creating, which is those types of neighborhoods that everybody says that they want walkable, accessible, and really inclusive of everything you need, where you're leaving your neighborhood because you want to, to go check something out as opposed to because you have to, because the thing you're looking for doesn't exist near you. We can talk about a lot more things coming forward and how it can be more transit oriented. I really appreciated that testimony as well, but those are the potential tweaks that will happen over the life of this report and then implementation. Not a reason to to change or to avoid passing it. And so I'm excited to support it here and we'll be smashing the yes button. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal colleagues seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan can we please call the roll on this resolution?

Kanal.

Aye, Morillo.

Pirtle-guiney I.

I Koyama Lane I aye, Morillo. I Novick.

I I.

Green a.

Zimmerman I.

Pavlo's Smith. I Dunphy. I resolution is adopted with 12 I votes.

Can we please call item number seven.

And code to establish the Portland committee on community engaged policing ad code chapter 3.23. This is document 2020 6-126.

Colleagues, this is an emergency ordinance. I'm going to start by recognizing councilor Kanal. I believe.

You think the mayor's office is leading this one off.

Do we have someone from the mayor's office. Oh mayor wilson.

Wow.

Say. Say his name and he shall appear. Wilson. Welcome. We are just apparently turning it over to recognize you for our emergency ordinance.

Council president, council vice president. Colleagues. Good evening. How are you doing?

Living the dream.

Horrible. Horrible.

Haley, good to see you. Members of the public. Thank you so much for coming here tonight. It's been a long night. I can tell already. I'm proud to introduce this ordinance to codify pccep. This is an important moment for Portland, and it reflects years of commitment from community leaders, advocates and residents who believe in a stronger, more effective partnership between the community and Portland police bureau, and that it was possible, necessary and worth building. This progress did not happen overnight, and it did not happen without effort. It came through persistence, through difficult conversations and through the steady work of people who remained engaged over many years. Their dedication helped bring us to this point, and tonight we owe them gratitude. And thank you all for coming here and staying this evening. I want to recognize the past and present members of sep. A very good friend of mine, lakayana drury, was a past co-chair of sep, and I was able to talk to him and walk him through and and discuss the the meaning of this. And he was very valuable to me and I knew he was and has worked with you as well. Also, the albina ministerial alliance coalition for justice and police reform. The mental health alliance, the citizen review committee, portland's black elders, past and present, and also the pccep staff who've really worked tirelessly many hours and late into the evening as well. Thank you and much gratitude. There are so many names that don't appear here, and certainly we have to really center them and thank them throughout this process that labor, the advocacy and the belief in this process has really made this moment possible. This ordinance matters because it gives lasting form to an important partnership between the community and the city. It honors the work that brought us here, and it strengthens the foundation for the work ahead. This is also a moment to recognize the Portland police bureau for the progress it has made under the settlement agreement. Many paragraphs have been found by the independent monitor, the department of justice, and judge simon to be in substantial compliance in self-monitoring or completely terminated altogether at this moment. This progress is ongoing and reflects real effort by the bureau, and it deserves to be acknowledged and celebrated. Celebrated by our community under chief de's leadership, PPB is leaning into the collaboration and dedication with pcf as partners in this journey. That is an encouraging sign of a new chapter in this work and of a shared commitment to continued partnership. I also want to thank councilor Kanal and Novick for co-sponsoring this ordinance and for their partnership in bringing it forward. Tonight we mark an important milestone. More than that, we reaffirm our commitment to keep Portland working, working together to strengthen the partnership between the community and the Portland police bureau, and to keep Portland moving forward. With that, I'm proud to introduce this ordinance and to respectfully ask for your support. I'd like to turn it over to my senior aide, christopher taft, to present.

Yeah. For the record, christopher taft, senior aide to mayor wilson, council president, out of respect for the community members that have come here to give testimony, I would like to make the request that we prioritize the testimony over the presentation to this present time. I'll defer to you on the decision.

You know, if there is an ability to do some brief level setting of what folks are testifying on, that'd be great. But otherwise I agree. Let's let's prioritize.

Do you guys want to just rip through the presentation real quick? Okay, I'll turn it over to sap members. Okay, okay.

Thank you. Council.

I'm conrad keelan and I currently serve as one of the co-chairs of the committee. What is sep. In short, sep was created as the mayor mentioned by the department of justice settlement agreement as the advisory body to both the mayor and directly to the chief of police. Right. This came from community concerns regarding use of force about portlanders across all communities, but particularly portlanders in minority and underrepresented communities, as well as our neighbors experiencing mental health crises. Right? This is about constitutional policing and community trust in the Portland police bureau. And I'll turn it over to pastor.

And before I thank you, president and all the council, before I make my statement, I do want to recognize, as the mayor have said, those who have fought very hard to where we are today. And I would like to mention their names, kathleen sadat, bishop, a a wells pastor, bishop, pastor gail hardy, senator, a former senator, bill gormley. And there's many others that I can say again, but you'll hear some from the testimonial. Also, I would like to also thank commissioner Smith, who is at the very beginning of all this with us to work piece up mission is to work with the mayor, police commissioner, Portland police bureau and Portland and a Portland diverse constituents to to solicit and exchange information between community and Portland police to achieve the desired outcomes and equitable policing to exceed constitutional requirements and meaningful community engagement with and the trust in the Portland police bureau, brother said.

Kept right on. Thank you. Next slide is structure, nuts and bolts.

So could you push the microphone?

Sorry, I was trying to be 6 to 8in away. I guess I was.

Just drag it so it's in front of you.

Yeah. No worries. Has 13 mayor appointed council confirmed volunteers? Two of the 13 seats are reserved for youth members, which are now age 15 to 23 is what we just changed. We conduct our meetings in public, both sometimes in person, some always online. And while committee members work independently from PPB and actually the city pccep is supported by city staff, we receive some city funding for our efforts and functions within the city's governance structure.

Vanessa perry step number. Next slide please. So these are just this is just a small example of the work that pccep has done. But our work falls primarily into two different buckets, the first being recommendation power and the second being convening power, the power of community engagement. So pccep is deeply committed to engaging with our community, to expand our scope and our reach, to make sure that we capture all of the diverse voices that live here in our city.

And grabinski pccep program manager. Next slide here. So we know there can be confusion about the landscape of our police oversight and accountability systems. So pccep is the main police wide advisory body that is administratively independent from PPB and has authority to make recommendations directly to the mayor and the chief. So pccep really focuses on translating community voice into policy review and recommendations that touch a systemic bureau wide issues. The cebpa, the community board for police accountability, which will eventually replace ipr, focuses on administrative discipline and specific instances of misconduct. So there is some overlap in the fact that these are both independent bodies working on issues related to policing, but their work is quite different.

Next slide please. The cep codification timeline. Although this timeline begins in 2024, I just want to acknowledge that there were discussions and desires much earlier to to codify cep, and many in the room can attest to that. But officially in July 2024, pccep formally made a recommendation to mayor wheeler to codify and share draft language. Mayor. Sorry. Mayor wheeler at the time was largely supportive, but he. His term ended. Mayor wilson was elected into office, and in March of this year, the doj and the city attorney's office filed a joint motion to terminate the pccep discrete subsection of the settlement agreement. Very quickly thereafter, the mayor asked that we move on on drafting language, and then shortly thereafter, judge simon did grant the motion to to terminate the discrete subsection after it had two successful six month periods of self monitoring. Next slide please. The process prior to drafting language, the mayor's office and the city attorney's office communicated with council leadership council. The co-chairs, Kanal and Novick are now co-sponsors, pccep supervisors, cep members, ananda ministerial alliance, coalition, mental health alliance, and the ppa. The drafting process. This language was not drafted from scratch. The 2024 code language was used to draft as a draft template. We collaborated with pccep, the city attorney's office and councilor Kanal office to draft the language and present it to pccep. On March 11th. The code language is broadly updated for new governmental structure, charter language and advisory body enhancement project. Increased memberships membership from 13 to 15 to better meet the scope of work, and made some youth membership change guidelines. Next slide please. Broadly, what the ordinance does do, it just codifies pccep as it exists. It maintains its mission and scope of work, and it continues the direct connection that the mayor that pccep has with the mayor and the chief of police, they still will make formal recommendations, which must be responded to within 60 days. What the ordinance does not do is, does not change the cep plan, which outlines scope, membership selection terms, removal, membership responsibilities, and it does not alter pccep bylaws. And I'll end there and just turn it over to co-sponsor who councilors who may want to speak. Councilor Kanal and councilor. Novick.

Councilor Kanal council president, with your permission, I'd be happy to to wait to do my introductory comments until after testimony.

Sounds good. Likewise sounds good. And colleagues, we will hold on technical or clarifying questions until tomorrow as well. I'd like to move to testimony right now, please. Keelan can we please call up our first five.

Council president? I would like to say one more thing. Two names I, I left out absolutely. That is doctor t allen bethel as well as Dan handelman as well as prior president roy tait. And the last thing is, I would like to say, since I've been talking historically, today is a day that's in honor of our great jackie robinson. This role was initiated today as a recognition for the civil rights and the fighting of those who are strongly. Recognize the civil rights movement. I say that to say to commissioner Loretta Smith, keep swinging. Thank you. Very much.

Okay. I'm going to call up folks in groups of five. If you've already addressed council, just wave at me and I'll remove you from this list. Doctor leroy haynes jr, reverend doctor mark knutson, philip chachka. A frieda davis, jorge sanchez bautista.

Welcome, all. Thank you for hanging out late with us this evening. And, doctor, take it away.

To the honorable mayor keith wilson, to the distinguished and president of the council, to all the distinguished councilor Members of the city council of Portland, Oregon. I am the reverend doctor leroy haynes, president of the abana ministerial alliance, the oldest active ministry alliance in the city of Portland, and chairperson of the Elana minister alliance, coalition for justice and police reform. We are also to the ama, the lead amicus in the settlement agreement between the us department of justice and the city of Portland. For over 20 years, the ama coalition has led to community effort to reform the Portland police bureau. The reform effort has included every component of the police bureau, with participation, emphasis on police accountability, policies and practice, training and community engagement. We stand council members at a crossroad with the implementation of the new monitor system and the critical transition we're in, and the process of transforming our police bureau. We believe in the ama coalition that the codification of peacehealth is a critical component, with its community engagement emphasis and its inward and outward communication with the community and the police bureau, that this is a critical process. If we're going to create a 21st century police bureau, and that is just that is fair and that is equitable for all the citizens and communities of Portland. And finally, let us continue to move forward and not backwards and building on the work of diverse citizens that have labored over two decades in this city, that have poured their energy, their spirit, their body, and their love for this city. Let us move forward.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

President Dunphy. Thank you for your leadership. Mayor wilson, thank you for moving this forward at a very important time. And to the co-sponsors, thank you to you both for your leadership and for everybody serving this council. We used to come here a lot, but right now we're in federal court for a couple issues. We're suing the trump administration with. And we are also waiting for the supreme court to make measure 114 law. But this has been a critical issue. When I came back to Portland after doing national work 30 years ago, the first group I joined was the albina ministerial alliance. It was about the same time you arrived, doctor haynes and doctor t allen bethel. And from day one, this has been a vital issue in the city, as we all know, and we don't have to go through all that. We should name all the names, but we know after aaron campbell was murdered by the police, the ama was the one that called in the department of justice to begin this investigation. And it's been going ever since. We've been in federal court now for 15 years. And we saw the coab come the predecessor for sef and disappear because they weren't being heard. And so this codification of sef is vital at this moment in time. We really thank all those who have served on it currently and in the past, because they're making a major contribution to the city of Portland in this work. Many of us can do this work because our jobs allow it. Others on sef have had to give up work and hours of income to do this work. So I want us to make sure you hold up the members of pcf and their staff as we go forward and look for ways to support them, because it's inequitable. When we ask people to give up work hours to be representing versus those who can do it as part of their work. So I really want to underscore that going forward. I also want to say too, that we are blessed by judge michael simon in this process. The federal courts are one place in certain places we can trust right now when so much else is broken. So let us stay engaged in this together. There are times when the city wanted to get out of the agreement, and the judge kept us at the table. So the department of justice. So we can't really say they'll do that now, but we know the city can. And so we're thankful for the leadership around this. I want to say too, we've been saying this all along, doctor haynes, that this is one step and a vital, important step, but it's a much larger mosaic than that. I look at that city of Portland panel behind you. If you imagine as a blank slate, imagine this settlement agreement as just one painting into that mosaic. That mosaic should be one saying, we want to have the model in this city of 21st century peacekeeping where things are dialed down. De-escalation is the key. I still have 28 seconds. Okay. And that we staff the department based on the birthright in Oregon right now, which means we should have the most diverse police department around peacekeeping department, I'd rather call it possible and that we work tirelessly to see the culture changed. Whenever a country goes to war, it trickles down. We have to be vigilant right now to make sure peacekeeping is the number one thing, and de-escalation that this department is about. And so pccep members. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, president Dunphy and members of the council. We pray for you every night because you are an incredible group of leaders. I'm so glad there's 12 now and not five. And thank you for what each of you are doing. Thanks for this time. And doctor leroy haynes, I can't say enough. We've been running together for years, but I can't keep up with you. You are just too fast on every issue. We are so thankful for his leadership in this city for these many, many years. And as doctor keelan bethel would say, let justice flow down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is philip. I use he him pronouns. I'm with district three. I'm also a member of Portland copwatch. Since 1992, Portland copwatch has been working toward a police bureau free of brutality, corruption, and racism. We support the codification of cep as presented and have great appreciation for the purpose of engaging with. As quoted in the description with portland's diverse communities on important public safety issues related to constitutional policing, racial justice, interactions with people experiencing behavioral health crisis, and historically excluded communities, cep provides community members with the ability to contribute to formal recommendations that the mayor and chief of police must respond to within 60 days. We are grateful that there is an ongoing project to track these formal recommendations, and that will provide additional transparency around how the city takes accountable and takes account into account recommendations from the public. We urge you to to codify cep. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening everyone. My name is rita davis, and I'm a constituent of district three. I also am the facilitator. So I've been working with cep as their primary facilitator since spring of 2023. So three years going approaching into the fourth year. And I wanted to take an opportunity to step outside of that role, to speak as a a citizen of Portland about my experience of working with cep. I'm a firm believer in my private life that the best way in order to make make the change that you need to see in your city is speak truth to power and speak honestly about your experience in the city and your experiences with law enforcement. And cep has been that place where constituents have been able to do that. It has been an absolute pleasure in my spirit to see community members, everyday, people from all walks of life, from all different perspectives. Political perspectives come together, work together collaboratively in order to create recommendations, to speak directly to the mayor. And each time I get to step in front of them and hold space and create room for them to speak, I am always wowed at what everyday people who work really hard who you know, give give their own personal time. I'm always wowed at how well they can come together, how well they can settle their own personal differences about how they view policing, and come up with recommendations that really serve the community. I'm also wowed by. While they have always been in the need for community engagement coordinator and they've just recently landed that position, so I'm really excited that they are fully staffed. But in and even when they were in need and didn't have that community person, they still work very diligently to reach out to community to hear the community's voice, that even though that they had been given a platform where they had a modicum of power, they still saw themselves as everyday citizens and spoke to people who didn't have the microphone and gave space for folks who didn't have the microphone. P sep and sep simply put, just needs to be codified in the settlement agreement, I think. I don't know who were the geniuses who said, hey, I mean, I'm sitting next to some of the geniuses here recognizing that, but you know, the geniuses who said, hey, as we work to rectify the harm that the policing community or the police has done to the community, let's create a voice for the people to stand up and say what they need, what they're seeing, and what they desire to see from the police in that genius. I think a lot of recommendations that really serve the city has come about. I hope that you all can see that this this genius committee has the ability to stay in place. Sorry, I'm getting a little. So also I'm looking at myself. So that's weird. So in summary codified. So thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Good evening council president council vice president. Members of council sanchez bautista, I serve as the interim co-chair of the Portland committee on community engaged policing. Sep. I speak before you as an individual, so not on behalf of cep. I want to first thank mayor wilson, councilor Kanal and Novick and their staff and the city attorney's office for collaborating with cep and to bringing this ordinance before you this evening. And I apologize that it's it's at this time, I know everyone wants to go home and sleep. I know I do. That said, I do have some concerns about portions of the language that I believe current cep members did not have the ability to fully weigh in due to city staff influence. I want to acknowledge those concerns. For the record, under members, in terms. The membership would increase from 13 to 15 and the youth designated seats would be expanded from 16 to 23 to 15 to 25. These shifts to the membership benefits us as we bring additional perspectives when shaping community, public safety and constitutional policing. However, my concern lies in the process that got us here. If the city is expecting its advisory members to be supportive of efforts like codification, but doesn't take into account feedback of its own members and instead makes decisions on our behalf, it raises the question of how we are expected to show up in support. This concern is even more concerning in the changes to the youth designated seats, expanding the age range from 16 to 23 to 15 to 25 directly impacts youth representation. Yet youth, including myself as a youth member and in my role as co-chair, were not engaged in shaping this decision. These seats are intended to center youth voices and making adjustments to its structure without engaging those directly impacted undermines that purpose. My recommendation, which the other youth member supports, would be to to amend the age range to 15 to 22 in order to better reflect actual youth perspectives of high schoolers and college age students that work that we have accomplished in the communities that we have brought together does not make me against this ordinance. I remain neutral. The ordinance allows us to continue moving forward as we shape community, public safety and promote constitutional policing, and ask for your vote in codifying cep with changes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you all.

So we have delegate debbie aiona. Barbara buczynski, charlie. Michelle. Wesley.

I guess I'm the only one here in person. Good evening, councilors mayor wilson, city administrator lee, for the record, my name is yumi delgado. I'm here in my personal capacity. I serve as chair of the citizen review committee, which works very closely with pccep. So it gives me great pleasure to address you tonight to thank mayor wilson councilor Kanal councilor Novick for bringing this ordinance and to speak in favor of the passage of this ordinance. The citizen review committee has relied on pccep as a partner in our engagement with community, and I think that role has become all the more important in this new form of government for two main reasons. One is that the crc and the cba, which will replace us at some future date, exist within the city operations infrastructure. Right. And so our line of communication is to the deputy city administrator, to the city administrator, and eventually on to the mayor steps engagement directly with the mayor and with the chief of police are vital in daylighting, concerns from community and real time, and making sure that those are heard adequately and swiftly. Additionally, as chair of the citizen review committee, as chair of a body that is tasked with discipline, right, that is tasked with administrative review, I am keenly aware that the statements that I make directly reflect on the bias of my members and on our capacity to render an impartial just verdict, right? That role will be all the more important for the cba in 2029 or 2030 when they begin hearing cases. And so it is vital that you have a separate body that can be candid and that can have those conversations with community, with the bureau, right, and bring those considerations to the mayor, to the chief of police. I also think that, you know, many people I've heard people view pccep as being anti-police. I don't believe that to be the case. I think it is vitally important, though, that peace that be able to engage with the bureau and engage with community and daylight those concerns and talk them through in a way that is respectful and allows community to understand the nuances of these situations, and also allows the bureau to understand what community is feeling and, and saying in those moments, respecting your time. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much.

Hi. My name is barbara bochenski and I work for Portland, copwatch. I appreciate you all considering this. I think it's very important. I've watched them for years. I've gone to many meetings and I really respect how they really listen to community voices, and they're really willing to take on difficult subjects like the shotspotter and many other things. And I I've seen them now that they have staff support and they've, they've become a much more solid group. And so I hope you all will codify them. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening. I am charlie michelle wesley. I come here representing communities as I am a. I have extensive lived experience in overpoliced neighborhoods and I'm predominantly kalapuya ancestry and multiple other northwest tribes of this area of turtle island. I've been thinking a lot about Dan handelman as of late, given his. Just over a year ago, we regretfully lost him and I've been going through his multitudes of reports on police issues, he shared in one of his more recent newsletters, and I'm referring to the dan's Portland cop. Watch people's police report. And I quote. As it happens, a lot has changed since we began publishing this newsletter in 1993, but also amazingly and sadly, very little has changed. This is mainly referring to police violence. I share this quote because of the obvious resistance to change by PPB, especially when it comes to accountability for excessive and deadly force against. And this is a quote from sip's website. Black, indigenous and other communities of color, people with disabilities, and individuals experiencing mental health issues, immigrants and refugees, low income residents and other historically underserved. Despite putting multitudes of community committees together over the many years to monitor the police, so little actually is accomplished for those above communities. But one of the most effective committees stands out above all that truly support those communities mentioned above. That is sap and dan's many reports. It shows how necessary and effective sap is, and how their efforts in getting input from a variety of voices often proves to those voices that are typically ignored are heard. Hence, in a public testimony by a representative stated, their focus is on making sure Portland maintains strong community oversight of police and use of force and public safety outcomes, and I believe them. Some examples of cips enduring integrity for accountability from dan's high standards of reporting. Pccep wins debate against shotspotter. Sadly recommended by cog and cep, came to the support of psr when efforts to undermine the program were put forth. Also, pccep rejected proposed changes to pb reporting of potential escalation information, which could hinder evidence for fair trials amongst countless other transformative acts. Pccep makes us feel like they care and that we really do matter with their unflinching acts of honesty, community outreach and transparency, and community and communications and other values. We very much look forward to their continued commitment to transforming public safety for all with new with their new independence, invaluable impact. Rest in power. Dan. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Debbie is joining us online.

Thank you. I'm debbie Elana speaking this evening as an individual, as a regular attendee at pccep meetings and at the community oversight advisory board. Before then, I fully support placing pccep in the city code. When the city and us doj entered into the settlement agreement over ten years ago, giving the community such a meaningful role was out of the ordinary. Implementation of this aspect of the agreement has been rocky at times, but we now have a committee that functions well. The city will benefit by ensuring its continued existence. Over the years, I have attended many of the city's boards and commission meetings, and pccep by far is the most welcoming of public participation. Community members are fully integrated into the zoom meetings and given ample opportunity to ask questions and make comments and suggestions. The mayor's office, police bureau and city attorney's office send representatives to the meetings. More often than not, when a question comes up for them, they are able to answer it that very evening. This level of access to key personnel is a real asset to public understanding of our public safety system. It also provides a venue for the public to influence policies and practices. Pcp members take seriously, and respond to community recommendations for policies and issues to study. When they do develop recommendations to submit to the mayor and chief. They are thoughtful and well reasoned. The 60 day timeline for response ensures a level of accountability. Please vote yes on adding pccep to the city code. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

That completes testimony.

Colleagues, I am going to hold this item over to the top of our regular agenda tomorrow. We have two time certain items at the very beginning of our council meeting tomorrow afternoon, but this will be we will move this item toward council debate and a possible amendment and a vote tomorrow, roughly 230. With that, I am recessing the meeting of the Portland city council until tomorrow at 2:00. Thank you all for sticking with us.