The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-07-08
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (35,992 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Portland City Council's July 8, 2026 session opened with a proclamation honoring the Portland Fashion Institute's 16th anniversary, then public communications on gun violence and police response times, street takeovers and youth spaces, a call for a forensic audit of Home Forward and the Portland Housing Bureau, and a resident's billing dispute and Lloyd-district concerns. After the administrator's report, the council deliberated the Lloyd Center master-plan appeals — debating the decision's legal scope, whether conditions addressing the ice rink or community space were within its authority, and the city-owned Veterans Memorial Coliseum as an alternative ice venue — and took a roll-call vote, with revised findings and a final vote set for July 29. A first reading of the RECAP 11 regulatory code-amendment package drew testimony from universities and land-use professionals and votes on two amendments, with the ordinance continued to July 30. The consent agenda and the Home Buyer Opportunity tax-exemption price-cap resolution went to votes, and the SDC-exemption ordinance took testimony before continuing to July 23. Outcomes are recorded in the vote ledger. The session adjourned at 1:31 p.m.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
0 Good morning. Before council officially gavels in, we have a pre gavel recognition and I'm turning it over to councilor Ryan.
1 Thank you council president. Good morning everyone. This morning we have a special privilege of recognizing and celebrating the Portland fashion institute and its 16th anniversary. I want to welcome director sharon blair and her team to join us. If you could, you could come sit up here in these lovely five chairs so you can all be seen and recognized. Thanks, sharon. She's joined by board president jean nesbitt, registrar Candace friedman, instructor amber roberts and gala manager kay strohecker. I bet I missed some name or have there been any changes in the lineup?
2 We don't have jenna here yet, so pardon me. Jenna is not here.
3 Okay. Well, thanks for being here this morning. It's really wonderful. I have to say, I, I didn't know much about the Portland fashion institute, and I had the pleasure, along with fashionista councilor Smith, to be judges at rossi farms red barn. Imagine a fashion show out at rossi farms red barn. It was great and I didn't know what I was doing. I was a judge and I turned to this person who I didn't know very well, sharon. I could tell she knew what was up, and I said, can you give me any pointers? And she just used the word construction. I didn't really know exactly what that meant, but I started looking at all the like, hemlines and all the details. And anyway, thank you. I felt like I was a much better judge because of your because of your tutelage. And I also want to say how sometimes in Portland you can kind of starve for fashion. You're like, it's, it's almost like an oxymoron that we have such a robust fashion industry in our city. And it's because of the, it's because of the ecosystem and all ecosystems. Economic ecosystems have a higher education system that supports them. And so it's not lost on me that because we keep winning, winning that project runway reality show, that probably a lot of those are your students.
4 Yes they are.
5 All right. So anyway, just know that Portland, our small market city, really punches up in, in one of those areas is fashion and the connection with the with sport, obviously sportswear. And so this is it's important for us to keep lifting these economic ecosystems that make our city special. So here's the formal, the formal reading of what we will present to you in a plaque. And I look so forward to everyone celebrating you this Saturday when you have your big 16th birthday party at the Portland art museum. So on behalf of the Portland city council, I'm so proud to present this formal recognition to the Portland fashion institute. Pfi is it okay if I call it pfi? The rest of the way? All right. To celebrate 16 years of educational leadership, creative innovation, and community impact in Portland as the only private, nonprofit, accredited fashion design college in the state of Oregon and a cornerstone institution in portland's hollywood neighborhood, pfi has played an instrumental role in shaping the region's fashion, apparel, and creative industries. Since its founding, pfi has taught more than 8000 students and currently serves over 600 aspiring apparel professionals. From day one, it has upheld a powerful commitment to provide a debt free catch that a debt free, affordable and accessible education. As a nonprofit determined to remove financial barriers, pfi has ensured that creativity and opportunity remain within reach for all. Portland fashion institute faculty. All active professionals in the apparel industry bring real world experience into every classroom. Their expertise equip students with practical skills, strong career pathways, and the confidence to excel in the evolving industry. This commitment to applied hands on learning reflects core founding values and reinforces the mission of fostering meaningful, lasting economic opportunity. Pfi fills a vital workforce need for portland's 41 apparel manufacturers, 41 and many more across the region. Pfi steady growth over the past 16 years demonstrates how deeply you are each fulfilling that mission. More than training students, pfi changes lives and helps make fashion dreams come true. Congratulations on this significant milestone. Thank you for your ongoing contributions to the portland's creative economy and for enriching our city through education, innovation and community engagement. The Portland fashion institute remains a vital and visionary part of portland's arts, culture, and apparel ecosystem. Thank you all for what you're doing for Portland, for district two, and for inspiring apparel professionals. You really do inspire us all. And again, the upcoming lumen essence grad and gala show is this Saturday, July 11th at the Portland art museum. It marks your sweet 16 anniversary. I hope that it's a smashing success. And sharon, if you and your team would like to just share a few words, we'd love to hear from you at this time.
6 Thank you so much, councilor Ryan. It's so nice of you to honor us with this proclamation. I think you hit all the highlights there that we're proud to be the bulwark, the catalyst for driving people into a new career. We have so many people who are already have a bachelor's degree elsewhere, but decided that they wanted to live a more creative life. And we're the ones because of our great staff who are able to do that for them. We've had nearly 100% graduation and placement rate, and that's because of our partners on the board. Our board who come from adidas, nike, columbia sportswear, pendleton. They are quite anxious to get new talent, and they know that lives here in this creative city of Portland. You hit on a couple of our key points that we want to give people real skills so they can get real jobs, and we want to do that by giving them a debt free education. In the meanwhile, because we have people who are involved who are currently working in the apparel industry, who are happy to share what they know. We're able to offer classes not only for careers, but we say for fun. So we're able to do this for children. Clear up to from 8 to 80 is what we like to say. So thank you very much for having us here today and for celebrating this milestone for us. We hope to have many more.
7 Well, you're so welcome. And I think when you hear words like debt free and 100% placement after graduation, those are amazing data points for you to shout out to everyone who's listening. And again, when you list off the different places where they've been getting jobs, whether it's adidas, nike, columbia sportswear, pendleton, it's a reminder that our sportswear ecosystem is a really big part of our economy in Portland. And so it's so we're so grateful that we have the Portland fashion institute to build that ecosystem. Thank you so much.
8 Note that the only one.
9 Thanks for allowing me to have this time with this important institution that needs to be amplified. Thanks so much.
10 Thank you very much for being here, everybody. Congratulations.
11 We give them we don't we don't clap in here. Right. Council president.
12 We will suspend the rules and give a.
13 Round of applause. Let's give a round of applause. Thank you for your leadership.
14 Thank you very much. And with that, I am officially calling this meeting of the Portland city council to order keelan. Please call the roll.
Procedural episode · turns 15–23
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
15 Good morning. Koyama Lane. Aye, Morillo. Novick here. Clark crane here. Zimmerman. Avalos.
16 Present virtually.
17 Smith. Here.
18 Kanal here. Pirtle-guiney here. Ryan. Here.
19 Dunphy here. Can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
20 Yes. Good morning. Good morning. 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 www.Portland.gov/council/agenda. Information on engaging with the 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.
21 Thank you very much, colleagues. Our first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Are there any requests to amend the agenda, reorder items or reschedule an item to a future meeting date? Seeing no one moving their head in any sort of excited way? Do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? The agenda is approved. Keelan, please move to public communications.
22 First up, we have micah goldstein.
23 Welcome to. Come on up. You please introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns. And you have three minutes.
24 I am micah goldstein from district three. That's about it.
25 Great.
26 Should I say it stands.
27 Sit so the mics can hear you.
28 Okay, okay. My first neighborhood in Portland was a dumping ground for stolen cars and the site of a shootout where police found 140 shell casings. My security cameras regularly captured the sound, and one time, the flash of gunfire. Luckily, my family was never harmed. But the city has done nothing to address that gun violence. Now I'm near 82nd, near the block with the highest recorded gun violence in the city. At least the city added speeding cameras to ticket all those cars with no plates. But they don't ticket speeding bullets. And they don't help the young women and children being trafficked on those blocks nearby. Does it sound like I'm describing things police fix? Police don't stop crime. Police don't stop shootings. Police are reactive and only after a minimum of 20 minutes sometimes respond to crimes that have already happened. This is why so many people in this country, in the city have guns. Yes, people in this left leaning city have guns, some of them lawfully, others not so much. Do you know the difference? Or do you assume that everybody with a gun is just a crook who hasn't been caught? Portland being left leaning has left leaning gun owners in tens and thousands of us in Multnomah county alone have carry permits. So, you know, we're not all moonbat right wingers. Most of more of us than you think are politically aligned with you. But we don't feel safe. Nothing you've done or are proposing to do changes that. The council said gun violence poses a safety risk in all spaces. Your word. All spaces. All spaces. What is this? Are we in a space? Do you feel safe? I feel safer outside the space where I can still carry. The council named itself itself named political violence as a concern. Well, in the past decade, with the rise of fascism in this country, LGBTQ, religious, ethnic and racial minorities, we've increasingly chosen to exercise our right to bear arms. We made informed, educated decisions, gone through legal processes, trained and jumped through all the hoops. You're not restricting the people you think you are with this or any gun ordinance. Gun control is historically classist, racist, and disproportionately affects minorities. Most gun gun crimes are committed with stolen guns, and statistically, most guns are stolen from vehicles. The ordinance you're proposing will result in more guns stashed in more cars and therefore stolen from cars. Do you want more violent gun crime? Because that's how you get more violent gun crime. You're proposing to criminalize behavior that was never a problem and make the most vulnerable among us less safe. The ordinance will waste taxpayer money when it's litigated. I promise you it will be litigated. But if you got to tilt at windmills, maybe include mandatory provisions for gun lockers in the spaces you want to prohibit guns from. Look at how kaiser permanente does this. For an example. Please educate yourselves. Come to the range, engage family, coworkers, friends about guns, learn gun safety and what guns are really about. If you don't have those people in your life, if you've never taken a gun class, if you've never fired a gun, what are you even doing? Trying to make up rules about things you know nothing about. A 2021 study directly correlated knowledge and education on the matter of guns with a general distaste for gun control. Please don't legislate your ignorance. Don't be afraid to learn.
29 Thank you very much for being here.
30 Next up, we have alex garcia joining us online.
31 Welcome, alex.
32 Hey, how's it going?
33 Go ahead, introduce yourself for the record. You have three minutes.
34 I'm alex garcia, so I think we're missing the mark on graffiti and the street takeovers. These kids don't have a place to go. I grew up here. Skateboarding. Skateboarding was a crime. I've got attacked by police, security guards, everything you could think of. But at some point, the parents stood up and started making us places to go. So we don't skateboard on your streets. It's the same thing with graffiti. If you don't make public spaces where kids can be seen and graffiti can be seen, then they're going to paint anywhere that they want to. They want to be seen. They want their art to be seen. If you don't make their art visible, they will find the places, the overpasses, the places where people can see their art and make it visible. Same thing with street takeovers. If you don't make burnout boxes, you don't make places where these kids can can race on the streets where people could see them. You close down streets, they're going to close the streets down anyway, so you might as well close the streets down on your own. I mean, use your imagination. These kids need a place to go. I grew up here. We had the quest we had cruising on broadway until the police shut it down. There's a lot of stuff that we used to be able to do that these kids can't do anymore. Second of all, no money for moda, no bonds, no diverting funds. If you have to leave, leave. That costs money too. That's not my problem. If you if you're a billionaire and you got money, spend it. Spend money to make money, we should have police oversight board without the interference of the police union, and they should have criminal prosecution. We just had a guy on 82nd get attacked by the police, and they said that he broke their ankle. When we got a video of the police officer stepping out and falling on the ground like a dummy and breaking his own ankle. And they tried to get him for that. That's crazy. Homelessness. There's no dignity and dignity. Village. Make it housing and make housing affordable. How's the homeless? Or just stop talking about it? It's starting to become an a recurring stupid point that everybody tries to make and it's not working out. How's them? Give them a place to be. We have plenty of places to put people. If you don't have the political will and the people don't have the the want for people to have free housing, then what are we going to do? I mean, somebody's got to do something at this point. It is. It's overrunning our city. And what do we do? Do we pay to have people be housed, or do we pay to have them on the street and pay to have police come after them and pay to have ambulances come and save them and pay for tents and pay for dignity villages and give non-profits money that scam us and take our money and don't give us services. Starting to become a quagmire.
35 Thank you very much for being here today.
36 Next up. Next up we have adi Smith joining us online.
37 Welcome, adi. Go ahead and introduce yourself for the record.
38 Hello. Thanks for having me. My name is andy Smith. Today is July 9th 2026. I'm going to try to wrap this up under three minutes, but just give me a little leeway, please. I'm speaking before the Portland city council home forward's board of commissioners acts as the housing authority for Multnomah county, because the housing authority was originally incorporated by Portland Gresham. I'm sorry. Portland's recommended appointees are officially appointed by the mayor of Portland and confirmed by the Portland city council per ors456 .095 and ors456 .100. The. The city of Portland will recommend four members. The city of Gresham recommends two members and Multnomah county recommends two members. You must remove and replace home forwards. Active board of commissioners matthew gephardt, damian hall, jenny kim, jesse ledesma, brianne preston and Gresham city councilor Kathy keithley. A forensic audit of home forward and the Portland housing bureau must be conducted immediately. Recently, I spoke with the deputy director and the city attorneys in the city administrator's office, the Portland housing bureau director, michael buonocore, reports to him. Mr. Donald donald oliveira informed me that michael left him scrambling after quitting and providing only three days notice at Portland housing bureau to go work at home. Forward. What professional does this. How is it possible that someone can be respected and trusted? Who turned his back on his job and didn't leave it in a position to succeed? He left a mess at the Portland housing bureau, and the director who took his
39 Place is only there in an interim capacity. Miss light quisha light, which means the city administrator intends to bring michael buonocore back. In the years that he spent at the Portland housing bureau. Michael buonocore could have established sops wherein the bureau could have been responsible for disbursing the millions of dollars in to vulnerable renters in Portland and Multnomah county. He has not established any sops to make the Portland housing bureau better. Michael buonocore is not fit to lead home forward, nor has he been fit to lead Portland housing bureau. He should be terminated. His contract should be terminated at home forward, but before any further damage can be done, and before he hires someone who will do his and the current board's bidding. Also, keep in mind that he was hired. He also hired ivory matthews and the current staff at home forward. Why is he being trusted to bring in a new ceo and cfo? What's clear is that there is a scandal happening at home forward, and the board of commissioners need michael buonocore to keep their secrets. Keep in mind, the board of commissioners approved all the networking events. The previous ceo, ivory matthews, attended. Let me also advise you that ian davies was responsible for the operations at home forward. The chief operating officer, or coo, is responsible for overseeing the mid and long term operations of home forward's real estate portfolio, making strategic recommendations on sales, capital issues and, most importantly, cash flow. The coo should analyze property performance to balance financial returns with improving housing stability and the tenants experience. Integrate safety standards.
40 Thank you very much, adi. Thank you very much. Sorry.
41 I want you.
42 Thank you.
43 Next up, we have an kasper.
44 Welcome. Introduce yourself for the record. And you have three minutes.
45 Good morning. I'm anne kasper. I'm a student at the university of Oregon. And virtual reality, augmented reality and xr. We are so far behind in that compared to other cities, but hopefully we'll catch up. I'd like to talk to you today. Anne kasper, she her about the politics of belonging or disconnect. And I'd also like to thank you for leading the city in the middle of this mess. It is a mess. We're changing systems now. You've heard of other systems that don't work. And I'm going to tell you about a few today. But thank you again, because it's not an easy time to be here. And we'll make it through because we're Portland. My family's been here for 56 years. I know we'll make it through. First of all, I have not had water or sewer at my house for six years because I had a house fire when illegal, and I'm asked to pay $400 in fees for nothing. I pee in a bucket and I put it in my garden and I get water. And now I can't get water because easily in my neighborhood, because the walgreens has closed, the dollar tree is closed for restaurants have closed. I would really like to be careful when you think about lloyd. Please save lloyd because that whole area is going down right now economically. But in any case, I hope you can work out this snafu with the water bureau, because why should I be paying $400 for services I don't receive? And can I just cut off until I get water restored to my house and cut off water right now will cost me $700? That doesn't make sense. I think we can change policies to make sure people can stay in their housing. I'm on the elliott neighborhood association board. There are about, I think, 18 members, 17 of them live by dawson park. I'm the one that lives by seventh avenue. They actually wrote a letter saying that we on seventh avenue wanted our our our street blocked down for bikes, which is not true. There's hundreds of us not very happy about it. I would like you to look at the neighborhood associations. I've been on them since 1996. I've never seen such strangeness in them. Maybe we have to relook how to do them. So it's not 18 or 17 versus one speaking up for parts of the neighborhood. Again, please save the lloyd district because we're really worried they don't have the funding yet set to rebuild. What happens? You destroy the buildings, you take things down and they don't get rebuilt. What happens in my neighborhood? I'd like you to think about that. I'd like to invite you. We used to have a thing called town hall on channel two. I'm doing a town hall at opensignal. I've been producing tv shows for 20 years with the chairs. Candidates for the commissioners of Multnomah county. And I think it's time that the city and the county start working together on mental health. That's it. I invite you would like to see you there. Thank you very much.
46 Thank you very much.
47 Next up we have ray dorn. Ray don. Our alternate today is john hollister. All right. That completes communications.
48 Okay. Thank you very much, everybody, for being here. Our next item on the agenda is our city administrators. Update. Mr. Administrator, update us.
49 Thank you, council president councilors, before I dive into the city administrator's report, I would like to give a brief update on the city's federal response initiatives as it relates to the detention facility impact fee. The public comment period is currently open to provide feedback on the permanent administrative rule for the detention facility impact fee legislation. The public comment period will end at the end of this month on July the 26th. As a reminder, these rules address the detention facility impact fee legislation that council adopted in December. We have had a temporary rule in place since February the 27th. The temporary rule also allows the city to take enforcement action relating to the use of chemical munitions at detention facilities. While a permanent rule is being developed, it establishes an enforcement framework, including a citation process, fine schedule, service requirements and appeal procedures. Under city code. That temporary rule can only be in place for six months, and it is set to expire in late August. Members of the public can view the draft rule and learn how to provide comments by visiting portland's permitting and development website at Portland.gov slash ppd. The public notice is listed under recent news as it pertains to the ice facility land use decision appeal update. To date, the building owner has filed five writs of review to the county circuit court. These writs challenged the hearings, officers procedures and seek to stop the hearing officers from issuing a decision on the notice of the violations at the ice facility. The city is seeking to dismiss these writs so the hearing officer can issue a decision. A hearing is set for Friday this week, July 10th, at the county circuit court, on the motions to dismiss the filed by the city. If the motion to dismiss are granted, then we can expect the hearing officer to issue a decision on the notice of violation. If the motions to dismiss are denied, the city will continue to challenge the writ in circuit court. With a follow up hearing on August the 14th. As it relates to the report itself, I'm happy to share that the city manager's report to counsel for this new fiscal year. The theme of the report this month is community. The folks we work with and serve every day. A few items I wanted to highlight in this month's report. There are updates about several new murals across the city, some developed in partnership with pmo and others with the office of arts and culture in partnership with people across the city, the city and wise. Pdx will be hosting an event at pacific northwest climate for pacific northwest climate week on July the 14th. The proposed draft of the housing bonus alignment project is available for public review through July the 28th and will be considered by the planning commission during a hearing on July the 28th, the Portland police bureau helped develop and launch the Portland framework guidance for dialog policing in the united states, a new national resource aimed at improving communication, public trust and legitimacy during demonstrations and other public events. The trust for public lands released an annual parkscore index for 2026, ranking portland's park system ninth nationally among the 100 most populated cities in the united states. This is the fourth year in a row that portland's park system has been amongst the top ten nationally. I also note that appendix a has been updated with the budget notes passed as part of the fiscal year's budget. The spreadsheet shows the note title sponsors and co-sponsors. Service area. Primary contact for implementation. In the timeline that was noted in the note itself. The shaded boxes show when we anticipate the work to take place and the status shows the current status. As of today, you'll see that many of them are still to be determined. As we are very newly into this new fiscal year, we'll continue to provide updates in this format throughout the course of the year. Lastly, and you'll see this in shout outs throughout the report, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the many staff and leaders who contributed to the annual budget process, both during the last few weeks, in the months and throughout the course of the year. I also want to acknowledge that some people's positions were not reflected in the adopted budget. While conversations are ongoing, I wanted to take a moment to thank staff for their good work and acknowledge their many contributions to the city. The work that you do every day means a lot to the portlanders and the people that we serve on a daily basis. I just want to thank everyone from the bottom of my heart, all our staff, all the council staff that I know have been working hard as we've come through this budget year, and we have a little rest period for a month, and then we'll be right back in the swing of things again. So just thank you and looking forward to the work that we'll be doing together.
50 Thank you, mr. City administrator councilor Green.
51 Thank you, council president. Thank you, mr. Lee. Appreciate the update on the detention facility impact fee rulemaking process. I want to acknowledge a lot of work went into that across all the bureaus that are impacted on that. So I appreciate the lift that kind of went into scrambling for the temporary rule and also recognizing that we needed to get out there and put something permanent in place. My office and councilor Morillo office were kind of working behind the scenes supporting that because we were sponsoring that legislation. So really important that we share that now for the public so they can weigh in on that administrative rulemaking. So thanks for letting that sort of listing where to find it, letting those links. We'll be sharing that out as well to make sure folks see, see that as an opportunity. Yeah, I think that's all I, all I wanted to know. I just wanted to provide some gratitude. Thanks.
52 Thank you. Councilor Green councilor Kanal thank you.
53 Council president. Thank you, administrator lee. I had a couple comments and a couple questions as well. So I really appreciate the shout out to pbem and sr for their work during the June heat dome. For those who haven't read the report or haven't seen it, there is a survey going on, especially for people in elliott and portsmouth, being run out of safe blocks that you should take and you can follow their social media. I'll be posting it as well to talk about how to make improve those neighborhoods. There was a couple of things in there. Shout out to the folks who completed the cvi certificate program and and to the Portland parks bureau for getting back into the top ten nationally. And the ranking for the from the trust for public land, as you mentioned, we're going to have a vision zero report update in the committee of the whole later this month, July 22nd. I want to say, and it's it's going to be an interesting topic in general, but I did want to point out our year to date numbers have gone up for the first time in several years in terms of number of traffic deaths, don't yet have the district by district information on that. But I know that last year district two was the highest. I imagine it's the same because we haven't made those transformational investments yet that we've been seeking. But I did want to just flag that is coming up. I appreciate including the fiscal year 2627 budget notes in the appendix a, but I had budget notes that weren't completed from the previous year. And so I'd ask that those be included until they are completed so that we're we're still able to track those from the previous fiscal year. And I, I've been bringing them up every month on this. And a couple of them were marked as incomplete, but a couple were also marked as complete erroneously. So I can follow up with the specific ones, if that's helpful. Questions. The murals you mentioned across the city, and I think that's the case for the arts and culture office, but those are all in downtown or the southeast. Inner, inner southeast. Based on the pictures, has pmo done any mural work outside of those areas?
54 I don't know if we have pmo staff in it, but I know that's something that we could potentially look at. I think they have, but I'm not 100% sure. I would like to follow up on that one, just to confirm where we've done all the murals throughout the city, and we can get that to you before the end of the day.
55 I'd love to see, you know, I know that this is work that has historically been done out of safe blocks, which does focus geographically in other parts of the city. And so I think the pmo ification of this work is likely to lead to more less attention going to district two. And I'm very concerned about that. And I think that's the case for just about everything we've pimozide. The itm hub work that was highlighted in there. You mentioned it supports the fire, Portland fire and rescues prevention division, but it doesn't explain how can you get us some information on on what exactly they're doing for Portland fire and rescue?
56 Yeah, most definitely. We we've actually had some conversations about that, and we can prepare a memo to go to the full council on the details of that as well.
57 Okay, great. And this is the the inspection, testing and maintenance. Try not to use all the, the acronyms there. I appreciate, by the way, I forgot to mention this, the, the good news about the elections commission locking in 100% match caps. That's really, really important. And I'll save the folks on that side from having to mention it. So three other questions, but I'll actually I'll focus on just one. Appendix b has the claims and it has a claim that is the lawsuit that we settled last year with the dpa2 group and the people who were displaced by the proposed expansion of legacy. It was previously listed in a different category. It's now listed as a council claim. They didn't file that complaint against us. They filed it and it was to the city. I think historically that's been listed as a mayor's office claim. And so I had two questions on that. One, why is it now listed as us? And the other is why is the whole thing listed as us as paid? When our anticipation was that half of that was going to get paid by prosper? So I think that has the money been paid out? Because it says 7.5 million has been paid in terms of settlements paid as the header. And my understanding was that we were still in progress on that part.
58 I see if jonas is in the room. Yes, he's coming up now.
59 Good morning, council for the record, chief financial officer jonas biery, thank you for the questions, councilor. We had done a little due diligence, and this question is a little different than the question we anticipated. So I'm probably going to need to go back and do a little bit more digging to answer a couple of your questions. My understanding is, yes, the payment has been made. I think, as we've discussed previously, sometimes those show up a little delayed into these reports. So it's reflective of that payment having been fully processed. You are correct that it was partially paid from city essentially general fund and partially covered. I forget the exact dollar amounts, but partially covered by a contribution from prosper. I don't know why that indicator was changed. And so we can follow up with you on that. Generally, it's a general fund obligation. And so that indicator, this was a very unique settlement. Typically settlements are pointed to a specific bureau, transportation, parks, etc. The settlement doesn't have that bureau nexus. And so it's likely just a system factor of it has to point somewhere in the system. And that's where it pointed. But but we'll do a little more digging. I'm not familiar with what it was referenced previously, but we'll do a little more digging on that and get back to you.
60 Thank you. And I think this is maybe less a cfo question, but just to follow up, I'd love to get an update on, especially as I know there's prosper Portland board of directors appointments that are coming forward in the next couple of months, trying to understand what the progress is on getting not a million, but half of the 8.5 million total paid for by prosper, as was discussed when that settlement was approved. I know that that will be and I want to be very clear about this. That will be a very important part of my decision on whether to vote yes or no, on appointing anybody to the prosper board or reappointing is whether or not they're willing to to pay their fair share of it. Last question I have there are two contract questions in appendix d. There is a contract for $3.63 million to through bts to via west for new flex central data center colocation services contract. And I wanted to get more information on that. Are we what are we doing with data centers? And the other one, just to to parallel, we have $100 million contract with travel Portland for five years. It's an appendix f for convention, business and tourism. There's a lack of kind of commas in there, so I'm not 100% sure if it's all for convention business and convention tourism, or if it's convention business tourism, and just trying to get an understanding of what that looks like. And I know we're halfway through that five year term, but I wanted to get that and I'm pro travel Portland, so don't take this as a negative of them. I'm just trying to understand what's going on there.
61 And then I'm.
62 Good morning. I'm elise rosenberg, I'm the chief information officer and the director of the bureau of technology services. Councilor Kanal, thank you so much for your question. Surprisingly, I'm not here to talk about travel. Portland. I'll. Here, I'll do my best with your data center question. So flex central provides what we call data center co-location services for the city. So what that basically means is we are leasing space within a purpose built data center to place city owned hardware and connectivity. And so the advantages of doing that, and we actually started doing that as a precursor project to the Portland building renovation, when the city's primary data center was in the Portland building, which was not really a great practice from a power redundancy security perspective. We do not own facilities as a city that are built for data centers, that have that level of security and connectivity. So what we do is lease space with flex essential to provide that that much more purpose built facility that has a lot more powerful connectivity. And through that contract, we also have an out of area backup for disaster recovery. So they we have space in a colorado data center. So should there be a cascadia type event? We have some disaster resilience built in. And so that that through that contract, we we host hardware that gives the city its internet connectivity, that gives us access to sap, to cad to 911, and provides that in a much more, again, secure, professionally managed environment. They also have a commitment to, you know, to, to low power usage, to cooling to, to minimizing or not using water cooling. And this is different from, say, a hyperscale ai data center, which we're hearing a lot about in the media. That is not this, this is renting space. Does that help?
63 Yeah. Thank you.
64 Sorry. Oh, goodness. Good morning. Councilors. Council president, vice president donnie oliveira for the record. So council related to the current contract we have with travel Portland and what that what that's capturing. So first, just for situational awareness that the capacity of that contract includes both the their transient lodging tax 1% and it includes a 3% tourism improvement district, which is essentially a self tax. So they're they're basically the industries taxing themselves like an enhanced service district. And we're collecting that for them and passing that through to travel Portland. And then your question essentially is what is travel Portland doing within that contract? Essentially, they are our our boosters, our cheerleaders. Their responsibility is to draw tourism, whether through conventions, through events. And so those dollars are being put to work through a variety of different marketing, actually hosting events. We had our biggest conference ever last year with the national education conference that was hosted at the convention center. So really what you're seeing there is just the full volume of a contract of a five year contract that we pay out roughly 20 million annually to.
65 Thanks. So just to be clear, the tourism is citywide and then convention businesses citywide.
66 Yeah. And we're capturing everything from events beyond just convention center events. Yeah.
67 Thank you councilor. Put myself in the queue for a very quick question. City administrator, we have done some work on reforming our advisory boards and commissions, and there was a requirement in there to report out if there have been any new boards or commissions appointed within a 30 day period. I'm just wanting to see that was I didn't find that in the report. And have there been any new appointed boards or commissions?
68 By the time we did this report? I think it would be the ones that we have appointed to be in the next month's report, but I can go back and clarify that. If not, yeah, because I know we have done some appointments, but the timing of it and when this report is produced might have been lagged in that.
69 Great. That was my only question. Councilor Ryan.
70 Thank you, council president, good to see you. See, I love these reports. Thank you very much. They keep improving too. I just wanted to notice that especially the procurement report, it was so easy to read and gives us a lot of information. So if the public really wants to see where we're spending our money, just look at the procurement report. I really want to say that I enjoyed seeing the tangible and important steps that are taking place with our shelter services report. The vision of that, which I played a big part in, was always about making certain that people, why they're going through that transition, the most difficult transition from chronic homelessness to stability includes access to workforce and access to sobering access to treatment programs. When those two are in place and a participant is using them, then their transition is successful. And so we need to keep looking at the data. We need to keep offering those services, and we need to keep using that as an incentive. And they should be at the front of the line when we place people into our public housing. So I hope that we continue to see that vision through. I think the city is a better oversight of that than the county, because we tend to look at such accountability and results. I'm excited to go to bull run this Friday. I think there's some other colleagues going, and I just want to say thank you for that request being delivered for us. There's nothing like on the ground insight to help us look at something that's very complex. I just wanted to give some more flavor to that new program created by Portland firefighters. They visit burn victims while recovering in the hospital. It just shows so much empathy and human focused work that our public safety employees are doing. So I want to lift that. The program was created by the firefighters themselves to provide some human interaction and support the burn victims who have long term stays in the hospital. And I'm just very heartened by that follow through that we're showing, from what I think are our social workers and public safety. I really appreciate that. I do have a question about the oh, one more thing I wanted to lift the darcel plaza opening was just amazing. I went to two of them, but I don't think we understand how big that was. To take something from idea to actual opening in three years was, I'll just say I haven't witnessed that very often since I've been here, and it took a lot of cat herding, took a lot of persistence. And I want to acknowledge a couple people. Ross swanson from parks bureau was just amazing with his patience and his persistence to keep that moving along. And the other person that did that was kelly torres in the parks bureau that helped us bring in the partnerships. And one reason I think it was done in three years is because we had a really active partnership with clean and safe, and also the local businesses in the area. They were helpful to see this through. So I hope portlanders can have some fun this summer and enjoy dorsal plaza. I hear someone might be performing there on Saturday night. Aye, Morillo councilor Clark. Oh yes. Yes. Yeah. Are you nervous? Yeah, but I also want to.
71 Be there with me.
72 I know you want me to, I don't, I can't sing.
73 Yeah, you don't have to.
74 I don't know what to do. You're singing. But I wanted to acknowledge the the the the grant report too. But I have a question. I don't see the general fund grants that are going out to the private nonprofits. Is that somewhere? And I just it's just not in the one that was published.
75 Yeah, we do track that. That is something we could potentially like our self grants and different things that we have that go out to the community. We can look at that. I think at one point we did have it in there, so if it's not in there, I can most definitely make sure we have it in children's.
76 Levy and pcf do a pretty good job of transparency with those restricted designated gifts that the public is completely aware of because it was part of a ballot initiative. I think it's the ones that weren't part of any ballot initiative, but it's what we chose to do, and they go out from our general fund to and I'm not saying good or bad, I just need that information so I can track how much money we're spending on our general fund to those nonprofits to enhance the delivery of services. And of course, I keep asking for what we're measuring success by, so I'm fine with them sending out money as long as we know exactly what we're getting with that, just like we do in procurement. I see granting is very similar to procurement. I know when I was on that side of the my career, if we did not deliver on what the foundation wanted us to deliver on about year two of a three year grant, they'd pull the funding. So there needs to I just want to see that transparency, which would bring about more accountability. That's all. And I know I've been a broken record on this for about six years, so I appreciate that we're getting closer to that type of transparency.
77 We can get that information in there.
78 All right. Thanks so much.
79 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Thank you. City administrator keelan, can we please move to item number four?
80 Item four, document 2026-217. Consider appeals of the design commission's approval of a voluntary central city master plan review and adjustment review for the lloyd center lloyd center central city master plan lu 25-091308ccmsad.
81 Okay, first thing first, I'm going to turn it to our city attorney to make some announcements about the rest of today's hearing on this item.
82 So this is a continuation of last week, two weeks ago, land use review. Councilor Zimmerman has some declarations to make. And then I if any of the other councilors also have had any ex parte contact in the interim, this would be the time to make those declarations as well. Otherwise, I think we're just picking up with council deliberations.
83 Thank you very much, councilor Zimmerman.
84 Thanks, colleagues. I reviewed the record from last time. Thank you for that. And from an ex parte perspective, the I'm not sure if it's owner or developer called me only one time to announce or to let me know that the announcement of shutting down was going to occur. I consider it a courtesy call, and I believe that's the extent we discussed the project whatsoever. Thanks.
85 Thank you. Councilor Zimmerman, seeing no one else in the queue to make any additional disclosures.
86 And just invite the opportunity, if anyone in the council chambers wishes to ask councilor Zimmerman about the ex parte contact, now would be the opportunity. Okay.
87 Okay.
88 Since the last time.
89 Yeah. Do we need to disclose that we've received additional emails? Because I know that all of us have received additional emails.
90 You'll need to disclose those emails if you've read those emails. If you have not read or reviewed those emails, they are not something that would be part of.
91 Okay. Well, if anybody I know, my office has received some. I have not read any of them. If anybody else, my colleagues want to declare welcome to do the same. Okay. I think we're doing okay. So we left off last week, having concluded and closed the record to further testimony, with the evidentiary record still open to allow for counsel to ask questions of staff, the applicant and the appellant's colleagues. We are now going to move into that council discussion. So the appellant and the applicant are both here and are available to ask any questions, and we are in active debate of this item. So everyone's feeling shy this morning. Unless there's no further discussion. Councilor Green brave first.
92 You know I'm not shy. I.
93 Think you know that. Thanks. Council president, I do want to ask the question, just so I'm clear, because the decision before us is whether or not to. Actually. Lauren, can you please remind us what the decision before us is?
94 I can't, and it's also helpful sometimes if staff wants to throw up a slide with the options before council. But I think the. Do you have that slide ready pretty quick or do you want me to talk about it?
95 Give me 30s.
96 Okay.
97 While you're pulling that up, I just, you know, as a, in my quasi judicial role here as a city councilor in a land use hearing, it's about it's not necessarily what I want to do. It's not about my own intentions or plans. It's about the decision before us. And so we need to be we need to be talking about what are the consequences of, of, of the decision before us. And so that's kind of where my questions are going to go as soon as we get the, the slide up here.
98 Okay.
99 And if councilor Novick has a joke at this time to fill the air space, we will entertain it. I'll, I'll allow you to speak over my mic. Councilor. I guess what I'll say is I think that the decision before us is whether or not to deny the appeal or approve the appeal, deny the appeal, and some variation of those with some changes or suggest changes.
100 That's right. So approve the appeal which would overturn the design commission's decision. Right. And deny the master plan. Deny the appeal would affirm the design commission's decision with the conditions that the design commission included, or council has the option to deny the appeal. And add its own conditions.
101 Thank you. And so then this is really about whether or not to deny the appeal to the master plan. It's not about the future plans of this development project.
102 No. And staff can speak more specifically, but the the site, the future development of the site will have additional design use review.
103 Okay. That's outside the scope of this hearing.
104 Yes. This hearing is about whether or not the design, whether or not the voluntary master plan meets the applicable criteria.
105 Thank you. Do we have the applicant on? Oh, yeah. Please come on up. Sorry.
106 Yeah.
107 Councilor Green. I have the options on the screen finally for you.
108 Okay. Thank you. So just reading those out before I ask the applicant some questions here. The options before council. There's three options. Deny both appeals and uphold the design commission's decision and conditions of approval for revised findings. Denied both appeals and uphold the design commission's decision, but with revised conditions and findings, and then grant one or both of the appeals and overturn the design conditions. And so I think I guess my question, because this is about a master plan application. And so I guess my question to the applicant is, if council were to grant one or both of the appeals, appeals, there wouldn't be a central city master plan, any of the cmp approval criteria, including that we would no longer be required to dedicate any park space or open area, which is now amounts to about six acres of open space. That would no longer be a requirement.
109 Thank you for clarifying that. I think that's what I heard last week or last couple of weeks, but I wanted to make sure that was clear here. So the council decision today is not there's no there's no decision by which we can force the preservation of this mall.
110 That's correct.
111 Okay. I think that's all the question I have right now.
112 Thank you. Councilor Green, vice president clerk.
113 Thank you, council president. I just want to build off of councilor Greene's question. But first, I just want to say how much I appreciated the community being here and the testimony. I found it compelling. I actually learned a lot about skate culture that I didn't know about, and the positivity of skate culture. And I learned that this kind of endeavor really requires subsidies as well, if we think about that into the future. But my question, I think is really to legal is what are the consequences of of upholding the appeal? What would the consequences be to the city? Are we liable for any kind of action? Is this is this trigger? Dolan what can you talk a little bit about that?
114 So, councilor Clark, you're asking if the council were to uphold the appeal and reverse the design commission's decision. I mean, the immediate consequence would be that the applicant would no longer have a master plan, and then a party could any party could appeal that decision. Presumably, the applicant might appeal that decision, arguing that that their application did comply with with the applicable master plan. But but but if if the question is whether or not denying it would trigger a constitutional claim, I I'm off. Not the constitutional claims will usually come if council imposes additional conditions approved with conditions.
115 I just. My. I guess my question is really, if we deny or if we uphold the appeal, are we vulnerable to suit by the applicant?
116 I would imagine that the applicant, the applicant is entitled to challenge that at the land use board of appeals. Yes.
117 That's the next step. Okay. That would be a step. Okay. Thank you. That's what I wanted to know.
118 Thank you, vice president Clark. I put myself in the queue to make just a brief comment. I also want to just echo that I, the the truly heartfelt nature of all the folks who came to testify and fight to preserve something that is so deeply important to your experience of being a portlander I hear you. I mentioned at the beginning of this our first hearing, my. One of my first jobs was working in the lloyd center. I absolutely have my own deep connections to this space. I was a ruffian teenager in the late 90s, hanging out in there and playing in the arcade. But that's not the question before us, unfortunately. And the question before us isn't, you know, is, isn't can the city council force a property owner to run a business? Can we force them to use their property in a specific way, understanding that that, you know, there's not really any sort of example of that ever happening anywhere else. We can't force a business to suddenly decide they're going to be a mcdonald's. We can't force them to continue to do what they want. And that's not the question before us. However, I heard something that I was extremely interested in last time, and it was a question about the future of using the veterans memorial coliseum ice rink. You know, we are having a lot of conversations right now about the future of the moda center and the rose quarter broadly, and there's going to be a massive investment, hopefully in that area to to focus on activation and entertainment and recreation. I don't know the answer about whether or not the memorial coliseum could be a recreational facility of some sort in the off season. I heard that it ice rinks require a public subsidy. Well, we already own the building. Perhaps we need an operator. I don't know what is between there and here, but I'm very interested in looking into that. And so my office will be looking further into that conversation about whether or not there are additional recreational opportunities in a city owned facility. And because, as was mentioned, there just aren't any other options like this in the city of Portland. So I'm very interested in that. But as to the question before us colleagues, I really I don't I don't see a path to supporting the appeals. And I will be moving. I will be supportive of denying the appeals. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilor Kanal actually changed order on my thing. Wait, no. Nope, I'm wrong again. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney is correct.
119 That came to me very quickly. I thought there were people ahead of me.
120 Yeah, he wants to go last.
121 I'm in.
122 The middle.
123 I just changed order.
124 I would just keep.
125 I apologize, okay, I'm going to say okay, I'm going to go with Kanal then because because this is how it's going. So thanks. Sorry everybody.
126 I had a lot of questions that are mostly legal. I asked one of them last week or yeah, two weeks ago. And it was because mr. Klein was the first appellant asked for us to either remand the item back to the design commission or add an appropriate condition to save the ice rink. I asked last time if we could legally remand the item back to the design commission, and zoning code does not consider that as an option. We have, and I ask that for clarity primarily just to to understand what our options are. And I really appreciate the further clarification on that. Councilor Green brought up. There are two additional ones that came that relate to this, and I'll just ask them together. One is the idea of adding a condition to. I guess it wouldn't be preserve this ice rink, but add a condition in that there be an ice rink in future development. The other one, I think that we're all familiar with what that question is. So I think I don't need to give more detail there. But the other one that I wanted to mention, which has come up in some of the previous meetings prior to this land use, was the importance of the five k and the idea of. That the current building is is uniquely able and is popularly used to allow people to walk in 20 blocks of dry, climate controlled indoor space. And so the question was whether or not we are able to add a condition of use to require the new development to have some sort of maintenance of that, either through a covered walkway, a skyway, a tunnel. The question that I got asked back when I had a town hall there last year was about a skyway. And so I'll just I'll ask these two questions. Are those things that are within the scope of what this conversation is? And then I have a couple other follow ups.
127 Okay, councilor. So I think your question was, can we add conditions regarding an ice rink or skyway? Yeah. And under Oregon land use law and the zoning code, the city can attach conditions only to ensure that the proposal will conform with the applicable approval criteria. And that's codified. So none of the applicable approval criteria identified by staff expressly requires an ice rink or a skyway council. In order to impose such a criteria or condition, council would need to find that a relevant approval criteria cannot be met without requiring the ice rink or the skyway. And I would just note that the applicant has asserted that requiring an ice rink would be an unconstitutional taking.
128 So that that opens a second question you mentioned without expressly requiring, which means that as I interpret it, what your response is here, that if a criteria is met in a certain way, we don't have the authority here to say, you should meet it a different way. And I'll kind of by by, by way of illustrating it. There was another question. The other appellant, mr. Henderson, mentioned community building, which is policy 2ld3. In light of how it is currently used and talking about maintaining that particular. The current ways in which that criteria is met by the current uses and the application asserts that it will be met in other ways. By the way in which the master plan is being proposed. And my question is, effectively, are we one are we looking at the current or are we just looking at. Because there's no master plan now, are we looking at how the how the master plan would meet or not meet these criteria? And again, we are we able to say you're meeting it in a way we don't prefer in the context of this, this hearing.
129 So the question before the council is whether or not the the application meets the approval criteria. It's not whether the current development meets the approval criteria, it's what the applicant has applied for. And then council, it's within council's authority to interpret the applicable approval approval criteria, the standard before the land use board of appeals on appeal would be whether or not that interpretation was plausible. And so again, conditions are council can impose conditions if they're necessary to satisfy approval criteria. Council would have to interpret that. Approval criteria cannot be met. But for that condition.
130 Thanks. Another question that came up. I have two left on this. One is, you know, there's a there's a park next door. There's there's holiday park right there, which has had a lot of work put into it fairly recently. And there was a question about, is there a necessity to create new space that that could be considered in some ways redundant, or is there an ability to count that as part of the sort of Green space that's being created, so that some of the land that is currently being dedicated in this proposed master plan for Green space could theoretically be used for another purpose. And my understanding is that the master plan does not look at the things that are neighboring it. Can you speak to that a little bit?
131 Yes. So the the application again is for the site owned by the by the applicant. They're they're requesting approval for their property. And the zoning code lays out the master plan requirement for the 20% open area. The code does not specify a way that that standard could be met off site. It's it's written to be met on site. If council were to ignore the criterion and decide that it would need to be. It could be met off site. This takings analysis would still apply in terms of things that we're asking of the applicant.
132 Great.
133 And the last question, I'm not sure if it's for you or for staff, but there's been a lot of commentary about meaningful engagement. And I wanted to understand what the legal requirements we have there in terms of not us meaningful engagement requirements that exist on the applicant and how those are defined, and to the degree to which we're being asked to assess that or not.
134 I can answer that, councilor. So there the zoning code specifies notice requirements that the city has to fulfill the. The zoning code specifies posting requirements that the applicant has to fulfill on the site. But that's kind of the extent of the public engagement that is required other than attending the hearing. So they were required to do the design advice, which they did in 2023. They were required to post the site with posting boards all around the perimeter of the site, and then the city mailed out public notice as required by the zoning code. Okay, that's the extent of the zoning code requirements.
135 And that's inclusive of not the requirements on us, but on the applicant as well.
136 Exactly.
137 All right. Thank you. That concludes my questions.
138 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
139 Thank you, council president. And I will just note, because councilor Kanal ask the question about engagement that broadly, not just in our land use process, we call things engagement that are not engagement. And we call things notification when they are happening so late that neighbors do not actually have an opportunity to provide meaningful input. And that is something that I hope we, as a council, as a council, can address broadly, and not just in this process. If we are going to say we are a city that takes our our people's concerns seriously in a city that wants portlanders to have a say in our city's future, we need to actually create that opportunity. And if we don't, we need to stop saying we do neither here nor there for this process. But councilor Kanal, you brought it up and it needed to be said. So I want to start by thanking the appellants for stepping forward. We will not control the city of our future, that the future of our city, unless we assert what the future of our city could be, should be what we think we need. And even though you have heard from many of my colleagues and will likely hear from many more today that in a land use process, we have narrow paths that we can move forward on. Bringing forward these appeals allows the space for conversation about what our city should and could be. That won't happen otherwise. So thank you for bringing this to us legally. It is very clear, as some of my colleagues have established, that we cannot prevent the demolition of lloyd center or of the ice rink. Those paths just do not exist whether or not we want them to. The question then is, does the master plan before us meet the conditions that are required in the master planning process? If it does not, do we think we will better meet those conditions without a master plan through denial, which we have heard will lead to not a new draft of a master plan, but demolition without a master plan. And if it does mostly meet the conditions but leave some concerns, are there revisions that would allow the plan to meet the conditions more fully? So I want to ask some questions about a few of the conditions which have been appealed to better understand if the conditions have been fully met, but I want to start with a question broadly about conditions within the master plan process. Lauren, there are a whole lot of requirements laid out in the master plan process or what we call requirements, but they don't in the language in our master plan documents, the documents that guide this process appear to all be individually binding. Is that the case? Does our applicant need to meet every single condition thoroughly, or does the applicant need to meet the generality of all of the conditions.
140 The applicant has to satisfy all conditions of approval? I'm. I guess I'm not totally sure what you're.
141 So I think the the language.
142 In the documents that create the master plan process. And the language that the design commission used talked about the applicant encouraging certain types of development. But there are a whole lot of conditions. And it, I guess what I'm getting at is when I look at the appeals, there is. A lot of concern raised by the appellants about the extent to which each condition has been met, and I'm trying to understand. I'll try to pull one out as an example. I'll take policy 1ld3 tourism, retail and entertainment support the continued success of rose quarter and convention center and encourage new development and businesses that complement and balance the episodic nature of event activity. So the master plan clearly creates opportunity for that. But there were concerns raised by the appellants that it doesn't create enough opportunity or that it doesn't create opportunity that is different from what exists elsewhere. So I guess I'm trying to understand, to what degree do we need to be looking at here? Is this a you do this to some extent. Great. Check the box. We move to the next one. Or is there? Is there legally a higher bar? For what extent to which each of these individually have to be met?
143 Okay, so the criteria of approval, I guess, is what you're referring to. And the applicant application does have to meet all of the criteria of approval. It is within council's authority to interpret what those criteria of approval require. And so to the extent of whether or not they've been met by the application is something that council has to decide based on the evidence presented before them.
144 Okay.
145 So where our ability to make some determinations, because as we've established, there are some limitations there is within to what extent we think these criteria have been met and need to be met.
146 So council would interpret what the criteria requires, what council thinks is necessary to satisfy that criteria, and would conclude, based on the evidence in the record, whether that criteria has been met.
147 Okay.
148 So I think that's important just to to have said, as we think about some of these pieces, and I want to ask about 2 or 3 in particular. The first is 5ld1, which is the distinct, the diverse and distinctive urban places. And that was raised by the appellants. Who essentially say this is not diverse or distinct, that this looks like many other urban places. So can you help me understand the language in 5ld1 and what we as council need to be looking for there?
149 So councilor, I'm working on pulling up the approval criteria, although I would also like to turn to staff to speak a little bit about what the design commission found that. So do you have the approval criteria that we can put up on the screen?
150 I have the central city policies that I can put up on the screen, if that's what we're talking about.
151 Lp yeah.
152 I think either the policies or the I know there was a kind of a chart put together for us.
153 Odi can share that as well.
154 And I just want to make sure that we are truly doing our due diligence and being thorough in our work here, because there were some pieces that were raised where I think that question of to what extent is an important one for us to make sure to consider.
155 If I can be helpful with the response, let me know. But I won't jump in unless asked.
156 I am happy to hear from staff about what what is required, but I'm also happy to hear from the applicant about how you think you're meeting these pieces. If that. If there are pieces you'd like to add.
157 Councilor pirtle-guiney. The design commission's findings for policy 5ld1. Diverse and distinct urban places are on the screen right now. Design commission found that development in the lloyd center master plan area is likely to be of higher intensity than. Than the existing shopping mall and parking uses that are currently predominate on the site. The master plan area anticipates and can accommodate between 2.2 million and 6 point 8,000,000ft■!s of development, which is significantly more than the 1.1 8,000,000ft■!s of development currently on the site. Master plan provides opportunities for mixed use development, with a hierarchy of block sizes that can accommodate a range of uses and serve to strengthen the emerging mixture of residential neighborhoods, interspersed with commercial offices and major regional attractors.
158 I think part of the challenge here is that this policy is titled diverse, diverse and distinct urban places. But the the information underneath that in the yellow that you have up there is that it foster more intense development and strengthen the district character, which is different from diverse and distinct urban places. So we have appeals that are focused on diverse and distinct urban places. And I think very rightfully point out that this development may be less distinct in its nature than lloyd center. It may not be. We don't know yet that will happen through the development process, but the argument that was made through the design commission is about that subtext, more intense development, more development, more space. And so I've been trying to parse the fact that we have an appeal on a very different piece of language than what it sounds like. We actually have to meet that subtext sounds like what we actually have to meet, and that appears to be met here. I don't know from the applicant if there's anything you want to add about the diverse and distinct piece, or if you really have been focused on that intensity of development.
159 Yes. Thank you for the opportunity. Again, it's christie white, legal counsel for the applicant. I would take a step back before you get right to the language of the design guideline, which is the design guidelines are not prescriptive standards. So they can't dictate or and don't intend to dictate a specific use. And then the master plan itself is an urban design framework, which doesn't then again dictate specific uses. So what the design commission is looking at when it looks at policy 5-1, it looks at both the title distinct, diverse and distinct urban places, which is how the city has decided to title that subtext. And then it goes to the subtext and looks at the urban framework standpoint and not at specific future uses. And when it looked at that, it said, okay, we as a city have a code we've developed for the central city and the lloyd district that intentionally puts heights, density and open spaces in this area. Does this urban framework better accommodate that under this design guideline than the current mall? And the answer was yes, unequivocally. And this language that you see here is a is a summary of much greater findings in the central city master plan about how that accommodates it.
160 And we've seen those greater findings. And I think this is part of what I've been looking at as I've looked through here and thought about the appellants arguments, is that we do have these abbreviated, these abbreviated headers. Sure. And a whole lot that you are that you are looking to meet below that which are met, even if the language of the header is perhaps not. I did have some questions about 1ld3 and 2ld3 and the the appellants arguments on these were interesting to me because these are the policies that look at activation. The one that I read actually is an example previously and community building. And it appeared to me that the design commission relied a lot on the inclusion of open space to meet those criteria. I'm struggling with that because a master plan requires open space by its nature. And so if we're meeting our community building requirements and our space activation requirements through something that is already necessarily required,
161 I. I guess I'm wondering why those policies. And I think this is a question for staff. Why are those policies included if they can be met just by the nature of having your 20% open space, generally, legally, if something is written out, it means something different is required. And so what is it that we should be looking for under activation and community building in a plan which doesn't have details yet? It doesn't have to. That's not a criticism. We're not at that place yet. In order to meet those requirements, because I struggle with meeting that just by the inclusion of open space that is already required to be included separately from this. So what have previous councils looked at there and what should we be looking for?
162 I don't believe the previous councils have actually evaluated these central city 2035 policies before, in the context of a central city master plan. These policies were adopted. I want to say, in 2018. And the master plan process hasn't come before the city council since then.
163 So we're really setting the precedent here. We don't have precedent on how to interpret these that we should be looking at.
164 The design commission has said it's precedent, but the council has not.
165 Okay. Is there. I'm trying to choose my words carefully, given the limitations in what is required in a master plan. Are there plans that can be shared around the activation of spaces or the creation of year round active spaces? Because what I'm seeing is that we are supposed to be meeting community building standards. Through open space, which in a city that where it rains half the year is an interesting way of meeting that requirement. And when we're moving from active spaces, meeting spaces with active activities to open space, which can be activated but is not necessarily activated. I also wonder about the community building. So I wonder if there's anything that I can hear about what the plans are that might help us feel confident that that requirement is, in fact, going to be met in a way beyond just having the already required 20% open spaces that we may not be seeing right now.
166 Yeah, great question, and I'm happy to answer it. The open space, you're correct, is a requirement of the code. The question under this design guideline is how the rest of the plan interacts with that open space. And so what we have now is a large concrete mall surrounded by parking structures. And so the question for the design commission was, does the new grid system that's going to be introduced into this 27 acre area, connecting it to the neighborhoods on both sides and requiring very specific locations for ground floor active uses, glisan, ground floor window treatments, ground floor entrances that are reflective of the surrounding public right of way and public spaces, as well as the open space and park areas, is a good response to ld3, and the design commission unequivocally found. So because what you're doing is creating a new community at the ground floor that allows people to pass through around between blocks and creating ground floor active uses that can spill out onto all of those public spaces. So it isn't just the open space. The master plan also goes through a parcelization with, as ben said, a tiered block size that accommodates different kinds of uses on the ground floor. And then on top of all of that, you have the zoning, which is allows outright many of those uses, if not all of those uses that have been contemplated in the public conversation.
167 It looks like you have somebody up there who might want to respond.
168 Architect is probably better suited to answer the.
169 Director of planning and urban design with kgf, and we prepared the central city master plan. I just well, for the a, I want to point out I'm not an architect.
170 Sorry.
171 Just so.
172 Our lead designer.
173 Yeah, but there's something sort of high level that I thought might be helpful context. And that is that the cmp language states that the central city master plan is consistent with applicable sub district goals and policies of the central city 2035 plan. But the central city 2035 plan goals and policies were not written specifically to be applied to cmp. They're written to guide the city's review of everything your own planning, your own street design all the way down to buildings and the design of sidewalk. And so it's hard for these to be written at a level that applies to those things equally. And so as you, as the design commission reviews a district versus a building versus a plaza, it's got to interpret them at a different level of detail. And so, as christy said, what we're reviewing is a design framework. It's about the size and scale of streets, what they can accommodate. And we've assigned streets and open spaces and building sites, responsibilities, which we've described in terms of how they will contribute to the district and to the other parts of the plan. And so I think, you know, if I look at this community building, the what we've done with the open space system is to provide diversity of scale, diversity of orientation and relationship to the private building locations and to the other public realm and to the public streets that pass through the district. So the the buildings and plazas and parks that follow will have more detail that can be judged against these criteria. But we think that at the urban design framework level that we've addressed it.
174 Thank you. I appreciate hearing that. I I'm still struggling a little bit with this policy that says, encourage public spaces and the public space. Requirement being met with public space that is already required elsewhere, and design that allows the use of that space. You know, I started by saying it's clear that we can't prevent the demolition of lloyd center or the ice rink. And it really is clear to me that the master plan does mostly meet the conditions that are laid out. But there are a few of these policies where I think the plan has left something to be desired. And councilor Kanal you asked a question about conditions and a condition of an ice rink specifically, we heard that that would most certainly be appealed as a taking. I am wondering what a condition around year round active use spaces, not just open spaces, which would not necessarily require an ice rink. I want to be very clear that could be met in any number of ways. But whether it would be appropriate under this community building item. To have a condition around the inclusion of some sort of active space, usable year round for community building, in addition to what is laid out already in the design, as part of the approval that council moves forward. And lauren, I don't know if you have any comments on that.
175 I would just say that if council wants to draft such a condition, then I would definitely want to have a sidebar with staff to make sure that it works with the other conditions. So I I'm hesitant to try to write a condition on the fly. Understood. From here. And just so I understand, policy 2ld3 community building encourage public spaces. What you're asking is whether. Council could interpret that criteria to require an active.
176 Some sort of public space and some sort of public, some sort of active recreation, public space that moves us beyond where I think the design commission relied pretty heavily, which is the open space that is already required in the plan, separate from this community building policy.
177 I don't know if staff wants to comment. I guess I have some thoughts, but.
178 And councilor Pirtle-guiney, we're at 15 minutes. After this.
179 Thank you. This is the last thing I'm going to say, I promise.
180 Thank you.
181 Councilor. I'm trying to think of how to answer this question.
Procedural episode · turns 182–191
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
182 The river placement findings.
183 Yeah. In terms of crafting a condition of approval, I agree with lauren. That's something we wouldn't want to do on the fly. I don't I don't necessarily see the direct nexus to the year round part of your your condition. And that's maybe where I'm struggling just a little bit in coming up with an answer.
184 I think I might be helpful in the the word encourage has been interpreted under the river place master plan to at a framework level. So it might be really important to refer to those findings. That's in our legal argument in the brief be provided to council. But it means facilitate through an urban framework. It doesn't mean to require. And I would just emphasize to impose a condition of approval. It must be tied to a development standard that requires that condition, or you can't meet the development standard. And we don't have a development standard here that requires a community building. Although, having said that, I just want to again emphasize that all of these ground floors are ground floors that can be activated by any uses that are allowed in the zone when a development proposal comes forward.
185 Certainly, though, we should presume that they'll probably be developed. In a way that maximizes profit for whatever groups purchase those from the current owner. And I don't think that's a bad thing by any means. But the only way that we we as a council, ensure certain conditions are are met beyond that is by stating that they need to be met. So I hear you and I know that we've heard from the current property owner that they are very open to the development of some of the things that have been brought forward, which would be competing with everything else bidding on those properties. I do note the word encourage. And I remember in your presentation and in the documents that you submitted, talking about that other case. And I've also heard that each piece of this does need to be met. So we have to encourage, we don't have to do the thing, but we are required to ensure that this encourages. I think there's some question there about whether that means this is actually a true requirement or not, though we heard from staff that these things are requirements. I hear staff not wanting to develop something on the fly, and that's fine. But I also think it's important that I say out loud that I wonder if there is something we should do there. We don't vote today. My colleagues will have an opportunity to weigh in, and they may or may not be interested in moving in that direction. And that's okay. But I do think it's important to to point out these pieces where there may still be some weaknesses in how the policies are met. And we can determine if we want to apply conditions or not. I do think that for the most part, the application meets the requirements. There are just some pieces where we might be able to have it meet those requirements in an even stronger way. Council president I'll stop there. Folks have heard my thoughts and can either express interest or not. As we move forward with our deliberations over the next few weeks, I think it is.
186 Thank you very much. And I didn't want to interrupt. Councilor pirtle-guiney, but our rules of decorum in the chamber require non audible shows of support or disapproval. I was hoping to sort of let the snapping fly, but then I heard boos and hissing. So I'm going to ask the council, the people in the audience please continue with non audible shows of support. Jazz hands, thumbs down, all good options, but let's not let this become a distraction please. Thank you very much, councilor Ryan.
187 Yes, thank you, council president. First, I do want to thank all the people who have come out to share their thoughts. It's been really heartfelt testimony. It's great to see this type of engagement in Portland and especially in the district that I represent, along with my colleagues to the right of me. I also just really enjoyed hearing the stories and all the positive experiences. I noticed that everyone talked about their positive experiences of lloyd center, even if they thought it was dead and needs to move forward and those that are activating it at this time. There was no debate over portlanders love affair with the lloyd center. Since it's been in a big part of our history since the 60s. I grew up with it. I was born and raised near the location the first part of my life, so I. I just thought there was only one mall in the entire world and it was lloyd center, so. And I've cheered for every every attempt to stop the exits of flagship stores that was taking place. I went to the opening when tom cobain worked with people to lease out the the the spots. And is that when was that 2021 or 2022? 2022? Yeah, it was so festive. It was a beautiful affair. And I remember even people that had leased it saying, I know this is only temporary, but it's really a wonderful opportunity to learn how to run a storefront. And it brought a lot of energy back. And so I've been rooting for it. I go to the lloyd athletic club. Don't go as much as I should since 1997. So I've been able to see all of these variations. The ex parte was kind of odd. I feel like I could have been talking about my relationship with lloyd center for way too long, so I tried to summarize it anyway. I miss the vitality and vibrancy it once had, it once had, and I'm trying to be respectful for those that still experience it. But big picture, I really, really miss it. I, I have seen a very long time since the space was utilized to its potential. And I really want to thank urban renaissance group and the architects and urban planners for working with the city on our master plan. That is something that doesn't always happen. Gee, thanks for giving the sign that they could do gestures like this. I'll look over here now. Just just having fun with all of you. You got to make light of this stuff. Sometimes. There are two primary concerns I've heard are preserving an ice rink and objections to the demolition. Neither of these items are applicable to the city's master plan criterion scope. The applicant will be able to demolish the mall without the master plan, and they were not able to require that a party in the future build an ice rink as part of the master plan. That would have been a separate conversation and agreement between interested parties elsewhere. Outside of this hearing, I want to ditto everything you said you kind of. I was real excited to announce that I think we should work as landlords of veterans memorial coliseum. We should work with the people at rip city management and winterhawks to figure this out. Like, why couldn't there be lessons there? How could we get a shared agreement? We're the landlords of the of the memorial coliseum. It's by far a better ice rink, if you will. And then imagine family skate night, open up the curtains, have some great music, do some light show how playful, how wonderful, how portlandia, and see the view of the city. Like let's. We have options. City council that aren't a part of this decision that can allow us to bring vibrancy to that very important part of our city. So thank you for mentioning that. President Dunphy, I'm on the working group with you about that. But today, let's get back to our our reality, the reality of our decision today. Today, our tentative decision is about recognizing the process and the work completed by the applicant, city staff and the hard working volunteers at the design commission. They completed the process and determined that the applicant sufficiently met criteria of a master plan. I appreciate the due diligence of the design commission and after reviewing consideration, I think they arrived at a very sound decision. Unless there is clear evidence and reason that the criteria are not met, we need to uphold the findings of the design commission. Thanks.
188 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Vice president Clark.
189 Thank you, council president. I think some of these questions have been excellent. I appreciate the digging in, but I just have one really simple question. And it might be for the attorneys. This is a well put together master plan. I appreciate and I appreciate your answering the questions so well, but I was just curious that there's nothing that requires that this master plan be implemented, that someone could swoop in and buy up this property and do something else with it. Is that is that true?
190 Again, ask to not with snapping. Thank you.
191 Councilor Clark. You're asking whether the master, whether a future property owner is bound by the master plan, right? No. The future property owners are bound by. Well, they could come in and get a new master plan, or they could decide not to pursue the master plan in terms of how they developed. Yes, they go ahead if you have more to add.
192 Yeah. If the master plan is approved, it's a vested land use decision that's recorded against and runs with the land and any successor in interest, if there is one ever to this property owner, would be required to comply with all of the conditions of approval within the master plan. There are also provisions in the code. If somebody came in and wanted to amend the master plan because some use came along that needed a bigger block size, for example, they would have to come in either through a type three process again or a type two, depending on the level of the modification. So the master plan also has a term of ten years, and so it would terminate after ten years. And somebody would have to start over. If the development in the master plan hadn't proceeded.
193 Okay. So what you're saying in lay terms is that someone could come in and would have to go through a process to do something differently.
194 Yes. Otherwise they would just comply with the master plan. It happens all the time. Somebody gets a land use approval, they sell their property. You have to build according to that land use approval. If you want to modify it, you have to come in again through a public process.
195 And so there is a public process. Yes. Thank you for answering that question. I appreciate it. Thank you, council president.
196 Thank you, vice president Clark, councilor Green.
197 Thank you, council president, I really appreciated kind of the dialog around the veterans memorial coliseum as being a potential solution to a problem that would be created, irrespective of the decision we make today, frankly. But both of those impacts are in district two, I'll note. So there's some interesting symmetry there as well. So I'm supportive of that kind of thinking in that direction. I just think that before we get into the the bigger, you know, decision here, I want to note that the there is a real lack of affordable rents for commercial tenancy in the city of Portland. Like that is real. And that is what the lloyd center has been able to provide during this period of its basic like near insolvency. I mean, like in economics, you have firms that are not bankrupt but are insolvent. And the lloyd center property is more or less insolvent. And so it's it's at its end of economic life. And in that space, you're able to offer essentially, deeply, deeply discounted rents that have created the opportunity for, for in some sense, some flourishment. That's actually the Portland I grew up in, like the Portland that I grew up in had a bunch of really cheap rent, whether that was residential housing stock or it was also commercial housing stock. And that enabled artists to do really cool things that then created cultural production. And so what irrespective of this specific land case, I want us to look at the challenge that we're in right now, which is that there is a glut of commercial and office vacancy space in the city of Portland, and we have an opportunity to, to use the tools, the levers that we that are appropriate to use to help unlock those spaces so people can get into a much lower barrier to entry. This is this is something we talked about a lot, I think, in the arts and economy committee, when that was still a thing that I think is the future vision that I see for economic development and allowing that cultural production. The lloyd center is, is not that there is no future for that use in this case. That doesn't mean we give up on the dream of building that for portlanders. And so I think that, you know, that's a hard that's a hard pill to swallow. But the land use decision that we have before us is whether or not we're going to allow a master plan to be used as a tool to have a much more, I think, promising development opportunity for this, these set of parcels that would exist, that would that would happen with or without the master plan, but without the master plan. We don't get the ancillary benefits of the city of Portland that come from the infrastructure that's going to be developed as part of this. That's a big piece of this, and that's something that we need to know. I do have a question, though, for councilor Pirtle-guiney, because I you kind of went on for about 20 minutes and there were some important stuff that you were laying in there, and I didn't catch all of it. So I just want to make sure I have your intent clearly. Are you trying are you sort of envisioning that we would have a condition that created like covered year round active space? I, I wasn't really fully following that.
Procedural episode · turns 198–206
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
198 Yeah. So I asked about a number of things, some of which I think were important to just get on the record as clearly not a place where we have space to intervene. I am interested in this community building policy because right now, predominantly that requirement encourage public spaces. And I understand that it's encourage is being met through the open space and the way that buildings orient toward the open space. Having spent a lot of time around lawyers. So I am certainly not a lawyer and a lot of time on policy, work and interpretation. I know that words matter, and if something is included, it matters. So when I see a policy requirement for community building separate from a requirement to have 20% 20% open space, I am struggling with accepting that we can meet that encouragement of public space simply by saying, well, there is a requirement for 20% open space, and therefore that's public space, and we're going to orient the buildings for people to use that. And therefore we've met the condition. So. Given that I was asking the question of whether there could be some condition around public space. And ensuring that there is some sort of public space that is usable beyond that 20%, presumably something usable year round, so that it is separate from that 20% and offers a different a different need to be met than that open space, which certainly meets a need now, because the word is encourage. I don't know if we can do that or not, but I'm stuck in a bit of a hiccup because we're being told that one of the things we need to make sure this plan does is encourage public space. We're being told it does. So with the use of this open space in the orientation of buildings toward the open space, but the open space is required elsewhere. If the words are here, separate from here, generally that means it's a separate requirement. And yet I don't know if we could add that condition because of the word encourage. And that is the the legal hiccup that I think we may be in that I was trying to ask some questions about.
199 Thanks.
200 Help. It does. And thanks for. So I guess I'm not taking away from that like that. You're trying to create a sort of ad hoc land use requirement on top of this for big covered year round space, right? So because I was, I was, thank you because that's, that's, I think a reasonable observer who maybe missed some of this might have caught that. Or maybe that was the takeaway. And I don't think that was your, your sort of intent. And I wanted to make sure I understood what was maybe coming down the pike in a couple of weeks, because I don't I don't support something like that. I do think it is it's good and right for us to sort of press on these conditions and ask the questions. That's the purpose of this body to be convened as a quasi judicial. And so I appreciate the dialog on that. I think for me, you know, the city of Portland, it's a pretty moderate kind of weather, temperate area. I think that in the context of our broader land use goals and planning documents, I think the for me, we can encourage active and open and community space without that piece of infrastructure attached to it necessarily. But but we'll see. We'll see what staff comes up with over the next couple of weeks. I think when I read when I read these documents and I looked at the plan, the articulation of the, the, the egress and ingress of the, of the buildings and the lots and the kind of open space and how the streets and the kind of interior streets are faced. To me, that felt a lot like a european style superblock, where you have sort of a high degree of pedestrianization and you've got inward sort of park facing, maybe ground floor retail, maybe there's a preschool for all facility on the ground floor of this thing. Maybe there's a park. I see a lot of potential there for community building and active space. And so I don't necessarily see the. Perhaps the gap that you're, you're identifying there or maybe the mutual exclusivity piece. I'm not sure how to describe it there, but I guess colleagues, I'm, I'm prepared to I'm, you know, when we take this vote, I'm prepared to reject the the appeals and approve the hearings, officer, whatever, whatever that specific item is in the slides. And I'll leave it at that. Thanks.
201 Thank you, councilor Green, councilor Smith.
202 Point of order. Do we have a time? Certain at 11:00 of an agenda item?
203 Yes, but we couldn't have it before then. But we can move to those items after. Absolutely. But yes, we have the the recap item.
204 I must have been out when you talked about that.
205 I was just part of the agenda approval. But time certains are always the earliest we could do it, not the latest. We can start it.
206 Okay, okay. Thanks.
207 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Kanal.
208 Thank you, council president. Just a couple.
209 Quick questions and then I have I'll just do my comments altogether here. I there's a demolition permit that has to be applied for in order to demolish this. That's outside the scope of this. But my question for legal is that's it's own land use process, right? The demolition permit.
210 Land use process.
211 It's an administrative process. Okay.
212 So somebody could theoretically appeal that. And there's a whole process right there.
213 It is not a land use decision that's appealable to this body. But yes, I mean, someone could challenge whether the non-discretionary criteria have been met. Standards have been met.
214 Okay. But that's I'm just I'm illustrating it's a separate conversation.
215 Yes, yes, it is a separate application and process. Yes.
216 Okay. My two questions for the applicants. One is just following up on councilor Pirtle-guiney questions about this open space piece. And your response was about open ground floors, right. And I think that's something that we can guarantee in terms of requirements for design to have windows and things like that. But in terms of accessibility, if someone comes along, a different land developer buys one of these parcels, builds a building with open ground floors, but then they just lock the doors, say only higher floor tenants can enter the building, etc. Is there anything that prevents that from happening?
217 Yes, there's several things. So the the way the zoning code works, right. And layered in with the master plan, there's certain streets that are primary streets that require, like you said, active ground floor uses. And the zoning code requires main entrances that are open to the public and ADA accessible on those main entrances, I. So, yes, the zoning code would require that kind of fluid accessibility. Ground floor windows measured from a certain height by a certain percentage, and the design commission, I can say from 30 years of experience, would never let you get away with not complying with those standards, that's for certain as you look around. But if a tenant went, I mean, I can't tell you that if there's a vacancy like we're seeing all around town, that there would be inactivity for some period of the vacancy. But hopefully, as we emerge out of this economy and somebody decides to invest in one of these parcels and develop it, we won't be in that situation. But I can assure you that the design commission process for each one of these buildings will ensure that there are active spaces, active ground floor windows, main entrances, and they evaluate that all in the context of the rest of the parcels.
218 Yeah.
219 I'm not concerned about ADA accessibility and things like that. I think that's I have faith that the process would would account for that. I'm more concerned about the security sort of element of it, like human security, private owners saying, we're just going to lock up and not let anybody in. I also don't think it's reasonable to hold anyone here accountable for if there's an inactive space or rented space. At first in the context of this question. But I think that's that's what I'm asking about there. The other question was around diversity, and I want to be clear to mr. Lenhart, you said that the plan provides a diversity of scale, diversity of orientation, relationship to the private building locations and the other public realm and public streets that pass through the district. I think that that, to me, meets with the the actual text of it, and it seems compliant with that. So I don't think that there's necessarily a concern there. But I also think it makes clear that the title of this criterion is a joke. And something we need to fix is that's not what I think anybody here would think of when they think of what the word diversity means. So I think just in terms of the layperson's understanding, and I'm interested in working with staff on the future of that, because I think there is a there is a disconnect here. And I think councilor Pirtle-guiney mentioned between the title and the the text, but also between, I think, just the title and public understanding of those words. And so I think this is less about technical requirement versus how it's perceived. And I don't know if I'm missing anything on that, but I wanted to just mention that, okay. So I want to just restate what I heard. I heard there's a current plan to demolish lloyd center, which is parallel to this process and has its own criteria, parallel plan to do master planning, and that today we're only working on master plan consideration that the existence of a master plan relative to not having one has specific benefits to the city in terms of better to have it than to not, if separate from the question of what should be in it or not. I heard that we can't remand this to the planning commission under current land use law. I've heard that we can't exercise our independent judgment in the context of our preference as to the preferred outcome, but instead do our quasi judicial duty and apply existing law and plan to see if the proposed master plan meets them or not. Regardless of how. Which I think is a really important distinction that the requirements proposed include interpretation of criteria, but also things that aren't required, and that the absence for of a requirement for meaningful engagement is problematic. As councilor Pirtle-guiney noted, I've also heard their concerns, which we can all individually assess about the risk of demolition absent a master plan about the risk of being sued under the takings clause and so forth. So what I took away from that is I don't think we can apply conditions that require an ice rink. I don't think that we can apply conditions that create specific spaces for things like the five k. Through this process, I do want to speak to two of the other criteria. There are two, three and 5ld1. I asked a question about applying community building the current use, which we can't, but I do think that they serve as important context because the current community use and the current existence of community shows the lowest possible ceiling for what the space can provide for in the future. I think that's a way of saying we can expect what we already have, that that's a fair expectation to hold. And so I think that the technical requirement is met, not in the same way that it's currently being met. That indicates to me a failure of a high enough bar, more than it indicates that we are seeing grounds for an appeal on the other one, though. 5ld1. We talked about diversity, but I also want to recognize the concern that citywide we're losing something distinctive. If lloyd center goes away, right. It is a thing that doesn't exist anywhere else in the city. It's a thing that will not be replaced with something else. And so the overall breadth of what exists in the city will be reduced. I think that's a tension there that can't be met. I think that this relates to the title not being backed up as well in the actual text, but I do want to to use those to, to, to talk about the potential condition. And I want to support. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney comment about year round activation. I think there are some communities which are seasonal, you know, summer camps, things like that. But again, the degree of our expectation should be shaped by the existing usage, which includes year round community at the ice rink. That's fair. And also most communities include active use and not just the possibility of active use. And I think that's a really important distinction as well. I can't say I'd vote for the condition absent reading it, and I think we'd all want to see it, but I think it's fair to ask for some option to be presented that is detailed enough to consider in an up or down way. So that's my, my, my request and I want to back that up. Speaking more broadly, one of the clear lessons from lloyd center's recent history is that lower rents and flexible space create room for innovation, especially for small businesses and community serving organizations that are often priced out elsewhere. While the city has limited authority over the future of a privately owned property, as we're all seeing with the limits of this quasi judicial process, I am focused on supporting the people, the people and businesses who've made lloyd center what it's been, not just in the last few years, but even prior to that, because, as council president mentioned, we all have history with this building. The conditions that precipitated this, this gap are under utilized and under activated spaces, and we have a failure of building more multi-use than we can reasonably create affordability for businesses to have access to in the commercial sector here. Some of that has to do with just our our requirements. Some of that has to do with overbuilding. Some levers are outside of the scope of our land use item to to address it. And for those who aren't already aware, I am interested in and have started the process of examining separate residential and commercial vacancy fees as a tool to create pressure on long term vacancy and drive rent down citywide. The encourages the sorry. The intent is to better understand how the city can discourage prolonged vacancy and encourage productive community community benefiting use of existing buildings at an affordable level without losing sight of the real financial and legal constraints that the city operates under. We obviously need to make sure our stated goals make sense to the public, and not just to lawyers. No offense intended to the lawyers, but it needs to meet both criteria, and that includes titling better, titling better the particular criteria, but also making sure what's required and what's not. I also think mr. Lenhart's point about she both made it about applying these differently at the in the context of a framework versus an individual building is helpful. And I'd like more clarity on that for the public as well. And also ensuring real engagement, not conflating one way communication, mailers, etc. Even if those mailers were on time, they're not enough to constitute engagement. Engagement is co-creation. Engagement is listening and requiring. It appears clear that that that's not actually a real requirement in our current rules, that it just needs to be. I won't repeat everything everyone said about the rose quarter and the ice rink, except to say that I agree, but I want to make one big picture comment here. This is a private business operating within rules about private uses of land in our city and state, and so we're limited as a council. I also think we're being asked to ensure that capitalism and capitalists provide a social benefit, and that's not realistic the way the law currently is. We can argue about whether the solution should be a broad conversation about democratic socialism, or simply a government use, like an ice rink run by Portland parks or the city owned veterans memorial coliseum. But I think we need to be realistic about the world we're in as we simultaneously try to build the better world of the future. And I do want to build that better world. We can have nice things, including an ice rink, and Portland deserves them, but it's not going to be because large developers choose to build them altruistically. Nor should it be. That's just not how it works. It's our responsibility to either build requirements, noting what limitations that that might create or better yet, provide a public service as the government. We haven't done that as a government, and that's our job to do. And we we need to meet that requirement. So I just wanted to get that on the record. Thanks.
220 Appreciate it.
221 Thank you very much. Councilor Kanal colleagues, there's no one else in queue for discussion. Lauren. Our staff, I could we could we pull up the three options before the council again, please?
222 Yes. Just a moment.
223 Counselor Smith. Okay, okay.
224 Jamie, if possible, I'd like to ask a question of council.
225 Sure.
226 Okay.
227 No. Okay. He's welcome to ask.
228 Matt henderson with the save lloyd campaign representing one of the appellants. So there's one guideline that hasn't come up in discussion that I don't want to gloss over. And I don't think the city wants to gloss over. And that is guideline a6 reuse, rehabilitate and restore existing structures where feasible. The city's own website for the bureau of planning and sustainability talks about embodied carbon in the built environment. And I'll quote briefly from it. Building materials account for 13% of annual global emissions, so reducing embodied carbon in the built environment is a priority to reach net zero carbon by 2050.
229 We're kind of pushing into a territory of relitigating this. I was open to a question, but okay, full reading of that. It's a little bit.
230 The it's all here in the in the city priorities publicly that reusing existing buildings is a crucial part of how we advance the city's climate goals. And this guideline, a6 feels like one of the most woefully under met criteria that the master plan is being assessed by. It feels like there was not enough accountability.
231 Again, this. This we're pushing into relitigating territory. It's got to be. If you have a question, I'm happy to answer it.
232 The question is, has council given consideration particularly to this guideline? A6, which was one of our six criteria or guidelines that we specified in our appeal letter? I'll just.
233 Say that I'm familiar familiar with this criteria. It was it was considered in my consideration of it and will be a part of what I am considering as we move towards a vote.
234 Thank you.
235 Thank you. So before us right now on the on the screen colleagues, you see that there are three options that we are able to do. Lauren, can you can you help me understand the difference between the two middle or the first and the second? They seem very similar.
236 So the first option is to approve the design commission's decision with all of the conditions that the design commission included, and then the findings would be revised to reflect the council hearing. We would return, we would make a tentative vote and return council wood and return with revised findings. But it would uphold everything that the design commission found, including all of their conditions. The second option upholds the design commission's decision, but revises the conditions and adds any new conditions. And I will note that there is a technical amendment to one of the conditions that staff has requested. Should council proceed with upholding the design commission's decision.
237 Thank you, councilor Ryan.
238 Yeah.
239 Thank you, council president, I move that a motion to the first option denied both appeals and uphold the design commission's decision and conditions of approval with revised findings.
240 So second, before.
241 We move into that, as lauren just said, there are is a technical change that is required that does require an update to a revised condition. If the body is moving towards denying the appeal, I would ask that we move the second option that with revised conditions. Is that correct?
242 Yeah. Ben, do you have the revised condition that you could.
243 A technical amendment there?
244 It's a it's a technical revision that.
245 It's a revision to the text of condition of approval. Eight c. I can show it on the screen briefly.
246 I'll take a second. Okay.
247 So it's just changing some of the language that was adopted by the design commission, public works staff. Brianna lovell is up here. If you have any questions for her on this. Public works staff at p, p and d has worked with the development team on revising these conditions. It just corrected a couple technical things that were in error.
248 Okay. Yeah.
249 Can you can we get some more specification specification of that which those.
250 Sure. Brianna lovell, Portland permitting and development. Public works development. So the change that we're making is related to the fact that the applicant's materials originally indicated that the full demolition of the mall would impact the private connection sewer connection to properties to the north of the lloyd center. And so we wrote a condition that sort of offered us some guarantees about how that transition would be managed so that those northern properties get reconnected in a timely manner. Ultimately, it's a it's a private agreement between two private parties, but we wanted to make sure that there was no risk to the city, that something go awry and that an emergency connection to the public system be required. But we have now understood that the demolition of the mall could be completed without disrupting that service to the northern properties. So we amended the condition to reflect that.
251 Thank you. Councilor Ryan.
252 Yeah.
253 So I, I moved and it was seconded. Are you saying that we need to do this technical amendment, which still seems to be in the first bullet? The attorney can weigh in. Of course.
254 You can do. If there's no objection, you can do a friendly revision to your motion. But yes, I think that staff is requesting that one of the its condition eight c, I think is is revised. So it could the motion could be. I move to tentatively deny the appeal, uphold the design commission's decision with the change to condition eight c as proposed by staff.
255 That's what I want to say right now.
256 Yeah.
257 Councilor Ryan moves what lauren just said.
258 Yeah.
259 Second councilor Novick seconds. In a land use appeal. Is this a debatable motion or do we just move to a vote at that point?
260 You can move to a vote.
261 Okay.
262 I think I mean yeah, okay.
263 Then we are moving to a vote on councilor Ryan's motion. Councilor Novick second oh, councilor.
264 Information do there's not discussion on this motion.
265 Well, it's a it's a call for a vote. So this is it's it's there's not a it's not a motion to amend. It's basically just a call for the vote.
266 There's generally discussion, though on a call for a vote, correct.
267 Legislative things. But we're in a land use hearing. I would be like, yeah, is there.
268 I'm just noting that we do have two colleagues in the queue.
269 Yeah. I don't have any reason to say that council cannot have a discussion if there is interest, if the body is interested in further discussion before voting.
270 Okay.
271 Then before we move to a vote, I'm going to get to councilor Kanal.
272 Just a question here. Would we have a expressed. At least two of us have expressed an interest in seeing what a condition would look like. Is there I don't this is a preliminary vote. So it doesn't really seem to matter if there's going to be revised conditions. Anyway, it seems like we would be able to add something later, but I'm just curious about how, how we could get to a place where we could at least consider something.
273 I just want to make sure to clarify for the record. So. So typically council makes a tentative vote. It reflects all of the conditions and what council wants the final decision to be. That was commissioner Ryan's motion. And for that tentative vote count, staff then will return at a future date with revised findings to reflect what happened at the hearing, the testimony and and council's discussion. Ordinarily, the condition would not be further amended at that future vote. So if there is a proposal for a condition, council should identify what that is before making before making a tentative vote.
274 Okay. Well, I mean, I've made clear and I think councilor Pirtle-guiney made clear, a desire to consider another condition. I don't think there's been other colleagues have necessarily expressed an opinion either way, except I'm going to implicitly assume that councilors Ryan and Novick, by virtue of this amendment or this motion. Second, are not interested in that. So I just wanted to put that on the table before we vote. Thanks.
275 Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Smith.
276 Thank you. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the further explanation. And before I take this vote, I want to say to my fellow portlanders, neighbors and the passionate advocates who have spoken out to protect the lloyd center, I hear you and I heard you. I have listened closely to the hours of public testimony and felt the deep love this community holds for the lloyd center, especially the iconic ice rink that has anchored generations of family memories, first dates and community gatherings. Please know that my vote. Council president. Thank you. Can you give order, folks? I can finish my statement.
277 I've been very clear. Please. The snapping and clapping, please. I will consider it a disruption and ask you to leave.
278 Thank you. So please know that my vote to approve the central city master plan is not to dismantle that rich history, nor is it a validation of losing something that we all love. It is instead a difficult but necessary step toward securing a viable future to northeast Portland. The reality we face is that the current structure of the mall is severely dilapidated and economically unsustainable. While land use law does not legally allow the city council to force a private developer to rebuild or maintain an ice rink. Voting no on this demolition and redevelopment plan would not save the rink. It would simply trap the lloyd center in a state of continued decay. So I will be supporting the master plan. My vote to support this path forward is rooted in an appeal to what Portland can become in the future. Economic revitalization. Our city is navigating a significant budgetary shortfall, and we desperately need to rebuild our tax base. A revitalized lloyd district will breathe economic life back into the area, creating a ecosystem where local small businesses can not just survive, but they can thrive. Housing and infrastructure. This redevelopment represents a generational opportunity to build a much needed housing and modern infrastructure right in the heart of the city. A renewed gathering space. While the physical space will change, the goal is to transform a dying, hollowed out property into a very vibrant, active neighborhood where portlanders can once again gather, work and live safely. And I know that change is incredibly hard, especially when it touches places that hold our history. My history. But as your city councilor, I must look towards tomorrow. I am committed to working alongside the developers and community advocates to ensure that the spirit of community space remains central to whatever is built next. And let us use this moment not to divide ourselves over what is being taken down, but to collaborate on what we can build up together. Thank you for your fierce advocacy and dedication to our city, and I want to thank the developers for the work that they've put in. This has been a long road, and, you know, we're going to have some some winners here, and I think all of us can win on this. Thank you.
279 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
280 Thank you, council president. You know, many of us started by saying that it was clear that there's going to be a demolition here, no matter what. The question is whether a master plan is the best option and if so, if the criteria are being met. And I do think that predominantly they are with that asterisk of the concerns I raised. But I also am hearing loud and clear from my colleagues that there's not an interest in in conditions that would address those concerns and address perhaps some pieces where where there are places where the plan could be a bit stronger, both in terms of meeting the criteria and for our community. I just want to acknowledge that as we move forward, it's sometimes there are places where we could do better, but the will isn't there to do so. So we have to do the best that we can. And clearly moving forward with the master plan is better than moving forward without one. For this part of our community. Thank you, council president.
281 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Novick.
282 I just wanted to echo everything that councilor Smith said. I do not improve on what she said. I totally agree with it.
283 Thank you. Councilor Novick colleagues. Seeing no one else in the queue, keelan, can we please move to a roll call vote?
284 Let me repeat.
285 Noting Koyama Lane and Morillo are absent. Novick.
286 Before we start, just to clarify for colleagues, a yes vote and I vote is to vote to deny the. Both appeals uphold the design commission's decision with revised conditions and findings. If you vote. If you want to deny the appeal, a vote is a yes. If you want to uphold the appeal, the vote is in no. Is that correct?
287 Yes. Yes. Councilors. Councilor ryan's motion was to deny the appeal and uphold the design commission's decisions with the revised condition by staff. So a vote for yes would deny the appeals.
288 Thank you.
289 Keelan. Please call the roll.
290 Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Smith. I Kanal.
291 Begrudgingly I.
292 Pirtle-guiney I.
293 Ryan I. Dunphy I.
294 The tentative vote is approved with ten eyes and two absent.
295 The motion to appeal has to deny the appeal has passed with I'm sorry, what was the vote count? 910 1010 zero. The appeal is tentatively denied. Council clerk and city attorney. Do we have a date and time certain for this matter, to return to council for a final vote and adoption of findings.
296 So the zoning code requires that the prevailing attorney provide draft findings, and then we'll return. I think staff has a tentative hold for July 29th. Can I just sidebar with the attorney to see if that's sufficient or whether we need is.
297 We can do it.
298 Okay. So we'll need that at least a week before how long filing is.
299 We will need it.
300 Yeah.
301 Okay.
302 All right. Okay. Yeah. I'll coordinate with counsel for the applicant to identify when to get them to our office. But yeah.
303 Okay. So I understand that this matter is returning to council on Wednesday, July 29th. 940 at 9:45 a.m. For the adoption of the findings and the final vote. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much, colleagues. The time is currently 1148. I'm going to give us a restroom break. 1149 everybody, please be back here at noon. We still have a number of items, but I will preview that. We almost certainly will not complete the full agenda today. We'll see you all in ten minutes.
304 Shame on all of you. Damn.
305 Okay. And we are back. Keelan, can we please call item number five?
306 Item item five. Document 2026-189. Amend city code and improve land use regulations through the regulatory improvement code amendment package 11 amend code titles 32 and 33.
307 Colleagues, this is the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Claire adams with council operations is here for a committee staff summary report. Claire, take it away.
308 Thank you, council president and councilors for the record. Claire adams, council policy analysts and staff to the housing and permitting committee. The ordinance, before you document number 2026-189, was heard in the housing and permitting committee on June 2nd, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation to pass. The ordinance amends Portland city code title 33 planning and zoning, zoning and title 32 signs and regulated regulations related regulations, sorry and adopts the legislative intent and findings as shown in the regulatory improvement code amendment package 11 or recap 11, which is found in exhibit b. The ordinance also directs the adoption of the findings of fact report in exhibit a as additional findings, the code amendments clarify regulations and aim to remove barriers to development. Recap 11 amendments are grouped under the following themes in the recommended draft parking and loading, including access to bike parking, bike parking requirements with a change of use and allowing parking and residential setbacks with a garage conversion. Exterior areas including clarifying requirements related to structures or covers for common outdoor areas, and aligning definitions for exterior activities throughout the code. Regulatory improvements, including updating regulations for outdoor shelters to align with current allowances through the city's housing emergency. Clarifying that a sobering center is an allowed temporary activity in response to a health and safety emergency declaration and extending the timeline to set up or tear down a major public gathering to align with the timeline of. In a permit issued by Portland fire and rescue, and finally, sign code amendments, including allowing greater flexibility around the use of larger freestanding and or small changing image signs in local and regional parks. The full impact statement on this item includes information on economic and real estate development, impacts and analysis, and community impacts, and community involvement. No one provided verbal testimony during the committee meeting on June 2nd. Five people submitted written testimony on this item via the map app prior to committee action. The general themes of this testimony included support for clear and efficient permitting rules and definitions that help to reduce delays and expand housing options, concerns regarding allowing and expanding use for safe rest villages and daycare facilities by right without conditional use. Review greater request for greater flexibility for schools and universities by allowing multifamily housing as permitted use in the campus institutional zone. Request to add a definition in the zoning code for a structure that replaces an existing structure with the same footprint. And finally, highlighting the need for clarification of short term bicycle parking accessibility requirements. And that concludes the committee staff summary.
309 Thank you. Thank you very much. Claire councilor Avalos. This came from the housing and permanent committee. Can I turn it to you for opening remarks?
310 Yeah. Thank you, president Dunphy. So recap 11 came before the housing and permitting committee on June 2nd. Staff presented the package, which which includes a series of technical and minor policy amendments intended to clarify and improve the city's zoning and sign codes. During the committee hearing, no members of the public testified. The committee closed oral testimony, left the written record open, and voted to advance the package to the full council for consideration. Today. Following the committee hearing, council offices received a letter from several higher education institutions expressing concerns about the proposed definition of mechanical equipment, so city staff subsequently met with those stakeholders to better understand their concerns. And as a result of those discussions, council president Dunphy, councilor Koyama Lane and I are introducing an amendment for council's consideration. So with that, I'll turn it back to you, council president, and let me know when you'd like me to introduce the amendment.
311 Thank you counselor, that will be just a moment here because, as my notes say, there are two pre-filed amendments to this item, both filed responsive to written testimony. If those amendments are adopted today, we will be continuing this item to a time certain later in the month to allow staff to update the findings. Additionally, my my amendment Dunphy one will also require additional technical amendments from staff to be operationalized. If we adopted today altogether, we're looking to concluding this legislative action in August or possibly early September. As councilor Avalos said before public testimony, we want to introduce but not move our amendments so that the public, if there is testimony, can speak to them. So, councilor Avalos, would you be willing to introduce Avalos? Dunphy Koyama Lane one.
312 Yes, absolutely. So we are introducing this amendment to remove the definition of mechanical equipment. Several major institutions, including professionals at Portland state university, university of Oregon and OHSU, raised concerns about potential unintended consequences regarding the definition of mechanical equipment and setback and screening requirements under recap 11. So the introduce amendment was crafted by bp bts staff and removes the section mp seven regarding the definition of mechanical equipment, so that the issue can be further examined by bp s with additional community engagement. And so we're not moving it. We're just stating it.
313 Yeah. Please. For now.
314 Thank you.
315 So thank you very much. Councilor Avalos. So Avalos, Dunphy, Koyama Lane and I will also take the opportunity to introduce Dunphy one. This concept for this update came from testimony from warner pacific. They have been trying for years to change a zoning code to allow residential uses within the campus institution one zone by right cci1. They own several properties that could be sold for housing, but currently they cannot because they are bound up by a complicated, non-conforming situation that essentially makes them unable to be sold because banks will not loan on a property that can't be rebuilt should the existing house burn down, for example, permitting household living would mean would give meaningful zoning flexibility to utilize adjacent properties without departing from the zones intent. Helping colleagues, colleges and universities better serve their communities while maximizing the use of existing campus land. At a time when portland's housing needs remain, pressing this amendment simply aligns the c1ci1 zone with other campus institution zones by allowing household living by right and if passed, my team will work with staff to ensure that related technical changes to impacted codes are updated to be included in the final package passage of recap 11. So that is. And the text for that has been pre-filed and is available on their. With that, I'd like to. Before we move to technical. Actually, are there technical or clarifying questions before we move to public testimony? Counselor Green.
316 Thank you. Mr. Council president, just to clarify, so you are you you both these amendments. You're introducing them, but not moving them.
317 Not moving them yet so that the the the public can respond to them.
318 So we so we're basically we're also being familiarized with it. So we're just. Okay, great. Perfect. Thanks.
319 Thank you sir. Keelan is there a public. Oh, counselor Ryan.
320 Yeah.
321 I think this might be for. Well, I don't know who it's for, but someone can answer it. This is the recap 11 and when did we do recap ten? I'm just kind of curious when when recap 12 will take place.
322 Good afternoon counselors. Patricia devendorf. For the record, I believe council recap ten was adopted in 2024.
323 2020, 20 years. Yeah. 2024.
324 Yeah. So we tend to try to do these. Every year or so. It sometimes takes a little bit longer than a year, but it is a regular and ongoing program as we discussed previously.
325 It's good to see you, patricia, while you're up here. So I think when I had authority over bts, we, I think we called this a, I called it code clutter cleanup. That's a fair statement to make.
326 Yes, this is a. You can think of this as code maintenance code cleanup. Just ensuring that the code continues to be responsive to evolving situations.
327 More active than it used to be. This process, I think. I know it wasn't happening for a while when I inherited bts, the permitting snafus were much worse than they are today, and partly what we discovered in the in the task force was that we had a lot of clutter will pass things up here, but we don't look at the impacts of the older codes that might not need to be there any longer. And it was really hard on the customers or even a staff member that would start to go back to one that probably isn't pertinent anymore because another one was passed. So I just want to lift that this is part of that practice and it helps. It helps streamline our permitting process when we do this work.
328 That's that's correct.
329 All right. Now I know what we're talking about. When you're not in a committee and this comes to you and this is all the information you get, it's very helpful to have this context. Thank you.
330 Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Ryan.
331 Keelan, can we please call the public testimony?
332 We have six folks signed up for testimony. First up, we have michael harrison, douglas wade, peter finley frye, scott mclean and sid hariharan. Goat.
333 Welcome, folks. Come on down. Whoever's sitting first, michael. Looks like you get to go first. Introduce yourself. For the record, you're welcome to share your pronouns. And you have three minutes.
334 Sure. Hi. I'm first president Dunphy and members of the council. Thanks so much for the opportunity to be here today. I'm michael harrison, I'm with OHSU. After several years of losses financial losses, OHSU has been seeing improvement. And we hope that that improvement will connue. However we still have a significant maintenance backlog of $700 million, which is increased by $200 million since COVID. We also have $1.3 million, $1.3 billion of debt and 600 million additional of pension liabilities. So, you know, sort of watching some of the budget conversations at council, I think you are sort of acutely aware of of those kinds of financial challenges and how they make you really prioritize what you do. So specifically in this space we're talking about today with recap 11, it has a direct connection to our capital programing. And right now, our capital repair and improvement budget is pretty small. And it comes out of our reserve funds because we don't have regular revenues that can cover them. And our reserve funds are really intended to keep our doors open during a crisis, because two thirds of our patients are on either medicaid or medicare programs that face significant federal federal headwinds. Solutions to our budget challenges aren't, you know, going to be solved by passing on costs to patients? You know, we don't really control the medicaid budget, the medicare budget, and those who are most of our patients are. So we need to be extremely vigilant in prioritizing our spending, generally on keeping our buildings open and keeping our staff paid so that we can provide medical care to those in the community and continue to provide education. And because of that, I wanted to say thank you, feeding off what councilor Ryan was mentioning. Thank you for efforts like recap 11 to really rightsize the regulations that the city has for this moment in time, which is a pretty challenging moment in time. We also appreciate and support councilor Avalos, Dunphy and Koyama Lane amendment taking out the definition of mechanical equipment. It's a pretty technical issue, but by taking that amendment out of this particular piece of legislation, it just gives it more time to be worked on in a future process. So happy to talk about technicalities, but mostly I'm here just to say thank you for your efforts to help focus the code and minimize costs. Thank you.
335 Thank you very much.
336 I guess I'm next. Right. Good afternoon. My name is doug wade, interim president and cfo of warner pacific university. Warner pacific has been a part of the mount tabor neighborhood for 90 years. We own several residential buildings, on campus apartments and single family homes. These are not dorms. They are well maintained apartments and single family homes you find throughout Portland. Our tenants include first generation college students for whom affordable housing close to our campus makes a difference in finishing their degree. So here's the problem. When the city changed our zoning to campus, institutional household living became prohibited. And our buildings became legally non-conforming. Our buildings did not change. The code changed around them. These properties were legally constructed and properly permitted. We were renting these homes without even knowing. Household living had become prohibited. That classification creates real consequences for financing, renovation, long term planning, and it affects our ability to keep these properties available for housing. Warner pacific did not create this situation. The change in zoning did. Portland needs housing. We have housing in existing buildings. This amendment is a targeted correction that reflects reality and supports portland's housing goals. The zoning code was changed around us. Our legally constructed buildings became non-conforming through no action of our own. The code now expects them to disappear. That's not good. Policy is not good for Portland housing. We ask you to amend the text during this council meeting to allow housing to be outright permitted in the c-1 zone. Thank you for listening.
337 Thank you very much.
338 Okay.
339 Good morning. My name is peter finley. I am a nationally certified land use planner. I want to begin by apologizing to councilor Avalos, the navigating the new city council processes is a little complex, and we're learning. And we should have been in front of their committee. But we're learning. I apologize. We're asking. The zoning code literally has a million or more letters in it. We're asking you to change one letter in table 150-1. We're asking you to change n to y no to yes to allow household living on ci1 campuses. This includes warner pacific, concordia, reed, lewis and Clark. And we we can really find any opposition to this idea. Thank you for your time. We're here to answer any technical questions.
340 Thank you very much.
341 Hi, I'm scott mclean. I'm a commercial real estate broker. I was involved in the sale of concordia university. I'm currently in the process of marketing the Multnomah university campus, and I'm here on behalf of the owners of the Multnomah university campus to support this. What we're seeing is more students learning online. About 26% of undergrads and 36% of graduate students are now getting their education online. There's a lot of advantages to that. It's more convenient. We're seeing nontraditional students, but we're also seeing housing on campus is not being utilized like it had previously. So we support this amendment change.
342 Thank you very much.
343 Thank you.
344 Sid is joining us online.
345 Welcome.
346 Thank you.
347 Good afternoon. And members of city council. Thanks for the opportunity to testify this afternoon on this productive and proactive code update package. I really want to thank staff for the diligent work they've done to get this recap project to where it is. My name is sid hariharan. I'm a land use planner with a local engineering and architecture firm. Mckenzie. The request I have this afternoon is quite simple. Staff have written a minor code change to a section of code about land division on sites with floodplains to allow more flexibility in developing these sites. Now this code change has been placed in the columbia corridor industrial lands environmental zone project, known as the cecil project, and we recently learned that the cecil project is unlikely for adoption until early 2027 or later. And since this code changed regarding the land, divisions in the floodplain does not have anything to do with environmental zones, and its impact is not limited to industrial zones, but also applies to sites and residential zones. We believe that the recap project is the more appropriate vehicle for this change compared to where it currently lives. In that cecil project. Implementing this change now could prevent further delays for development, including residential projects, which are a focus in the city right now. Now getting to that language that's currently in the cecil zone project, that language is already written, and the ask from city council and staff here would be for this language to be moved from that. Cecil proposed draft to the recap final draft. Additionally, this language has been reviewed and approved by planning commission and does not change any existing environmental natural resource area policies. Now, staff has directed us to come to city council with this change because it is so late in the process and we really ask for city council's consideration to offer an amendment to recap language to move the land division floodplain code change from the cecil zone project into the recap 11 project. I'm happy to answer any technical questions this afternoon, but again, we believe that this is a straightforward change. Relocating where this text would be. Thank you for your time.
348 Thank you very much.
349 Our last testifier is sarah hynek.
350 Welcome, sarah.
351 Council president Dunphy and members of the city council. For the record, my name is sarah hynek. I serve as the director of planning and sustainability in the division of planning, construction and real estate at Portland state university. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Portland state university alongside OHSU, Portland community college and the university of oregon's Portland campus, applauds the city's council, city council, mayor wilson, planning commission and city staff for your ongoing efforts to reduce regulatory burden and to help rein in costs. These efforts directly benefit institutions like ours. Portland state is the most affordable four year university in Oregon. We exist to serve this region, its students, its workforce, and its neighborhoods. We are doing that work right now under conditions of serious financial strain. Every capital dollar we commit to come to compliance requirements that provide limited public benefit is a dollar that does not go toward a classroom and advising appointment, a mental health resource, or a community partnership. Unanticipated screening requirements for equipment such as transformers and backflow devices would compound across multiple buildings, projects and budget cycles. The cumulative effect is felt directly by the students and communities who depend on us. We ask that council direct the bureau of planning and sustainability to revisit this definition, whether that be as part of approval of recap 11 or instead striking the definition from recap 11 and folding it into the upcoming code alignment project two, giving the planning commission the opportunity to weigh these concerns before the matter returns to council in 2027. Getting this definition right matters not only for universities but for small businesses, housing developers and others across Portland who would bear these same costs on behalf of our students and our community, thank you for all you do for our city.
352 Thank you very much.
353 Thank you.
354 That completes testimony.
355 Okay, colleagues, we are now moving into discussion. Councilor Avalos, would you like to move your move our amendment?
356 Absolutely. I would formally move. Avalos Dunphy tkl1.
357 Councilor Avalos moves. I will second is there colleagues is there any discussion or debate of the amendment. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
358 Thank you, council president, you know, I saw the letter come in with this request as well. I appreciate you all addressing it. I heard from councilor Avalos that there was some work done between staff and the institutions, and I'd just like the opportunity for us to hear from staff, whether they have any concerns about where this ended. There was a change proposed, and this now makes an additional change to that section. If there's anything we should be aware of that that could come to us as a problem later for doing this.
359 Thank you for the question. Council pirtle-guiney patricia diefenderfer. For the record, we did work with the council offices and the institutions and the published or the posted amendment. Staff's evaluation is that that is fine. What it does is essentially take out the definition, which was intended to be a clarification of what mechanical equipment is. The other red lines that you see in the posted document actually just restore the existing language of the code. So this allows us the opportunity to take that issue kind of offline from this project and, and investigate it further. At another time.
360 There was a proposal though, to add this language to provide clarification. Should we have any concerns since we're not providing clarification? Was there a different problem that you were trying to fix that were now not fixing the council should be aware of?
361 Yeah, I appreciate it. Sorry, did you want to jump in there?
362 Sure. Yeah. The the problem that we were trying to solve was more around clarity. So the proposed amendment would have just clarified right now in the code, there's a lot of different areas where mechanical equipment comes up in different sections of the code. We're trying to just define it in a definition so that it was in one area to make it easier for ppe and staff when they're explaining it to folks and implementing the code, it wouldn't have resulted in any actual change to the policy, how they how it's reviewed, and how mechanical equipment is treated with permits that come in would stay the same regardless of whether we change the definition. It was more of a clarifying issue.
363 Councilor pirtle-guiney. I think that it will be good for us to clarify it in the future, but I don't think there's any harm in waiting to kind of drill down on that and get it more, get it correct.
364 So should we expect in the next package of revisions that we'll see different language to clarify this. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
365 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Kanal.
366 I guess this last piece might have just answered that, but I, I'm looking for something other than like a more numerical response to that in terms of how long. Like I assume when.
367 When we will come back with that. Honestly, I don't have an answer to how long at this moment. I think that we have to figure out which project this could it could come in the cap two project potentially, or some other code amendment project that the that would be undertaking.
368 Okay, that was my only question.
369 Thanks.
370 Thank you.
371 Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Green.
372 Thank you. I just want to say thanks to those of the carriers of the kind of proposed amendments today for picking up this request from. I had heard directly from mr. Harrison, I think, and others who were understanding, you know, that our form of government has changed. And, you know, some of the kind of like committee structures have changed, but still kind of like, I think we missed this. How can we get plugged in? You guys caught that. You brought it in. So that's, that's laudable. And I appreciate that. I'm supportive of of the amendments today. I do have a question, though, and I just I just missed it. But there was a second to last testifier sid, I believe I wonder if they're still on and would be able to sort of remind me again what the what their particular ask was today. I is that permissible chair?
373 I'd be happy to if they're still online to. Okay. I don't know if they are.
374 Yeah.
375 Council, we're aware of that testimony and we can provide some information on that if you'd like.
376 Yeah. Please do. Yeah, that'd.
377 Be great.
378 Yeah. So the the speaker the testifier was referencing the columbia corridor and industrial land environmental zone project, which is another project that has that will be coming to council probably in the early next year. Time frame. That project essentially really deals largely with updating the location of the environmental zoning in the industrial areas. One of the things that it does is also bring regulations into conformance with floodplain federal floodplain considerations. And one, one of the amendments that's proposed is just a fairly minor, minor technical code amendment that addresses land divisions in floodplains and actually does make attempt to make them more flexible. So I think what the caller or what the testifier was requesting is that that particular code provision that's proposed for change in that project be brought into the recap project at this time to accelerate to, you know, to have it become effective sooner, because this project will be coming to council at a later time.
379 All right, I understand and that's and who the who are who are they representing? I missed that piece.
380 They were a firm mckinsey, a small planning engineering firm.
381 Gotcha.
382 Okay.
383 I am thank you, councilor, for that question. I'm available on the call if there's any technical questions, but I want to confirm that staff's explanation there is in line with what we were asking for.
384 Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I think that clarifies that fills in the gap that I kind of missed in the testimony when listening. No, I have no, I have no concerns with the amendments. Both of them. I'm going to support them today. Thanks.
385 Thank you. Counselor Green, counselor Zimmerman.
386 Thank you. I'm just I apologize for seeking some clarity here. So this is a strange amendment to be reading because it's new read language that looks exactly the same as the striked out. We're just restoring fully in terms of the language. That's what we're seeing here.
387 Counselor Zimmerman. Yes, restoring existing code language.
388 Okay.
389 I guess I what confused me, there was this was said it was intended to provide more clarity, but by getting rid of the language, I didn't see more clarity coming out. So I'm missing something here.
390 One of the red lines is of the definition itself. Maybe we could and that that's what is being removed. That was the new language that was being proposed, that is now being removed as a result of this amendment.
391 Because the definition is a set, whereas the rest were used as examples. And that's the question is, does an example constitute all. But a definition does constitute all. Okay. Thanks for the clarification.
392 Thank you, counselor Zimmerman, counselor Ryan.
393 Thank you, council president. First, I want to acknowledge that it's great to have OHSU, PSU and warner pacific here. Last time I looked, warner pacific is the most racially diverse higher education institute in the state. And so that's walking the talk of equity. Thank you very much. How did you determine. I'm just curious. So when you come to us with these things as a chance for legislators to understand how operations are moving along, how do you determine the scope of the current iteration of these updates? I mean, I'm sure it's a long list. How do you discipline yourself to focus on what you think is next?
394 Yeah, so that that's a great question. There is a database which people can enter their ideas about code amendments in, and that is the starting point staff use for recaps. We review all of the entries in the database. And jp can speak to this a little better. But essentially we look for those topics that we think will have the kind of the most wide application and therefore the most impact in. If we make that change, it will, you know, have have some impact as opposed to a change that maybe only it would affect a few or limited properties within the city. So that is, that is one of the primary ways that we kind of sort through that database and try to identify amendments to include in the package. I think we there are hundreds of entries in that database. And for example, I believe there are 50 something amendments in this package. So we kind of take them by the most the ones that are most impactful and start with those.
395 And does a draft board get heavily involved at the early stage? Because in my recollection, I, what I experience is that's the governing body that has the most consumers and the most clients, if you will.
396 I know that we do present a drac and do give them information about the work plan as we're developing it, so that there is an opportunity for them to provide some input. And I don't know if. Jp, if you want.
397 To.
398 Just say part of permit reforms was to do a better job of listening to those who are using the systems. And so I just want to make sure that was still part of the system that we're building.
399 Yeah. The so as patricia, for the record, I'm jp mcneil. I'm a planner with bts. We start with the database and the vast majority of the things that go in there actually start with p, p, and d. The public also puts them in there. And so we work with the p d staff. And we have a process for we try to sort of rate things. We have a ranking system to, to figure out what's going to have the biggest impact and which are going to bring the most bang for the buck. But then we put together a, a work plan, a scoping work plan, and that is released publicly for comment. So that's when we take that to drac and we bring that around so that folks can comment on that. We also publish along with that, the work, the, the work plan of what we are proposing to include with recap. And then there's also an appendix that has everything that we didn't include so that folks can see the things that we left out and comment on that as well.
400 That makes sense. I think the smart people at permitting the smart people at bts, there was a time where they weren't coordinating very well, and I think that got us into the problem. So this is an example where the new government and and having work areas and a dca overseeing that I think allows us to have a better system. At least that's what I'm hearing right now. Were there any changes that were left off the table that that you want to talk about that were that there was a lot of tension and you think that we'll keep exploring that? Is there anyone that you'd like to discuss?
401 Anything that any items that we didn't include?
402 Because like it needed more time, even though it's definitely an issue.
403 Nothing's come to mind. It's been a while since it's been almost it's been a while since we did the scoping. Nothing is coming to mind. We brought the most salient ones. And then as things come, as the process goes along, things get added. And so things that become issues or become more salient with time, they often find their way into a recap project.
404 It's such a fluid process. So yeah, and I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for listening to the feedback. And it seems like these two amendments are friendly amendments to all of you. Am I missing something? Because I know there was a reason why they didn't show up. I mean, no one's perfect. So these are good, good changes. Good edits.
405 Yeah. We're staff is supportive of these amendments. The I think the campus institutional zone issue didn't really surface until this stage. But it's it's, you know, given the conditions that everyone described, it's reasonable to consider that there may be some, you know, changes to the uses that should be permitted in that zone.
406 Well, it's wonderful to have the campus lobby come together to help create these amendments. All right. Sounds good. Thanks.
407 Thank you, counselor Ryan. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue to discuss. Avalos, Dunphy Koyama Lane one keelan. Can we please call the roll?
408 Moved by Avalos. Seconded by Dunphy. Koyama Lane absent. Morillo. Absent. Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Smith. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Dunphy. I the amendment is approved with a vote of ten ayes and two absent.
409 Thank you very much, colleagues. I will formally move Dunphy one as a reminder this is a to allow housing in the campus institution one zone by. Right. And I would ask for a second.
410 Second.
411 I think that was. Councilor Smith is discussion of this amendment now, counselor Zimmerman, is that a.
412 So it's an easy one, but I guess my question. I'm. Staff, you should probably just stay up here the whole time. I'm not sure what we're doing here. The. I guess I'm I'm going to use this amendment as, as a mechanism just to kind of talk overall about recap. 11. So. Housing on a campus seems about as basic as a pumpkin spice latte, right? So what am I missing here? How did we not get this?
413 I I'll start this out.
414 Yeah. Jp help.
415 Me out because it has a bigger impact to other questions I've got regarding the presentation.
416 Yeah. I mean, generally speaking, housing is allowed if it's for like student housing. So if it's.
417 A.
418 Faculty student faculty, it's accessory to the to the university use. And I think the reason for that at the time was to ensure that there was campuses were growing, and we wanted to make sure that the land that we're associated with campuses would be able to support the growing needs of the campuses while allowing housing that's essentially accessory to the university. I think what we're hearing now, some of that testimony was that, you know, there's some changes. Campuses are not kind of growing in the same way. There's for for a variety of reasons, online learning or what, you know, and there's not the same need for housing. Meanwhile, these campuses have land that they may want to be able to sell or, you know, have be separate from the university. And that's where the household living uses that are separate from the university are not allowed in the zone currently.
419 Okay. So I needed some help in terms of definitions because it was allowable. And I think it's is it ci2 and three but not one. So what are those definitions? What was the line in the sand that existed for the no instead of the yes.
420 Okay. Well, I think the the difference between the zones is that c one is intended to be basically adjacent, more or less intense residential zones. So it's like around r5, the single dwelling zones, but a little more context about the campus institutional zones is that they were created with part of the comp plan update in 2018 as a response to requests from the institutions that that were often in, in residential zones and zoned residentially. And so as a result, they were generally conditional uses in that situation. And so when they wanted to do anything to their campus and expand, they would have to go through the conditional use process. And so they approached the city around a campus institutional zone that would allow them to do what they want to do without having to go through conditional use all the time. And so that's how it came about. And then with the lower, I don't know, the exact machinations of I wasn't involved with the project or why they decided to make that a no in ci one. But the, the thinking at the time was that the universities were growing and it wasn't. They're not non-conforming. Housing isn't non-conforming for the use of the university. So the housing that's on the site and that the university's own. That could be used for faculty, staff, administration, housing. That's not not a non-conforming use. It becomes non-conforming when they want to sell it off to a private developer. And so I don't think that was contemplated at the time because the universities were growing. And now we see we're in a different world.
421 So in terms of a practicality, practicality, in terms of what this I went to the university of Portland, right? There's a point in which I feel like I'm on campus, and then there's a point in which I feel like I'm off campus. But I think that university owns a whole lot of the housing that is along Willamette boulevard. I suspect that at warner pacific, some of those adjacent north south running streets are probably owned by in this case, some. Are we talking about for the definition of normal guy here, just rental homes that look like single family residences. Is that what we're talking about? In large part.
422 We're talking about that largely there's a warner pacific they also own, but essentially looks like an apartment complex. Right. And so there's there's both of those things. Another piece of it is that what we're talking about is a really small universe of, of properties where there's any sort of housing that doesn't look like a dormitory, which looks like a single family home or apartment that is zoned ci one, where it's a very small universe of. So it's not a the university of Portland, I don't even think there's really. There's. They own.
423 There's a large expansion over the last 20 years.
424 But it.
425 Looks quite different.
426 The housing that you see, like across Willamette is not zoned ci one. That's. R5 so generally same with lewis Clark. They might own some housing that's adjacent to their their, their campus, but that's zoned r ten and r 20. This situation where there's housing that could be sold off to the private market, but it zoned ci one is only in a handful of cases that warner pacific. The. I'm sorry, I forget what it is now. The former Multnomah bible college and. I think that's it. There might be a third where there's a. So we're talking about a small number of properties.
427 I'm going to save other comments for the rest, I think, obviously we should pass this. For me, this is an easy one. Thanks.
428 Thank you, counselor Zimmerman. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
429 Thank you, council president counselor Zimmerman asked a lot of the questions I had. I'm trying to figure out where I want to pick up here.
430 At the latte.
431 I'm not going to pick up on the thickness of a pumpkin spice latte. Thank you counselor. I'm trying to understand whether there are unintended consequences for future construction of making this change. I understand that we have institutions that have properties that are no longer serving the purpose that they were, and they need to be able to do something with those properties. And one solution is to make a change in what's allowed under the zoning. And another solution would be to change the zoning of those individual properties. We are getting a proposal to change what's allowed under the zoning, but that means we're not just affecting those properties, we're affecting everything in ci one. So what is is there a risk in the future? Are we risking pressure on our institutions to develop housing unrelated to campuses that will then push students further away from the campus? Are there things that we should know are a concern that we're weighing against the benefit in the proposal before us?
432 Well, I was going to say that in terms of unintended consequences, one sort of asterisk on this is that the the amendment that was filed was filed. We've working with with staff and councilor Dunphy's office. And so we talked to them about maybe that there was a little bit more work that needed to be done around that than just changing that to a y in the table that says, yes, this is allowed because there are different development standards for which are setbacks. Height farfar, bonuses, exterior things that are different for, say, a residential zone rather than what the campus is allowed. So it could create unintended consequences for if those properties are sold off to what they can do with the types of standards that they'd be subject to under ci one, rather than if they were just being treated as a residential zone. And so our proposal, our friendly amendment to the amendment that we're we've worked out would be to allow the household and group living as a limited use, with the caveat being that they meet the development standards of the rm1 zone, which is a lower density multi-dwelling zone. So that that way they're subject they're treated the same as if it was rm1. And so that is essentially the alternative to not rezoning them as rm1 and r 2.5, which is is also an alternative.
433 Not the amendment that's before us. The amendment before us is just the simple change. Is there a reason that it would be difficult for these institutions to rezone those properties? Like, is there a reason that we need this change as opposed to using the tools that we already have to meet the goals at hand?
434 That is an option. I mean, that was the sort of the original through the quasi judicial process, they could go through p, p and d and apply through a land use review for a map change and a comp comprehensive map plan change or comprehensive zoning map change. The issue with that is that then that's a it's a larger it's a $40,000 land use review that has takes time and money. And so.
435 The money aspect.
436 Yeah.
437 I just it, it strikes me that we are making a change here that could create more complication to your point about what's allowed and what's not in a document that is supposed to streamline our code and clear up complication.
438 I think. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. That's the reason why we are going to continue to work on the other aspects of this change and have that for the council on the July 30th. So I think what what we're discussing now is the general interest. There seems to be interest in making that change, and then we would work with the council offices staff to work out some of those details with the hope that the expectation that we would not be creating some additional complication, but that understanding that this is we are taking a zone that was intended for a different purpose in trying to, you know, figure out how to make it have this purpose. But I would return to what jp said about the limited instances. And I, you know, limited instances of this zone. I think the fact that there are limited instances of this zone makes this this solution, I think, an acceptable solution. But there is the option of doing zone changes too. And the property owners can ask for zone change. Or we could as a, you know, we could look at future map changes and whether they would be appropriate or not through some other process. But that's not something we can accomplish in the context of the recap project.
439 Understood. We just regularly wring our hands at the fact that we make small changes to accommodate immediate needs without looking at the broader effects. And it seems to me that we are making a small change to accommodate an immediate need, without thinking about what the broader, most effective way to achieve the goal would be. So I haven't heard anything to dissuade me from feeling that way. Thanks, council president.
440 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney colleagues. Seeing no one else in the queue to discuss Dunphy one keelan, can we please call the roll?
441 Moved by Dunphy, seconded by Smith, noting Koyama Lane and Morillo are absent. Novick.
442 First of all, I'd like to thank councilor Zimmerman for letting me know that the history of pumpkin spice latte is a basic drink. Apparently it's a rich literature item discovered in the past few minutes, I.
443 Clark a Green.
444 I Zimmerman I. I Smith. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney know.
445 Ryan a.
446 Dunphy I the amendment is approved with a vote of nine eyes, one no and two absent.
447 Thank you colleagues. We are through our amendments. And now to discussion of the underlying now amended non emergency ordinance. Councilor Zimmerman.
448 Thank you. I would encourage the staff to stay up as we go through discussion. So. You know, in reviewing all of the documents and the presentation that went forward, I think what I've gathered is that there are 56 items that are being changed in this. And in the slideshow that went forward to the committee, it looks like 12 of those items were discussed. And when I go into the exhibit, while it's all there, I can't particularly say it's clear or that it comes off the page of what are the 56? And I think we've. I have I have some concern here for a few reasons. I'm. I'm very much in favor of streamlining our code to be more practical and applicable and user friendly. But the mindset that is being used to develop these recap projects is what I have some concern around, and I'm just going to use the. I'm just going to use one of them that was in the presentation. It's like about parking in the residential setback. And I'm like, okay, what does that mean? It it means that we have a law on the books that says you can't park on your own driveway. And we're changing that this time, but you can't park on your own driveway, which in practical sense, everybody would go, well, that's bonkers. But we had something at least based on the way the materials are written and we had something there. The reason I bring it up is I was hoping to see more in these recaps that just say, yeah, we shouldn't have that law anymore. And instead we kind of get the, can we convolute ourselves or shoehorn ourselves into a solution through code as that the city of Portland is doing this greatness by allowing the residents of Portland to do these things, versus maybe we just don't weigh in on them. Maybe we shouldn't have code that weighs in on certain stuff. So given that and given that the exhibit even in itself does not particularly line out what exactly is changing, you've got to really read every paragraph with an english teachers specificity to understand what is changing. With 56 changes coming and 12 being highlighted, I feel like this is a bit of a vote on faith about what the changes are, because we have not provided, or at least I haven't seen one provided a just a bullet point list of this, this, this, this. Of the 56 items. And I, I want to have faith in this project. I want to have faith that we're working from a perspective that is getting the city of Portland out of the way of portlanders when it comes to permitting. And in some of that, I think we're doing it, and others I feel like we're missing the mark. And so I'm having a tough time without being an expert on all of these items themselves, trying to understand the impact of all the 56 items that you've brought forward. There are no specific questions there, but I guess I'm looking for your reaction or what your goal is in these types of recap projects. What do you aim to achieve in them, and how do you best want to convey what's being achieved and change to us, to the public, etc.
449 Thank you for the question, councilor Zimmerman. First, I'll just share that there is a table at the beginning of the report that describes all of the amendments, and it tries to do so in a a brief way, but paint an overarching picture of what the issue is. And they are also thematically bundled so that there's an understanding of, you know, this package, for example, is dealing with some minor, relatively minor tweaks to parking related provisions, exterior activities, and so on and so forth. So I think that is perhaps we could do a better job of that storytelling, but that that is what this is attempting to do. As far as the, the impact of each of these, I think what we have, what we typically say about recap is that, you know, each of these. This is meant to be minor code cleanup, not major policy changes. Major policy changes are reserved for other projects. So for example, cap could be one of those major more major policy changes when we undertake code projects that are, you know, for example, the central city code amendment project that we're going to be bringing to you soon. Those are those are meant to be more, more major changes that are hopefully more impactful. The idea about with these is that each an individual changes, perhaps not super impactful in and of itself, but it just makes for greater legibility with the code easier to implement, it helps the our permitting bureau, you know, review projects and permits and it helps the, the, the public better understand the regulations. That's, that's the goal. So again, each of these is not particularly monumental in and of itself, but they're meant to just make the code a little bit clearer.
450 Just to tack on to that about the the larger goal, I think we've moved away a little bit from the goal of recap when it's. The original thought was that these are minor technical things that either folks out in the community or at p&g realize, oh, we're stumbling over this minor thing, we need to fix it. And as you, I'm sure all know, the legislative process to change the zoning code takes a lot of time and effort. And so the idea is to package these little things together that we can move through quickly. And historically, when things got a little bit, when something got a little bit dicey and drew some attention, we would jettison it because that was slowing down the project. We've moved away from that to some degree, because often this becomes sort of the, the christmas tree of, of, of projects where everyone has their ornament that they want to put on it. And so then that delays the project more. So our goal, we've moved a little bit away from that, where recap now looks a little bit in between of what the technical thing is, but that that's what our goal is with this, is to try to do it within a year with just the minor things that are tripping folks up.
451 I really appreciate those explanations. I think that that is what I was hoping to kind of I want people and ours, everybody's expectations to be, you know, founded in what's achievable and what's appropriate for each thing. So I'm glad that you both were able to share that in terms of, are we doing minor, are we doing technical? What is, what are we trying to get at? And how do we, how do we do that impact the. So I think that, you know, the table, patricia, that you showed is is helpful. And that's the kind of thing that I want to always like highlight that first. Right. So thank you for that. Because I think sometimes in the planning world and trying to meet the different goals, the initiatives that you're making adjustments to get lost in the verbiage to, I think probably conform with land use laws and all that. But there's there, there's the normal person speak, if you will. And that's where I think you guys have done a really good thing in this. And I, I want to highlight that. So just appreciation to it because I look forward to whatever recap 12, 13 and 14 look like. And I, and you have my support in that. So this is always 56 items. 12 get highlighted. It's always like dicey. Where do we go? What's the right time? Where's the right place to push? So thanks both for your work, your team's work. I'm sure others in the planning commission, but you certainly will have my support here. So thanks a lot for that.
452 I just have to say, as the as having done the second recap now, trying to present this is one of the hardest projects to try to present. Like neighborhood groups want to hear about it. And if you go out there and list off the 56 changes, people's eyes glaze over immediately. So it's the balance is trying to find the ones that maybe will keep folks attention the most when presenting it, and have the biggest impacts.
453 I, I love that point. And with 12 people who spent a lot of times at neighborhood associations for all sorts of reasons, I think we all feel that sometimes we're there with you. The last point I'll make is, you know, whatever we can do to, I guess, instill the, the mindset of opening opportunity instead of squelching opportunity or questioning why something is restricted in our community. Is that really a founded reason to have something restricted? Is, is one of those old lessons that I have from the first time I made the transition from county land use, which is all about protecting certain types of open, open Green space, you know, farm, forest, etc. It's about protecting it versus the city. Our job is to build baby build so that we can continue to protect those, those Green and environmental areas. And so this is always a struggle. And I hope that the city is always on the forefront of we are in the business of allowable. So long as it's safe, neighborly, seismic fire, etc. So thanks a lot for your work. I know it's, it's not an easy task, particularly when you take a small item to a big group. So thanks a lot.
454 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Green.
455 Thank you, council president, I really want to thank you both for presenting this. I'm glad you said the very thing at the end saying, you know, this is a really difficult thing to present because I was kind of thinking through how impossible that would be to try to do that job myself. I wanted to pick up a little bit on councilor Zimmerman's questions. I think we struggled with some of that same stuff in the committee because it's there's 50 some odd pieces. We're highlighting 11. There's not enough time to go line by line with them. I think for me, I was deferring a lot to the planning commission who came and said, hey, we support this. This is something that we've vetted and looked at. And so that also takes a certain amount of leap of faith. But I think the chair and I have kind of talked about for that committee thinking like, how do we want the housing and permitting committee to function vis a vis the planning commission? And we wanted it to not be a roadblock. And so I kind of in that spirit, we're thinking like, how do we make that a smooth handoff? And then we can have these dialog moments. But I think it's a fair question to ask. I think those are the two different public venues where we have to have have those conversations in those deep dives. There's probably always going to be some corner piece of it, though. That's like not going to get as much airtime. And that's okay. We can continue to think about how to be more comprehensive on that. I, I support the underlying, I support the amended underlying. I really appreciate that. I want to close the loop a little bit on something that did come up in committee but didn't kind of move forward. I had raised a bunch of questions around the the rezoning parcels, some kind of, I forget exactly what the classifications are, but some zoning considerations for shelter sites. And I was concerned about the proposal in this recap project to kind of increase the capacity by. Right, more or less, rather than go through a conditional land use appeals or conditional land use approval process, in particular for the kind of north Portland site. I think that I got, I think I realized it'd be a little bit difficult and kludgy to try to amend that at this time. It was possible, but I backed off of that a little bit. So my concerns with urban alchemy, my concerns with our sheltering system, felt like more appropriately to be dealt with in an oversight capacity or, or policy space, not through the recap projects. I just wanted to explain. That's why I sort of backed off that piece and so close the loop on that. We did have a good conversation about that yesterday to start that conversation, by the way. So so we're not done talking about that, but I'm very much supporting recap at this point. Thank you so much for the work you do. And, you know, it takes a lot of time to change our zoning and code books. And we we can't really afford to waste that time in the city of Portland right now because we don't have an endless pot of subsidy. So you can do things through subsidy, or you can do things by changing your zoning code. And let's, let's move forward on this. So thank you so much.
456 Thank you, councilor Green. Colleagues, this is the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. We are going to continue this to a time and date certain. Is that correct. So move this forward to a time and date. Certain of Thursday, July 30th at 2:00 pm. Thank you very much.
457 Thank you.
458 Keelan can we please.
459 Record is closed.
460 And the record is closed.
461 Is that right or. Yes, yes. Okay.
462 Both written and verbal.
463 Yes.
464 Written, written and oral record is closed and we're moving to a time and date certain during which council will vote on amended findings and potentially any revisions to the amendments. Council already voted on to reflect technical changes. Okay.
465 Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Keelan, can we please move to the consent agenda?
466 Yes. No items have been pulled from the consent agenda. We have two items. I will do the roll call. Vote for the consent agenda. Noting Koyama Lane and aye, Morillo are absent.
467 Novick I.
468 Clark I Green. I Zimmerman. Avalos.
469 Oops. There you go.
470 I Smith. I Kanal I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. A Dunphy. I the consent agenda is approved with a vote of ten ayes and two absent.
471 Okay. And can we please move to item number eight.
472 Item eight document 2026-204. Establish 2026 sale price cap for the home buyer opportunity limited tax exemption program.
473 I'll just preview for folks in the room. We will not be able to get to item nine today. We will come back to the sdc charges item at a future date. Claire. Adam stick with council operations is here for a committee staff summary report on the program. Take it away.
474 Thank you, council president and councilors again for the record. Claire adamson, council policy analyst and staff to the housing and permitting committee. The resolution before you. Document number 2026-204 was heard in the housing committee housing and permitting committee on June 16th, where it was referred to full council with the recommendation to be adopted. The resolution establishes an annual sale price cap for residential units utilizing the home buyer opportunity limited tax exemption, or holt program at $455,000 for the 2026 calendar year, effective January 1st, 2026. The full impact statement on this item includes information on economic and real estate development, impacts and analysis, and community impacts, and community involvement. One person provided testimony at the committee meeting on June 16th, and no one submitted written testimony prior to committee action. The general themes of this testimony included recognizing that the ten year exemption clock starts once a unit becomes available, so a new homeowner may benefit from the program for fewer than ten years, depending on when they purchase the home, and also the opportunity to increase transparency for home buyers of properties utilizing this program, that their property taxes will increase once the exemption period has ended. And that concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
475 Thank you very much, councilor Avalos. This came out of your committee.
476 Yes. Thank you. So the resolution came before the committee on June 16th. As was said, the committee received a presentation from the housing bureau on the price cap. The resolution maintains the maximum sale price for eligible homes at 455 000 for calendar year 2026, as required. Under state law, there were no amendments. No members of the public testified on the item, and the committee voted unanimously five zero to recommend adoption of the resolution. Thank you.
477 Thank you very much. Keelan are there is there anyone time for testimony?
478 No one signed up for this item.
479 Okay, colleagues, we are now into both technical or clarifying questions, but also discussion of this item. Councilor Kanal.
480 Thanks. I have three questions and I'm not 100% sure if anyone from pfp can answer them, or if we'll just get hear back, but I'll just start asking them and you can let me know. Administratively, one is just can you. I would like a little more information on how pfp views limitations on family sized or larger ownership units. In the current situation. What we might expect next year, if there is any sort of pre-planning for that. I know our our deviation from the state is a question. And then the third thing is my understanding, and I'd love a confirmation. This isn't my committee expertise. So I'm curious is that the program broadly provides a ten year property tax exemption that starts from the completion of construction. And that means that developers can enjoy the exemption while the property is unsold and vacant. And wanted to just understand if that was a topic of conversation in committee about changing that, the degree to which we can change that to ensure that the actual resident can enjoy it once it is for ten years. Once they are moved in.
481 Hello councilor, my name is dori hellyer. I manage the development incentives programs, including the program with the Portland housing bureau in. To the latter question, it is a ten year tax exemption that starts the first tax year following our approval. So it doesn't start based on when the building is completed. So it does mean that if a developer has a longer timeline for development, that there are times that the full ten years are not able to benefit the home buyer. So that is a technicality as to how it is within the state statute. We are able to extend the availability of the timeline for construction in that the state also limits that to two years. But currently, the way the statute is written, we aren't able to start the exemption later. One reason why it's been complicated to contemplate changing that is because it's also helpful to have the tax exemption in place at the time that the home buyer is purchasing the home, so that they're able to, one, be able to use that to help qualify for their mortgage loan and that otherwise they could have the first year without the exemption. So we're kind of working from either end of either not potentially having it available when they first purchased the home, or unfortunately, meaning they may not have a full ten years and it may be limited to 8 or 9 years.
482 Okay. I would be interested in understanding how we can avoid subsidizing vacancy. That's that's my concern here is, is when we're when a property is built and there are empty units that I'm not talking, obviously, I have a separate conversation about putting a fee on long term vacancy, but just anything to not make it easier to leave it vacant and just get it to move. And so I'm, that's, that's sort of my interest in asking this question. I'd be curious about what we can pursue potentially through the legislative agenda process to make it where this is benefiting the actual purchaser. And I have no problem with the idea of it remaining that way during the construction process. That's not you know, that that that's fine the way it is, but that interim gap in the middle there. So I might follow up with staff about how what that would take and then follow up on, on the ogre side as well. Thanks.
483 And very quickly, colleagues, I just learned that there are four people signed up to testify in our online for the next item. So I'm going to ask us that we can stick a little bit long and hear the testimony, and then we will continue the item beyond that. So if you are online, please don't log off yet. Thank you. Councilor Kanal.
484 Just real quick, am I going to get a follow up on the other two questions? Okay, perfect.
485 Thank you. Okay. Colleagues, is there any further discussion of this item? Seeing no one in the queue, keelan, can we please call the roll on item eight?
486 Item eight resolution noting that Koyama Lane and aye, Morillo are absent. Novick. I clerk. I Green. I Zimmerman I Avalos.
487 I Smith I no.
488 I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Dunphy. I resolution is adopted with a vote of ten ayes and two absent.
489 Thank you very much, colleagues. Can we please call item number nine keelan.
490 Item nine document 2026-205. Amend partial and full exemptions of system development charges for affordable housing developments. Code to temporarily remove income requirements for homeownership units. Amend code section 30.01 .095.
491 This is the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Clare adams city council operations is here for committee staff. Summary report. Take it away claire.
492 Thank you very quickly here, council president councilors, for the record. Again, claire adams, council policy analyst and staff to the housing and permitting committee. The ordinance, before you document number 2026-205, was heard in the housing and permitting committee on June 16th, where it was referred to full council with recommendation to pass the ordinance amending city code chapter 30.01 .095, as shown in exhibit a of the ordinance. The code amendments temporarily, temporarily remove. For applicants utilizing the affordable housing system development charge or sdc exemption program, the income restriction for the initial homebuyer provided that the homeownership unit was issued a building permit before January 1st, 2026, and the home is sold before September 30th, 2028. The amended code clarifies that the exception to the income restriction does not apply to applicants receiving exemptions through other specified programs, including the program, which you just heard about the the local transportation infrastructure charge or an exemption of tree preservation mitigation payments for affordable housing developments. The code also clarifies the city may collect penalties and processing fees in the event that an applicant sells to a qualified homebuyer, who subsequently fails to meet a requirement of the affordable housing sdc exemption program. The full impact statement on this item includes information on economic and real estate development, impacts and analysis, as well as community impacts and community involvement. One person provided testimony at the committee meeting on June 16th, and two people provided written testimony prior to committee action. The general themes of the testimony included providing parity for affordable for affordable home builders who feel they are at a competitive disadvantage with market rate homes. Since the implementation of the temporary sdc exemption program last year, the value of sdc exemption in comparison to home builders profit margin, and finally expanding the potential pool of eligible homebuyers by removing income requirements while retaining other program requirements. And that concludes the committee staff summary.
493 Thank you.
494 Thank you very much, claire councilor Avalos. This came out of your committee committee chair remarks.
495 Yeah. Thank you. So, yes, this ordinance came before the committee on June 16th and was referred with a recommendation that it passed, although we did have some ample discussion. This ordinance amends the affordable housing sec exemption program to temporarily remove the income requirement for the initial home buyer for certain homeownership units. This is a targeted change. It only applies to homes that received a building permit before January 1st, 2026, and are sold before September 30th, 2028. Other program requirements, including owner occupancy, remain in place. The issue discussed in committee was that some affordable home builders had already opted into the existing affordable housing sec exemption program before the city adopted the broader temporary sdc exemption program. As a result, those builders were facing income restrictions that newer market rate homes using the temporary exemption do not have. And so my office worked diligently with local builders, including justin fish at fish construction, who first raised the issue, to get a solution that takes into consideration our need to build more housing, with the need to ensure that these homes are actually affordable. Committee members had a thoughtful discussion about balancing housing production with affordability, including concerns about impacts on lower income home buyers, the need for additional data, and ensuring this remains a targeted temporary solution. Personally, I'll be supporting this ordinance because I believe it addresses a specific unintended consequence created by the interaction of two city programs. Builders who entered this program under one set of rules found themselves at a competitive disadvantage after council adopted the broader temporary sdc exemption. I also appreciate that this is a narrow, temporary fix. It preserves important guardrails, including the sale price cap and owner occupancy requirement, and fwp has committed to tracking the impacts of this change over the next two years. While I understand the concerns raised by my colleagues, I believe this strikes the right balance between preserving the program's affordability goals and ensuring we don't unintentionally slow housing production for projects already in the pipeline. So the committee voted three two to advance the ordinance to the full council. And with that, I'll return it back to council for discussion.
496 Thanks.
497 Thank you, councilor Avalos. Colleagues, as I mentioned before, we have four folks who have signed up to testify and are all online. We have about ten minutes left, and I know that there are amendments and some good discussion to be had. So I want to let everyone know it is my intention to continue the first reading of this to our next available date, rather than trying to move this to a second reading. So we will have council discussion and conversation around amendments, and probably have to ask claire to come back up to give us more details when we get back on this, but for now, I'd like to move to testimony, please.
498 And sorry, I meant to say justin would not. Justin fish got that confused. My bad.
499 Thanks.
500 Thank you. Councilor Avalos good clarification.
501 Okay, we have four folks signed up. They are all joining us online. First up, michael harrison. Wait a minute. Nope. Sorry. That's wrong. Greg fox.
502 Welcome. Hi. Go right ahead. Good. Good afternoon. Let me mute this computer. Good afternoon, mayor and councilors. My name is greg fox. I'm a realtor with happy homes properties. I specialize in helping entry level homebuyers obtain their dream of homeownership. I'm here today in support of removing the income requirement from the system development charge waiver program. From what I see daily in the marketplace, buyers who are at or below the median family income now have more choices than they have had in years. In north Portland alone, there is roughly an eight month supply of newly built two bedroom units. The challenge is that buyers can purchase similar homes without income restrictions, paperwork, income verification, nor application fees. It is difficult to recommend a home with additional requirements when a home, when a buyer can simply go down the street and purchase one that is unencumbered. Most middle housing is built by small local builders. They don't have the resources. They don't have the resources to carry unsold inventory indefinitely. Every home that sits on the market represents capital tied up, and another home that isn't being built. Removing unnecessary barriers will help these home sell more quickly and allow builders to keep producing the affordable housing Portland needs. This program has always worked because of a strong partnership between the city of Portland, local builders and realtors. Each has played an important role in expanding homeownership opportunities. I respectfully ask the council to continue that partnership by approving this amendment. It will make the program more effective, help more homes reach the market and ultimately create more housing for Portland families. Thank you for your time and consideration.
503 Thank you very much.
504 Ben hampson.
505 Hello, council president Dunphy and members of the council. My name is ben hampson. I'm the government affairs director for the home builders association of greater Portland. Our members work on housing production across six counties in 40 cities in Portland. Their work is largely focused on small scale single family and multi-family infill development. We urge you to support this temporary removal of income limits. It's really an important shift that will help a small subset of housing producers to move their product into private ownership and occupancy more quickly, and on par with the approximately 900 homes currently sitting on the housing market in Portland, at or below $400,000. As you've heard from staff, approximately 200 current and future homes would benefit from this change. However, a number of requirements would remain in place. The homes would continue to be subject to a price cap of $455,000, and I think, most importantly, they'd need to be occupied by the home buyer. These homes could not become part of the rental or short term or vacation rental stock in Portland. During the committee discussion, I thought councilor Green made a really important point. Reducing barriers to these homes being sold means the builders can move on to produce more housing. This is exactly the goal we should be pursuing right now through 2028. When the current sdc waiver program expires, building a new home at or below 450,000 is really hard. The profit margin can easily be eclipsed by an sdc charge. The choice you have, as councilors, have made, to temporarily waive sdcs for three years, is transformative for new home development, but only if the builders best equipped to construct those homes and at an attainable price, are able to move homes off their books and move on to the next project. The folks that built these homes are typically longtime participants of portland's various affordable housing programs, and keeping them around and operating provides one other additional benefit. When the current sdc waiver program expires in 2028, we'll need them open and operating so they can participate in future affordable housing programs and whatever comes next after that program concludes. This change really does help ensure that they'll be here in building when that time comes. As always, we really appreciate your partnership, especially when it comes to spurring home building and home ownership in Portland. Thanks for your time.
506 Thank you. Fish.
507 Good afternoon, members of the Portland city council. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the income limits on system development charge waiver program, the city of Portland. My name is jeff fish, and I'm one of the owners of fish construction northwest along with justin. Would you previously heard testimony from justin who's unable to join us today? So I'd like to offer a few comments. Comments on behalf of our company. I've been building homes in the city of Portland for more than 50 years, and my primary focus has always been on first time home buyers and middle income families. As a cost of housing increased over the years, programs like the system development charge waiver and the limited tax exemption program become essential tools that allow us to provide much needed, affordable home ownership opportunities. Our company has always taken pride in serving families at or below the median family income. We believe providing attainable housing is not only good business, it's a civic responsibility. For many years, city of Portland has been a strong partner to the small number of builders who use these programs to make home ownership possible. Last fall, when the city council chose to temporary waive sdcs to encourage housing construction, it left an unintended consequence that has disproportionately affected the builders, who have longer anticipated the affordable housing programs. I know this was never the council's intent, but as a rule, very challengeable experience that we have today. While this issue may affect only a few hundred homes citywide, impact on a handful of affordable home builders who are applying these programs has been significant. Buyers now have many more homes available within their price range that do not require the income verification. The qualification paperwork, paperwork or processing fees. As a result, even income qualified buyers are choosing homes outside the sdc waiver program simply because the purchase price process is easier. Those of building homes under the programs often operate on a very modest profit margin. In many cases, the sdc waiver represents the difference between breaking even and losing money. If we cannot sell these homes to qualified buyers, we're forced to sell them at a loss. For years, we've partnered with the city of Portland to help achieve its affordable housing. Goals. Today are simply asking the city to continue that partnership by supporting this temporary ordinance, so we can keep building the homes of Portland families need. Thank you for your time and consideration.
508 Thank you very much.
509 Douglas mcleod.
510 Thanks. Douglas mcleod. I've been a realtor for 25 years. I've worked with about ten different builders over the years, including that guy who just spoke. Hi. Jeff sold probably 200 new construction homes as of eight years ago. I started developing myself. I've sold 39 homes, so five homes a year. I'm a small developer. I only do affordable or let's say. Moderately priced homes, starter homes. And I was the hba rep to the residential infill project, which I think was great code. Anyhow, I just want to talk really quickly about the market. I'm under the impression that some council people, or maybe their staff think that the market is pretty good for new construction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just want to say this it's a horrific market. It's as bad as it's been since the great recession. I've been doing this 25 years. Only new construction, mostly starter pricing. It is as bad as it's ever been. Prices are declining, sales are really slow. And one thing that's really tricky and hard to get your head around unless you're really intimate with it, is that there's a huge hidden inventory of completed permitted final permit c of o homes that are not on the market. In the past, if you built a house, you know, five years ago before rip, you put it on the market, you built a house over here, you put it on the market. Now, those same lots you might be putting on five, six, seven, eight homes. And in a slow market, you don't put them all on at once. You put on 1 or 2, one goes pending, you put on another one. So a lot of projects, when I look around, I see, you know, one got sold, one is pending, one's on the market, two are on the market. There's five other homes that are in the project, not on the market. The market is terrible. Some of my best builder friends are moving away from doing starter home priced homes, which is kind of heartbreaking because the market's really difficult. So the point of all that is anything you can do to help a few builders move, get their homes sold and recirculate their money to build some more starter homes, I think is good for the builder, good for the buyer, good for the city. So really quick, just to contextualize what's on the table, I think the stc program made sense. I think it's super helpful. I'm not sure I would have applied it to 800,000 homes. That's another question. Water over the dam. But for the starter home pricing, it's incredibly significant. What is on the table today is not some new policy direction. It's just correcting an oversight. There's probably 200 homes that applied to which in the end means maybe 100 would would take advantage of this program if it passes. But there are some of us building the exact same thing as the guy across the street, and we have our arms tied behind our back because of a little oversight, and I hope the council can correct it. That's all.
511 Thank you very much.
512 That completes testimony.
513 Okay, colleagues, as promised, it is now 131. I am going to continue this item to the afternoon meeting of Thursday, July 23rd for a continued first reading of this nonemergency ordinance. That concludes our agenda for the day, and we are adjourned.