The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-07-30
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (3,856 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
In its afternoon session on July 30, 2026, the Portland City Council took up the two remaining items on its agenda. The first was Regulatory Improvement Code Amendment Package 11 (document 2026-189), amending city code Titles 32 and 33. The council considered a conforming amendment completing an earlier change that allows residential uses in the Campus Institutions zone by referencing RM1-zone standards, a replacement ordinance and exhibits incorporating all previously adopted amendments, and a motion setting the ordinance's effective date at November 1, 2026, a change staff connected to an accessibility-remediation project underway on the city code. Discussion focused on how the as-amended exhibits are posted online and how the public can trace what changed; the item was scheduled for a second reading on August 6. The second item was an emergency ordinance to settle a bodily-injury lawsuit for $287,500 arising from a 2024 collision between a bicyclist and a Water Bureau dump truck; discussion covered the bureau's driver-discipline practices, and figures describing the bureau's recent vehicle-claims history were stated differently at different points in the discussion. Votes occurred on the amendments and on both items; outcomes are recorded in the vote ledger.
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 afternoon. I'm calling back to order this recessed meeting of the Portland city council. Rebecca, can you please call the roll?
1 Good afternoon.
2 Koyama Lane here. Aye, Morillo here.
3 Novick. Clerk. Green. Zimmerman. Avalos. Smith. Here. Now.
Procedural episode · turns 4–12
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
4 Here.
5 Pirtle-guiney. Here. Ryan.
6 Here.
7 Dunphy.
8 Here. And can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
9 Yes. Good afternoon. 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.ed.gov/council. Agenda information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states. Otherwise, your microphone will be muted. When your time is over, the presiding officer preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest from 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.
10 Thank you very much. We have two items left on our agenda for today, folks. Relatively light load. Could we please call item number seven?
11 Item seven, amend city code and improve land use regulations through the regulatory improvement code. Amendment package 11 amend code titles 32 and 33. Document number 2026-189.
12 Thank you colleagues. Our initial hearing on recap 11 was on July 8th. At that meeting, we passed two amendments the mechanical equipment amendment and my amendment to allow residential uses in the campus institutions ci one zone. My amendment was adopted with acknowledgment that staff would need to return with conforming language in order to complete it. Today we have Dunphy two, which is pre-filed, which ensures that the changes from Dunphy one are made everywhere necessary in the code, rather than adding new or unique standards to fill out the housing allowance in ci one. And we are pointing to the standards in the r m of the rm1 zone. So I would like to start by formally moving Dunphy two to bring conforming and I would. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues, is there any discussion of the conforming amendment. Not seeing anybody in the queue keelan or rebecca. Sorry. Can we please call the roll on Dunphy two.
13 Dunphy two moved by Dunphy, seconded by Ryan Koyama Lane. I Morillo I Novick absent clerk. I Green absent Zimmerman I Avalos absent.
14 Smith.
15 I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan I Dunphy.
16 Thank you. Colleagues. Additionally, colleagues, on the request of the bureau of planning and sustainability staff. Oh, I'm sorry.
17 Did you. I'm sorry, did you vote?
18 I didn't did I? Ha I. Thank you. I vote for my own amendment. Thank you.
19 Okay. Ci9i votes. Thank you.
20 Wow. I apologies I'm ready to go. I'll try that again on. At the request of staff there is one more action to take adjusting the effective date of the recap code changes. As written, this ordinance has an effective date of October 1st. Staff is requesting a change to November 1st to align the. With the timeline for changes to the code required by new federal regulations, specifically to the changes on the campus institution zone. My team has confirmed that those customers have no concerns with additional delay. Chief planner diffenderfer is here. Would you be able to speak to this a little bit if there's anything further that I didn't include? That is not I'm seeing. There we go.
21 Good afternoon, council president. Pardon me. You were talking about the change in the date. The effective date. Yeah. It's more for administrative reasons. We have been working on a project to remediate the code to make it more to meet ADA accessibility requirements. And the recap project touches so many sections of the code, and it would be very difficult to update that code while we're remediating the code. So we'd like to make them all available on November 1st. Thank you, thank you.
22 So I would move to update the effective date of this ordinance to November 1st, 2027. And this will be Dunphy three second and councilor Ryan seconds. Thank you.
23 Council president, I interrupt. So I believe that staff was also intending council to vote on a replacement ordinance. So I might suggest we vote on the replacement ordinance first. That reflects the findings and then amend it to include the date so that this way we're not amending. Gotcha. And then having to do the amendment.
24 I had that reversed on my things. Okay. Then we're going to skip ahead just a step very quickly, and we'll pause on that. I withdraw my motion for now. We must adopt the replacement exhibit a and exhibit b, which incorporates all past amendments into the ordinance. So, I move that to replace those exhibits with those that are posted. So is that right? Am I doing this wrong?
25 Yeah. I think the amendment is to replace the ordinance exhibits a and exhibit b, and what that does is it incorporates all of the amendments, prior discussion updates, the findings to reflect the discussion, updates the ordinance. So just updates everything that council has already done.
26 Can I also fold in an updated effective date in that, or do I need to do a separate. We'll do it.
27 As separate. Yeah, let's do it as a second. So that.
28 Thank you. Apologies, colleagues. We're figuring this out as we go. So I moved to replace the ordinance. Ordinance and exhibits with those that are posted. And is there a second? Second. Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues to the, to the motion. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
29 I just want to understand this because the new exhibits don't have track changes and obvious things to follow. I want to make sure we understand and that others listening in know what this does. So the new exhibits a and b incorporate the amendments from Avalos, Dunphy, Koyama Lane one from Dunphy one and presumably from Dunphy two. I'm hoping these were written assuming we were going to adopt those. Okay. I'm getting nods from staff in the room. So the changes from Dunphy Koyama Lane one, Dunphy one, and Dunphy two have been added to or amended in the exhibits. Nothing else has been changed in those exhibits except what was needed to change based on the language that was adopted at the last meeting and earlier today. Is that accurate? Okay. I'm seeing nods from the room. Thank you.
30 Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney, for explaining it better than I did. Councilor. Kanal.
31 Yeah, I'm also trying to clarify that, just in terms of we're talking about replacing the it looks like the sixth and seventh link of exhibit a and b listed on the website with the second and third link. Is that what we're. The vote we're about to be asked to do is.
32 Is that correct?
33 It's the as amended. So this is standard practice for legislative land use proceedings. Council has to vote on the actual and has to have before it the actual package. We can't change it after the fact. And so that's why we bring back these as amended. And it says and that ordinance will say vote on as amended. So what you previously saw, what was filed was exhibit a, exhibit b, those don't reflect the amendments council made. And the findings also don't reflect the discussion council had or the testimony we heard. And so we update the findings to also support those changes and support and respond to any testimony or evidence that we received. So those would be the changes in the findings. And then the changes in the code are the amendments that council actually made.
34 Got it. And so the and those are the links entitled exhibit a, as amended.
35 As amended. Exactly. That's right. Yep.
36 Thank you, councilor Councilor pirtle-guiney.
37 Thank you, council president. I just want to specify I had voted against one of those amendments. I just voted for the conforming one. I will be voting for these exhibits though. I think we made the wrong policy choice. I would like our books to be clean, and so I will be supportive of these changes that follow from it.
38 Thank you councilor. Seeing no one else in the queue to discuss, can we please call the roll on the replacement ordinance and exhibits?
39 Sorry, we just have a question. So the intent is this is now Dunphy three, and the intent is to then amend Dunphy three to update the start date to November, the effective date to November 1st.
40 Yes, that sounds right to me.
41 So you want to amend the amended.
42 Point of information? I thought we were voting on the updated exhibits, not on that change.
43 Yeah, I'm confused.
44 About that.
45 Yeah. So we're going to vote on updating the exhibits and amending and replacing the ordinance. There is a new. And so staff, can you point me to actually where the replacement ordinance. Was filed? Yeah. So the replacement ordinance was filed. I'm just not seeing it on the list.
46 By all means, come on up if we need to. Yeah.
47 Yeah, this is confusing.
48 So we have the exhibit. We have the exhibit and attachment list with the as amended exhibit a, the changes to the ordinance that I reviewed in whatever that system is called. Are those already reflected? They are they're already reflected here on what's on the website.
49 I'd have to look at what's on the website. We filed an updated ordinance I don't have in front of me what the links say there.
50 Council president, may I ask a question?
51 Absolutely.
52 It has all the.
53 It sounds like what we're hearing is that the language listed. Section one council fines. Now. Therefore, council directs on the web page may have been changed. And if that's the case, I'd like to make sure that we are clear for folks watching about where they can see the original version versus the new version, and how in our system online that's filed also so that councilors can track in that language what the changes are, because I'm feeling like we're getting a lot of take it on faith that these changes are what we say they are and that they have been made. And I'd like to know what I'm voting on.
54 The.
55 It's the file. The. When I'm looking at the the or the ordinance that's in html on the website, it has the updated.
56 It has the amended. And so the concern or the. So this is the amended. Yes. And so I think what council pirtle-guiney is asking for is that and I don't this is maybe a question for the council clerk. What happens to the ordinance before. So people can see, just as we see the original exhibit a. Now we have the amended a, the original ordinance showing that strikethrough. And when it used to be in paper format, that was easier. I don't know where it goes on this website.
57 Yeah, I.
58 Okay. So question for sure.
59 Answer that question.
60 Okay.
61 So I guess we can, we can assure you that the only changes that have happened to the ordinance, which are now in the html format and is embedded into the website as opposed to an attachment like the other exhibits. The only thing that changed for that is the name of the document itself, because we're replacing the new document, the old document with the as amended version.
62 So we, yeah, the update to add the dash as amended.
63 Yes. That's the only thing that changed.
64 Okay.
65 And number 12, council held a hearing, invited testimony, approved two amendments to the draft. That was the addition. So it just reflects what happened.
66 Okay.
67 I might also just add that the proposed the first link on the agenda, the proposed amendment. Dunphy two that is the track changes of the language that changed in the ordinance for at least for that item, just.
68 And the same is for the for the, Dunphy Koyama Lane one. That's where you would see the the strike outs. And we incorporated what was in that in there into the recommended draft as amended.
69 Okay. Okay. Colleagues, is everyone is that as clear as mud for everybody else? Yeah. Thick mud. Thank you. All right. So we now have a motion to replace the exhibits. And the ordinance has been moved and seconded. Can we call the roll? Yeah.
70 Moved by Dunphy. Seconded by Ryan Koyama Lane. I Morillo I.
71 Clark I.
72 Zimmerman I.
73 I I.
74 Thank you.
75 I pirtle-guiney.
76 I'm nervous.
77 I Ryan. A Dunphy. I and it's approved the amendments approved with nine I okay.
78 Thank you. This is very prescriptive land use stuff is very intentional and prescriptive. And I'm we're learning how to do this. I'm learning how to do this. So our last. We still need to change the effective date. Correct. And this. All right. So now going back to what I was previously, I would like to move. To update the effective date of this ordinance to be November 1st, 2027. We're going to call this Dunphy for now. Is that what we're calling it? Okay for Dunphy for to update the effective date? And is there a second?
79 Second.
80 Thank you, vice president Clark, is there a discussion? Please call the roll.
81 Can we clarify? Update the effective date to November 1st, 2020.
82 First, 2027.
83 2026.
84 626 is what I meant. Jesus. You know what? This is why we are checking. Thank you. Good details because 2026 thank you. Can we please call the roll?
85 Okay. Motion to set the effective date to November 1st, 2026. Moved by Dunphy, seconded by clerk Koyama Lane. I Morillo I Clark. I Zimmerman. I Smith.
86 I I. Pirtle-guiney I. Ryan a. Dunphy I.
87 Okay, the amendment is approved with nine I okay.
88 Is that everything that we need to do then?
89 Yes. So now the item passes to a second reading for a date and time. Certain of Thursday, August 6th at 2 p.m.
90 Perfect. Yeah. This item will come back on August 6th. No, no earlier than 210. So this item moves on. Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you for your patience on that. And can we please call item number eight?
91 Item eight pay settlement of medical or bodily injury lawsuit in the sum of $287,500, resulting from a collision with a city dump truck involving the the Portland water bureau document number 2026-267.
92 This is the this is an emergency ordinance. Okay. With us are senior deputy attorneys anne milligan and claims analyst dave farrell. Take it away.
93 Thank you. On July 1st, 2024, plaintiff and a water bureau driver were waiting at a red light at southeast Hawthorne and 34th avenue. It was a busy day on Hawthorne for all forms of traffic, including vehicles, pets and bikes. When the light turned Green. Even though that lanes on Hawthorne are single Lane in both directions, plaintiff elected to share the Lane with the other vehicles and began passing vehicles on the right, eventually reaching and riding alongside the water bureau dump truck. When the dump truck turned right onto 34th avenue, plaintiff impacted the side of city's 2024 freightliner truck. He was not run over by the truck, but he did suffer closed avulsions in his ankles, road rash and a five day hospital stay. City's driver testified that his right turn signal was engaged. The cyclist testified that he did not see a turn signal. The parties have reached a tentative settlement in the amount of $287,500, pending council approval. The settlement is recommended by the bureau of risk management and the city attorney's office.
94 Thank you very much. Any colleagues, any technical or clarifying questions? I'm just going to check in a second. Is there anyone signed up for public testimony?
95 No one is signed up.
96 Okay, great. So technical clarifying questions or just regular council discussion? Councilor Kanal.
97 Thank you. So I just wanted to, to clarify, we have I appreciate the information being attached with the, the, overall water bureau information in terms of history. We have seen several vehicle related incidents, around the last couple of years, not exclusive to the water bureau, but primarily across, across the city. Primarily we have public works vehicles. We have public safety vehicles. Under what circumstances would the bureau remove, terminate or reassign an employee who is involved in a collision while operating a city vehicle?
98 I think if the bureau might be here to speak to that.
99 Welcome.
100 Hi. Charles Smith, group director of construction, Portland water bureau. I understand the question is what type of incidences we have where we would remove somebody from from service. So we have done this in the past. And typically with the, the progressive discipline process, we have to do several steps in order to get there. But we have done it in the past and we take, precautionary measures and do, steps to make sure that they are safe in operating the vehicle safely. And we will, I lost the word for it, but, sorry. Nervous first time.
101 Doing great.
102 But we do investigations when we have incidents and we, we make sure that the, when it's, if it's a training issue, an employee issue or a circumstance that's beyond the control of the, the driver. Right. And so these vehicles are large. We have implemented new technology like side view mirrors or side view cameras to help prevent this type of stuff. However, we don't train on that necessarily for cdl purposes because the trainers don't necessarily like relying on that technology for because not all the trucks have it. So you have to learn to look for your blind spots when you're in the truck. So we take into account every, every piece of the accident when we do this type of discipline and we do the investigation because it's not all, not all of them require us discipline or. In fact, I've been at the bureau for 27 years, and I can think of three people that we've removed from service because of their driving habits.
103 Appreciate it. Yeah.
104 So it sounds like it's not a defined like if then list of criteria, but instead a more holistic.
105 Sorry, could you repeat that.
106 In terms of determining when to remove, terminate or reassign an employee? It sounds like you're saying there's not a clear if this happens then we will. But more of a holistic.
107 So there is certain circumstances, circumstances, circumstances where we do have a clear path. Like if they. So like in this instance, we took raphael in for a, required drug test right afterwards because somebody was transported by medical. And so that requires from the dot, drug analysis. So if they've tested positive for a narcotic or alcohol, then we would definitely remove them from service. So there are circumstances where it's, it's immediate and automatic and there are circumstances where, it just, we've, we've, we've had a fatality and it was somebody who was texting and driving and went head on with a dump truck and, you, you don't, you have to take every case on its own merit and judge accordingly. But we do, follow the, the contract for and the discipline process for making determinations on whether or not they should be behind the wheel.
108 And the contract you're referring to the, the union contract, correct.
109 Correct.
110 Had this driver had any previous incidents.
111 So he did, I didn't think he had, but I did, we were digging through the information because we, we received the request this morning. And so we were digging through the information and we did find where he had clipped a car mirror on a narrow alleyway in like January, six months prior to the accident.
112 Okay.
113 So,
114 But no moving violations.
115 No moving violations were cited.
116 Okay.
117 Yeah, I appreciate that information. I think, understanding how we get to this place just because of the, the, the volume across the, and again, not just the water bureau, but the bureaus in general, is helpful. And can you confirm I saw in the notes that there are eight vehicle incidents that have resulted in paid claims from the water bureau over the last two years that are under the.
118 Free from risk management would speak to the claims history.
119 My apologies. Yeah.
120 So in, dave farrell risk management, in what period of time?
121 So the last two years, but, happy to have a different time frame if that's more easily accessible to you. Just to give a kind of context to this.
122 For fiscal year 24, 25 and 2526, there were a total of 26 collision vehicle of all vehicles in water. Bureau claims.
123 Okay, okay. All right. Well.
124 I think one thing that might be helpful, and I'm not sure whether it's a full council committee, the whole public works, but I think it may be helpful for us to have conversations about this in the aggregate instead of exclusive to this particular driver and particular incident, which, you know, will be likely resolving with this vote in a moment. I did have one question that is specific to this. There's an, was there any finding of fact at all or city acknowledgment of truth? If, if, if it was done at any point throughout this process about the allegation that the cyclist was dragged a full city block during this incident. Is that that's an allegation. Is there any reason for has that been acknowledged or agreed to as a as a statement of fact, or is it simply an allegation?
125 At this.
126 Point, there was security footage from the restaurant across the street that substantiates that allegation.
127 Okay.
128 All right. Thank you very much. That's hard enough to support the settlement at this level.
129 Thank you. Councilor Kanal colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, this is an emergency ordinance that requires nine votes to pass. Rebecca, can we please call the roll.
130 Calling the roll on document 2026-267 Koyama Lane. I Morillo I clerk. I Zimmerman. I Smith. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Dunphy.
131 I I.
132 Ordinance passes with nine votes.
133 Colleagues, that concludes our agenda for today. With that no further business, I am adjourning this meeting of the Portland city council. Thank you all for being here.