The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-07-23
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (27,476 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 recessed PM session of July 23, 2026 reconvened at 2:02 p.m. with five items. An evidentiary land-use hearing considered rezoning a vacant city-owned lot on NW 31st Avenue from open space back to residential at Portland Parks & Recreation's request; one member of the public raised process and transparency concerns, and the record closed with findings and a final decision set for August 6. A second reading took up a five-year lease extension for the City Kids childcare center space. A continued first reading on ride-fee code changes and a new drivers' resource center for ride-hail drivers brought amendments, including a proposed emergency clause, amid discussion of driver deactivations. A first reading on easing income requirements for system-development-charge exemptions on affordable home-ownership units drew extended debate over two competing amendments — a stair-stepped income threshold with reporting directives, and changes to a three-bedroom density-bonus program. A first reading creating an electric-vehicle charging systems funding code closed the agenda, with discussion of electrician certification requirements. Several motions and amendments went to roll-call votes; outcomes are recorded in the vote ledger. The council adjourned for the week.
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 I [music] w one out. [music] down. [music] I want I want I want you [music] out.
1 I want I want [music] you I want I want [music] you. [music] hey. Counselor [music] abalis, are you available online?
2 Good afternoon. Calling back to order this recessed meeting of the Portland city council. It's 2 202 on Thursday, July 23rd. Rebecca, can you please call the role? Good afternoon. Coyama Lane
3 Present.
4 Mario
5 Here.
6 Novik
7 Here.
8 Clark
9 Here.
10 Green. [clears throat]
11 Zimmerman
12 Here.
13 Avalos
14 Present.
15 Smith.
16 Canel
17 Here.
18 Guiny
Procedural episode · turns 19–27
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
19 Here.
20 Ryan
21 Here.
22 Duny
23 Here. And can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber? Good afternoon. Welcome to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually, plea, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda. Www.Portland.gov/counsel/aggenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others. Testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you. [clears throat]
24 Thank you very much. Colleagues, we have five items today, including a land use item, a sec a single second reading, and three first readings of non-emergency ordinances. Let's see if we can get through all of it today. Uh, can we please call item number eight? Our time's certain.
25 [cough]
26 Item eight, amend the comprehensive plan map and zoning map for a vacant lot on northwest 31st a described as wamit heights edition, block 18, lot 14 at the request of Portland parks and recreation, lu26-007966 cpzc, document number 2026-242. Colleagues, first our city attorney is going to make some announcements about today's hearing. Lauren.
27 Hello. Uh, this is an evidentiary hearing. This means you may submit new evidence in to the council in support of your arguments. Um, for council consideration of a hearings officer recommendation on a comprehensive plan map amendment, testimony will be heard as follows. We will begin with a staff report by pp&d staff. Following the staff report, the city council will hear from interested persons in the following order. The [snorts] applicant will go first and will have 15 minutes um or is it 10? 10 10 minutes, sorry. Following this uh uh to address council after the applicant, council will hear from individuals or organizations who support the applicant's proposal. Each person will have three minutes to speak. Next, council will hear from persons or organizations who oppose the applicant's proposal. Again, each person will have three minutes. If there was testimony in opposition to the applicant's proposal, the applicant will have five additional minutes to rebut the testimony given in opposition to the proposal. Council may then close the hearing and deliberate. As this is a non-emergency ordinance, it will pass the second reading and council may make amendments to the ordinance and findings or direct staff to return with amendments. Scope of testimony. I would like to announce several guidelines for those who will be addressing city council today. Submitting evidence into the record. Any letters or documents you wish to become part of the record should be given to the council clerk after you testify. Similarly, the original or a copy of any slides, photographs, drawings, maps, videos, or other items you show the council during your testimony, including powerpoint presentations should be given to the council clerk to make sure they become part of the record. Testimony must be direct directed to the approval criteria. Any testimony, arguments, and evidence you present must be directed toward the applicable approval criteria for this land use review or other criteria in the city's comprehensive plan or zoning code that you believe will apply to the decision. Pp&d staff will identify the applicable approval criteria as a part of their staff report to council. Issues must be raised with specificity. You must raise an issue clearly enough to give the council and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue. If you do not, you will be procluded from appealing to the land use board of appeals based on that issue. Applicants must identify constitutional challenges to conditions of approval. If the applicant fails to raise constitutional or other issues related to the proposed conditions of approval with enough specificity to allow the council to respond, the applicant will be precluded from bringing an action for damages in circuit court.
28 Thank you very much, lauren. Uh colleagues, first uh on my little script here is to ask if any counselors wish to declare a conflict of interest. And additionally, since I'm not seeing anybody jump up with a conflict of interest, um which is great. No counselors have declared a conflict of interest. Do any counselors have any exparte contacts to declare or information gathered outside of this hearing to disclose? Similarly, seeing no counselors with exparte communication to declare. Have any members of the council made any visits to the site involved in this matter? Again, nobody. So, no counselors have visited the site. Um, great. So, uh, we're now moving into the testimony. Uh first the staff report followed by the presentation of the applicant then supporters of the applicant then opponents of the applicant and if there has been opposing testimony the applicant will be able to give a rebuttal. Let's move into staff presentation. Welcome.
29 Thank you. I have a powerpoint [clears throat] should be coming up.
30 Thank you.
31 Yeah.
32 So good afternoon. I am andy galitzia. I'm a planner with Portland permitting and development. This is a land use hearing for a comprehensive plan map amendment and a zoning map amendment requested by Portland parks and recreation for a property that they own. For this type of application, a land use hearings officer employed by the city auditor's office holds an initial public hearing and then the hearings officer issues a recommendation for city council. The city council then decides the application in another public hearing, which we're doing today. The initial public hearing with the hearings officer took place on April 20th of this year. No neighbors or other members of the public attended that hearing and the hearings officer issued a written recommendation to council on may the 20th. And I'm going to summarize the findings and the recommendation from the hearings officer. Next slide, please. So, this is an aerial view with the subject site outlined in blue. Subject site is a 5,000 square foot vacant lot in northwest Portland. It's on northwest 31st avenue between northwest thurman and vaughn streets. It is surrounded on three sides by lots developed with houses. The lot is owned by Portland parks and recreation, but it is not developed as a park. Portland parks and recreation would like to be able to sell this lot, and that's the reason for this application. Next slide, please. This is a view of the subject site looking east from northwest 31st avenue. It is a vacant lot and you can see there are lots developed with houses on both sides. There's also another lot behind this one with a house on it. Uh that house is out of view behind the trees in this photo. Next slide please. This map shows the zoning pattern in this area which also reflects the comprehensive plan map. The subject site is outlined in red. It is zoned os or open space. The southeast part of this lot is also in the environmental conservation or c overlay zone. The lot is surrounded by the r5 residential zone on all sides. And this lot was also zoned r5 until 2018 when it was reszoned to os in a legislative action that applied the os zone to Portland parks and recreations properties that were not zoned all us already. Uh this lot though again is not part of any park. Lower mcclelay park is on the same block, but this property is not contiguous with the park. Next slide, please. So, in order for Portland parks and recreation to be able to sell this lot for housing development, they are requesting two things in this application. A comprehensive plan map amendment to remove the open space comprehensive plan designation from this property and apply the residential 5000 comprehensive plan map designation instead. And two, a concurrent zoning map amendment to reszone the property from the open space or os zone to the r5 residential zone. And there would also be the same environmental conservation overlay and a new constrain sites overlay zone. Those are the c and z overlays. In the lower left here, you can see the existing zoning map with the subject site in red hash marks. The purple dots show other properties in this area that are also owned by Portland parks and recreation. Again, lower mcclelay park covers part of this block, but the subject property for this review is not contiguous with the park. And in the lower right, you can see the proposed zoning map. The subject site would have the r5 residential base zone. The environmental conservation or c overlay zone would remain unchanged in the southeast part of the site. And there would be a new overlay the constrain sites or z overlay applied to the entire site. So by code, the z overlay is always applied to lots in the r5 zone when any part of the lot has the environmental conservation overlay. And what the z overlay does is restricts development to a house or a duplex. The z overlay does not allow triplexes, forplexes, or cottage clusters, which are allowed on other r5 zone lots, which without the z overlay. Uh, next slide, please. The comprehensive plan map amendment would remove the open space comprehensive plan map designation from this property and apply the residential r5, I'm sorry, residential 5000 designation instead. And this comprehensive plan map amendment is necessary for the property to be reszoned to the r5 residential zone. And then for a house or a duplex to be constructed on it. The approval criteria for the comprehensive plan map amendment are in zoning code section 3381050a. The criteria require that compared with the existing open space comprehensive plan map designation. The proposed residential 5000 designation must be equally or more supportive of the comprehensive plan as a whole. This criterion required an analysis of a number of different factors which are addressed in the hearings officer's recommendation. This includes metro's urban growth management functional plan for the metropolitan region, the Oregon statewide planning goals, the northwest district plan for this neighborhood, and comprehensive plan policies related to housing, natural resources, and public services. The hearings officer found that by creating an opportunity for new housing on a vacant lot in a central area with good access to services, the proposed amendment is equally or more supportive of the comprehensive plan as a whole. An opportunity for new housing directly supports a number of policy goals related to housing supply and efficient use of land. Various review groups at the city evaluated this request and they all indicated that adequate public services are available for future residential development on this lot. Natural resources protections will remain through the existing environmental conservation overlay that will remain over the southeast part of this lot and also from title 11 tree code regulations that regulate tree removal and require a minimum tree canopy on a residential development site. Next slide, please. [snorts] the second part of this is the zoning map amendment to reszone the property to the r5 residential zone. And the approval criteria for the zoning map amendment are in zoning code section 338550 and 33855060. And the first criterion is that the zoning map must be consistent with the comprehensive plan map with concurrent approval of the comprehensive plan map amendment to the residential 5000 designation. This zoning map amendment request meets this requirement. The r5 residential zone that's proposed here is the only corresponding zone for the residential 5000 comprehensive plan map designation. The second criterion is that adequate public services must be available to serve development that could occur in the r5 zone, which on this lot uh would be a house or a duplex. Again, different review groups at the city evaluated this request. They all indicated that adequate public services are available for possible residential development on this site. This includes water, sewer, storm water, police, and the capacity of the transportation system in the area. And lastly, the application of the z overlay or the constrain sites overlay must be necessary to address a situation and must be consistent with the adoption criteria for the overlay and with the comprehensive plan. Again, the z overlay uh limits development to a house or a duplex. And the z overlay adoption criteria in the zoning code require the z overlay on the entirety of all r5 zone lots when any part of that lot has the environmental conservation zone. So the fact that the southeast corner of this lot is in the environmental conservation zone is a situation that requires the z overlay to be applied. The z overlay code uh was adopted by the city council with the residential infill project in 2020 and at that time all components of the residential infill project including the new z overlay at that time uh were found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Next slide please. So the hearings officer found that all the applicable approval criteria were met. So, the hearings officer recommended approval of the comprehensive plan map amendment to apply the residential 5000 comprehensive plan map designation and approval of the zoning map amendment to apply the r5 residential zone alongside the existing environmental conservation zone and the new constrained sites or z overlay zone. Uh, next slide please. And that's concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions.
33 Thank you very much colleagues. Is there any technical or clarifying questions from the presentation? Councelor Zimmerman.
34 Thanks. I just want to make sure I understand that this was r5, then in 2018 we made it open space. Now we're going to make it r5 again.
35 That's correct.
36 Okay. Thanks.
37 Vice president Clark,
38 I'm not sure this is really relevant, but can I ask it looks like there's a driveway. There used to be a house there.
39 I don't believe so. I believe this was been a vacant lot for I don't know if there was ever a house there, but I don't believe there was any house there any time in the recent past.
40 I was just curious um because of the driveway. How can I ask how the city um became the owner of this lot?
41 I don't know that either. Uh Portland parks and recreation staff are here. They may know the answer to that question.
42 If I may, I'm zelain nun from uh Portland parks and recreation. Uh, I believe it was a tax foreclosure about a hundred years ago and it's just been a vacant lot. I think there was a shed on there at one point. It's gotten some use from the neighborhood, but it's not ever been used formally by parks.
43 Thank you.
44 Thank you, c. Vice president Clark. Councelor canel,
45 Thanks. Um, and I'm not 100% sure if you're the right folks to ask this to, but I appreciate the presentation. I'll just ask and let me know if not. Why now? What's motivating the change? Is there I mean does this link inextricably to a sale?
46 So that that is the plan. We um went out a few we went through the disposition uh process uh several years ago and got council approval to to dispose of the property. Um we were finding that difficult to do with the o or os uh zoning. So we're now looking to reszone it so that we can then sell it.
47 Okay. Council already voted on the sale.
48 Yes.
49 Okay. Prior to that, had there ever been a goal of acquiring the adjacent pro properties and turning it into Green space that connected?
50 Uh, well, there's houses on to either on either side. I I'm not real sure what the the parcel between that and lower mcclelay is. Um, not that I'm aware of, I guess, is the answer to your question.
51 Okay. I mean what I'm trying to understand and this is might be outside the scope uh is um whether this is the best use of property you know in terms of losing the the natural space the Green space but um I'm trying to understand why what motivated the um the sale do or the I should say the uh the intent to sell um at some later point could you follow up and let uh maybe just via email and send over the information as to when council approved that.
52 Uh, sure. I do have the ordinance number with me if that would be helpful for you.
53 Great. Yeah.
54 Uh, it was in 2021. It's ordinance 1 190259.
55 Great.
56 And that declared it surplus.
57 1 n 1 n. Okay. Cool.
58 259. Yeah.
59 Thanks. Thank you, councelor kel. Councelor pleini. Thank you, council president. Also, possibly outside the scope of what we're doing here, but I will ask because it continues on where my colleague was going. Because this was approved as surplus previously, after um any reasonzoning that this council may approve, does parks then have the ability to sell this without coming back to council or because that zoning change occurred, would there need to be any further action by council before a sale occurred? And to my understanding, we do not need to go back to council.
60 Okay.
61 Thank you, council president.
62 Thank you, councelor peline. Councelor novik.
63 Mr. President, I just wanted to suggest that maybe we should establish a policy that when we foreclose in a property, we should check in every hundred years to see if it's zoned properly.
64 Good suggestion. Excellent. That concludes the uh technical or clarifying questions from counselors. Thank you very much. I think we're going to move now to the uh presentation of the applicant. Good afternoon. Uh my name is chris hagermanerman. I'm with the booken group. Uh we were the land use planners that worked with parks on this process. Um we are uh delighted with the staff report, delighted with the work that the city has done on this project. Um and we have no further presentation at this time except for make ourselves available for your questions.
65 Excellent. Thank you. Colleagues, do you have any questions for our applicant? Councelor plegine still in the
66 Sorry, that's old.
67 Thank you. There we go. Seeing no further questions from any counselors. Thank you very much for your presentation. We're now moving to testimony from supporters of the applicant. Do we have any signed up for that?
68 No one is signed up.
69 Okay. And do we have any opponents of the applicant?
70 One person is signed up. Galib bin imoteep l.
71 Welcome. Come on down. [clears throat]
72 Okay. I prepared this Monday, maybe Tuesday before Wednesday happened. [clears throat] and though this applies specifically to this, I think what happened Wednesday night or Wednesday afternoon when um that last agenda item, I think this is a perfect example of what needs to happen as far as change is concerned. Now, I chose to speak on this exact let me start off by saying good afternoon counselors. I am galib bin mote el and I reside in doiciled in district 4. I chose to speak on this exact ordinance for a reason that may not sit well with you and it does not sit well with me either. When city administrator lee spoke of change management, it is my sincerest hope that the idea was for the management to change the culture and the processes or refine the processes in the name of transparency, accountability and diligence. This process does not feel like change. That's why I'm opposed to it. I don't oppose this ordinance on its merits. It's it's a simple change. 5,000 ft of open space to 5,000 ft of residence, probably for a duplex, two single family dwellings. My opposition is in the process and the language. I have too many questions that that lack answers, and it is my hope that these answers have been asked and answered already. First question, why were there only two people in that initial public hearing? That was a zoom call. The two people that were adjacent in the property, the two property owners of the adjacent properties, I think they would have some interest in what's going on with that property there in the middle. But there's been this public outcry about these hearings and the notice that's given of them. And yet here we are having another meeting where there is just the assigned group and the Portland parks and recreation bureau. So there's no other additional input. That's questionable. There's also this question. When and where will this actual lot be made available for p for purchase? That question's already been answered. It was purchased back in 2021. Considering that the change to open space occurred in 2018 with a comprehensive update, a process that is required by os revised statute 197 to actually provide to the state. Why pass an ordinance that's contrary to those goals that are set to be realized by 2035? Is that progressive? Why does the language keep referring to the ppnr not using the space as a park? That was never the intention. It was meant to be an open space for clean air, clean water, and and vegetation, basically greenery, because trees are our carbon or our carbon dioxide scrubs. That's what they are for us. We breathe in good oxygen because we have those trees there. So, why would they consider it a legislative process? Why make vague language? Again, I don't intend to bombard you with issues. There's a simple solution. Transparency. I oppose this ordinance because it's not transparent and that lot has already been sold in lie of this process. Your choice in this matter is your choice but the scent of theocracy is ripe in the public documents. Just remember this no matter what you choose. I love you all unconditionally. Thank you.
73 Thank you very much. And rebecca, does that conclude?
74 That concludes testimony.
75 Okay. As there was uh opposing testimony, the the applicant is entitled up to 5 minutes for rebuttal if they so choose. Okay. The applicant has denied that. Okay. Colleagues, discussion. Councelor canal.
76 Thanks. Um, couple questions. Uh, first just wanted to understand if if I can get clarification on the current legal ownership of this property. Just want to respond be be responsive to the the it uh point raised in in testimony here.
77 If either the applicant or the staff could come back on up. There you go. Cool. Okay. Thanks.
78 So, the property is currently owned by Portland parks and recreation. Okay. Um, there are properties to the east and south that if hypothetically were acquired by the city, uh, would make it contiguous with the larger Green space. Were those properties ever targeted by any part of the city for acquisition should they have become available? Good afternoon. Dylan paul, uh, public works, business services, real estate services. Um, we represent parks on this matter. Um, I can say from my experience working with parks and recreation that um, oftent times we do look at adjacent parcels. Oftent times we will buy an easement um, in order to create new access corridors. Um, in this case, it wasn't something that was warranted or needed. Um, this lot in order to connect it to the park um would have um taken a consider considerable amount of resources. However, in most cases in the past, we would also record an easement and then end up selling the property. It just seemed um unlikely and in feasible that we would ever get the corresponding easements required to connect an access point. And there were already uh two different three different access points available for mcclelay at this time. So it was seen as a low priority um and potentially a bit of a liability since it was being used um in an unpermanented fashion.
79 Unpermitted. Okay. Um was there ever a uh consideration of creating a community garden there or any other sort of usage? I feel like you know obviously we there was a whole conversation on this prior to us getting here. So, I'm just trying to understand.
80 Yeah, great great uh um you know, I think comment where we look at community gardens. Typically, we're looking for much larger areas um to provide those services. They can be very expensive. Um they can also have an impact on adjacent homes with a lot of different visitors. Um so, this wasn't seen as an ideal situation for a community garden. Um, but you know, I'd be happy to follow up with, you know, where all of ours are and what criteria they'd look for, but most often we're looking for um a much larger, you know, hopefully, you know, close to an acre.
81 Okay. I um [clears throat] so I haven't been to the site, but I have looked at it on google maps. Uh and the satellite view looks like a portion of it is kind of in that being used in that way. It's a little hard to tell. Um, and obviously the street view, you can't see the back of the lot as easily. So, um, that that's the the basis for the uh the question. I I'm also not 100% sure. Um, I would love to get some followup uh that's outside of the scope of this document on what uh the criteria that parks looks at uh for for community gardens cuz interested would love to support them. Um, I guess the the other only only other thing I wanted to ask you, we had a a presentation um uh in committee of the whole earlier today for prosper Portland board uh appointees. And one of the things that got talked about in that was just how assertive and I and I say this as a positive thing and how proactive prosper is with land acquisition. Um, and I'm I'm seeing a lot of sale but not a lot of purchase broadly through the administration. I I don't know that I can say that that's specifically to parks. Um, and so I think just two things to put a pin in for later maybe for the city administrators. I'd love to understand the sort of net uh on that as we uh start repivoting and re uh affirming our our interest in land banking as a council. Um but also how we can move away from Portland parks owning land and get back to or get to a place of Portland, the city of Portland owning land. Um because one of the the things that I think complicates this is that bureaus are, you know, we're we're we're not a city yet. We're 27 bureaus out of trco and uh I would love to get to a place where yeah. And I know that's a priority for you as well, mr. City administrator. Thank you.
82 Thank you, councelor canel. Councelor pleini.
83 Thank you, council president. What outreach was done to the neighbors? It is striking to me that um folks who have had an empty lot next to them have no opinion about this, whether positive or negative. I I've seen situations with neighbors who feel strongly one way or another, but we're not hearing anything today.
84 Yeah. So, before the initial public hearing in April, there was a notice sent by mail to all property owners within 400 ft of the site as well as to neighborhood association district coalition and there was a sign posted in front of the property advertising to the public hearing with where to get more information on how to attend. So, I would have thought too that people would have been um more curious or concerned, but I I did get some questions. So, I know that there were some people who were aware of this, but I did not. No one is correct that it was uh just mr. Hagermanerman and myself at the last hearing that none of the neighbors came or provided testimony.
85 But you received questions from neighbors who wanted more information, clarification.
86 Yeah. Uh there was one neighbor who asked about whether, you know, how the property would be marketed and what the price might be. And mr. Mr. Hagman responded at the first hearing that wasn't decided yet. Uh I think I got a phone call from another person just asking some general questions about the process I think but nothing nothing more than that.
87 The notifications though it sounds like made it clear to neighbors that this change would likely lead to a sale.
88 Yes, I think so. I mean because it was it talks about how it's for potential house or duplex of housing development in the future.
89 Okay.
90 In 2020 the sign was also on the lot. So when it originally went through a city disposition process, it was posted um and at that time um the sign did indicate that it would be sold on the open market, there were two, you know, the adjacent neighbors um you know, were were somewhat opposed to that. However, there was very high level of interest from the community to have that lot um be a house. Um so that we got a a lot of interest. It was just too big of a hurdle to risk having the reszone not work out for them. [clears throat]
91 Understood. And hearing that folks reached out um gives me confidence that the the outreach that the city did was sufficient for folks to understand what was happening here. I just want to note because it was brought up that um while I don't think this lot in particular is a great spot for a park or a garden. You have homes around it that generally have have yards that they could put gardens in, things like that. Um, I hope we can have a conversation between this council and parks about whether everything has to be the large full-scale full service model or whether it might make sense as we need more public Green space and more public garden space and things like that to have different sized models that work. Um, and I I look forward to having more of that conversation in the future. Thank you. Thank you, council president.
92 Thank you, councelor fleini. Councelor Green. Thank you, council president. So, this is a type three quasi judicial consideration. Is that what this is?
93 Uh, [clears throat] type four quasi judicial. So, meaning that it goes straight it's just a recommendation from the hearings officer and it goes straight to council. But yes, quasi judicial.
94 Okay. Um, I I appreciate
95 Oh, it's three.
96 It's yeah, it goes straight to council. Just type four is just demolition review. I apologize. So, we call it type three in terms of how we notice. Is that correct, andy? All right. You were correct initially. I apologize.
97 I don't
98 Still come straight to council from the hearings officer.
99 Pretend like I didn't hear that I was correct. It'll get to [laughter] my head. Um, thank you.
100 Um, no, colleagues, this this feels pretty straightforward. Um, this is in my district. I've walked this neighborhood. I know that the sort of constituents I have in this neighborhood would be acutely aware of a sign of public notice. Um, these are things that happen a lot at our neighborhood association meetings. Um it's a big topic of discussion whenever there's a proposed development or proposed land use change. So if we haven't heard anything from the adjacent property owners, uh it's not because we failed to do outreach on this. I'm pretty confident that uh we've we've properly noticed this. Um in terms of the open land, um you know, this is right next to forest park and forest park is massive and I think we've got a lot of that going on as part of this. So I don't think we need this 5,000 foot parcel as part of that. Um, in terms of the access and continuity, if you just walk around the block, you get to lower mlay park trail head. So, there's plenty of opportunity there. And so, um, I think what we don't want is just a vacant lot that just sits as a vacant lot for time in memorial. Um, so if there's an opportunity to turn that into productive use, I fully support that. It looks like from the aerial photos, there is like sort of an above ground swimming pool there. Um, I don't know. So, maybe the neighbors want to get together, pitch in by the lot, and make their own little block party uh pool, and that's something that they should do. Um, but in if we're thinking about the resources that we have in the parks bureau to support parks programming in new parks, I much prefer investing in slab town to get that thing going than try to like do this 5,000 foot oneoff little park thing. So appreciate the concern for the district 4, but I I feel pretty confident that my constituents were noticed, we would have heard about it and uh looking forward to getting to a place where we can just approve this and turn unproductive land into productive land so people can have a place to live in our city. Thanks.
101 Thank you, council Green. Council Zimmerman.
102 What he said, we got this. Thank you very much. Um I mean it's a hill for god's sake, you guys. Like let's not overdo this. Like there comes a point where I mean I think we spent an hour and a half on an appointment earlier today. My god. Um like this is this is a straightforward I I was trying to be funny with the r5 to open space to r5 and the switcheroo that we're doing in a seven eight year period, right? But we got this. It this is a neighborhood who I'm pretty sure has their neighborhood association meetings in somebody's living room. So there's a an acute awareness of everything going on. I have zero concerns for engagement on this. I have zero concerns with moving it to r5. It looks like it meets all the criteria and I think that we should move uh to support this change. Thank you.
103 Thank you, councelor Zimmerman. Seeing no one else in the queue, colleagues, I am going to close the evidentiary record. Uh the evidentiary record in this hearing is now closed. This means council will accept no more oral or written testimony on the land use appeal. And I am going to move that the council up tentatively uphold the recommendations of the hearings officer and ask that the uh applicant and staff return with revised findings.
104 Second.
105 Councelor clerks. Vice president Clark seconds. Is there any discussion of the motion?
106 Can we move to a roll call vote on this then please? This requires seven affirmative votes to pass.
107 Calling the vote on 2026-242 moved by council president duny. Seconded by council vice president clarkain
108 I
109 Mario
110 I
111 Novik.
112 Hi
113 Clark.
114 Hi
115 Green.
116 Hi
117 Zimmerman.
118 Hi
119 Avalos.
120 Hi
121 Smith.
122 Hi
123 Panel. I
124 Purleiny
125 I
126 Ryan
127 I
128 Duny
129 I
130 Motion is approved with a 12 I vote
131 Okay the motion to uphold the hearings officer's recommendation has passed 12 to o and the applicant application is tentatively granted this matter will return to council on August 6 Thursday August 6th at 2:00 p.m. I'm certain for the adoption of the findings and a final vote. Thank you very much for everybody for being here today. Can we please move call item number nine?
132 Item nine, extend lease with urban office and parking facilities for the city kids childcare and development center space by 5 years. Amend clm contract 100014 document number two 2026-216.
133 Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Is there any further council discussion? Seeing none, keyn or rebecca, can we please call the role?
134 Pamelene,
135 I mario,
136 I novik,
137 I
138 Clark,
139 I
140 Green,
141 I
142 Zimmerman,
143 Hi
144 Avalos.
145 Hi,
146 Smith. I
147 Null
148 I
149 Hurleghini
150 I
151 Ryan
152 I
153 Duny
154 I
155 Uh the ordinance passes with 12 I votes.
156 Thank you very much. Can we please move to item number 10?
157 Item 10 amend vehicles and traffic code to clarify applicability of ride fees and establish a driver's resource center for transportation network company drivers. Amend code section 16.40.0 030 and 16.40.240 document number 2026-192.
158 Colleagues, this is a continued first reading of our uh of a non-emergency ordinance. We heard uh an initial presentation and public testimony on this previously and uh uh held over the remainder of the hearing until today. I am going to uh turn it over to councelor purle guinea uh to discuss introduction of a uh amendment.
159 Thank you council president. Colleagues, as the council president reminded us, we heard testimony on this item but didn't have time for debate. And when we last heard this item, I shared that we had received some concerns from particularly uber lift as well um about questions around the intent of the uh scope of a driver resource center. Their concerns were not reflective of the language in the ordinance, but I had said that we would work with them since we had that extra time to bring forward an amendment to create some clarification. You have before you today posted purlein novik 2. And because this is an amendment to a code amendment, there are two shades of red. So, I'm just going to draw your attention to the places where the changes are. Um, on the second page of the posted amendment to the ordinance, there is a new n which actually defines what deactivation means. So that that's clear. The second change, I'm sorry I don't have the page numbers in front of me on this one. Um, but if you go all the way to the part of code 16.424, 40240 c. It is about 2/ird of the way through. We are looking at a new section three. Wait, am I in the wrong I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong spot. We're going to h in that section and changes to h2 which will now say that um it it will provide some authority to the city administrator to designate a customer service supervisor or to to have designated for them a customer service supervisor so that it is clear who the city administrator through the city administrator, the driver resource center should work with within the tnc's to help drivers escalate concerns. Um, and I apologize, we are going backwards now to see in that section. A new three, a driver's resource center may be established to assist drivers in navigating deactivations or other account issues. And it clarifies a little bit more about what a driver resource center does, but the fact that the driver resource center does not exercise regulatory or adjudicatory authority, that was the main crux of the concern that lyft and uber raised. This amendment has been reviewed by the tnc's. Um they had a few other asks that didn't make it in here. So, I don't think it quite got them too excited about this ordinance, but it certainly neutralized their concerns. Uh it has been run by the drivers union leadership who are in the room with us today and who have expressed to my office that they are okay with these changes and it has been run by peabot to ensure that these are all workable and fit within what peabot uh currently does in running the program and what their assumptions are about their relationship with the driver resource center. Uh and we would ask for your support in adding this to the underlying um and ultimately in the underlying ordinance.
160 Thank you, council. And are you and are you formally moving this amendment?
161 Uh yes, I would move this amendment. Thank you.
162 Okay.
163 Second.
164 And councelor coy main seconds. Colleagues, discussion of the amendment. Councelor Green. Uh, thank you, council president. If you would permit, can I call someone from the driver's unit up to ask them if if there I mean, I saw some hand hand waves, but I'd love to I'd love to hear directly from you whether or not you support this amendment.
165 I'm happy to have them come on up.
166 Yeah,
167 Thank you. Councelor Green, joe jackson with drivers union. For the record,
168 Thank you for being here today and thanks for your sort of ongoing stalwart advocacy for your drivers. Um I know you've been working closely with these offices. Uh just want to hear it from you. Uh have you had a chance to review this amendment and do are you comfortable? Do you think this still meets what you're trying to achieve?
169 We have had a chance to review the amendment and we do believe that this will help us accomplish our goals.
170 Okay, that's all I need to hear. Thank you very much, council Green. Colleagues, further discussion of the amendment,
171 Vice president Clark.
172 Thank you, council president. I would just like to ask ca lee about from the administration's perspective, what do you have any thoughts about this? You are mentioned in here. Yes.
173 Yeah. I believe what's mentioned within this ordinance is stuff that we can carry through. So, no issues on the administration side. Council president, if I may clarify, the references in the new language to the city administrator are um the city administrator we assume would delegate powers or share information uh to peabot and through peabot to their contracted operator of the driver resource center. This is not meant to be additional work for the city administrator himself. Um but rather that uh technical nature of referring to the city administrator on behalf of the administration um to then delegate.
174 Thank you. Thank you, vice president Clark. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion of the amendment. Rebecca, can we please call the role on uh ple is it pearl giny novik one? Okay.
175 Uh is I believe it's plegy novik 2
176 Two.
177 It is plegy novik 2. We had a technical amendment
178 Preview.
179 That's right. Thank you. Good catch.
180 Uh calling the role on amendment e uh purleini novik 2 moved by councelor pleini. Seconded by councelor kyama. Coyama
181 I
182 Mario
183 I novik
184 I
185 Clark
186 I
187 Green
188 I
189 Zimmerman.
190 Hi
191 Avalos.
192 Hi
193 Smith. I
194 No
195 I
196 Ryan
197 I
198 Gunfy
199 I
200 The amendment is approved with 12 I votes.
201 Thank you very much. Now colleagues discussion of the underly now amended underlying ordinance. Vice president Clark
202 Good bill should pass.
203 Thank you vice president Clark. Councelor canel. Yeah, I want to thank the sponsors for bringing this forward. Colleagues, uh last year I put up a uh a budget note um proposal that didn't end up getting a vote um to to explore expanding the driver's resource program into a driver's uh resource center. Um and since then, uh obviously didn't get a chance to get it voted on then, but I'm really grateful that that work's been picked up and and carried forward. I also uh was going back over the the two amendments that were done in committee which both were were improvements as well. Um so just wanted to say thanks there um [clears throat] to I I don't remember who the sponsors were and I apologize if I'm if I'm leaving you out on it. Zimmerman was one and okay um [clears throat] yeah would uh would have loved to uh have known about it early enough to be a co-sponsor. Would have loved to to be able to to to support it in that way. Happy to vote yes on it and support it in the way we can. Thanks.
204 Thank you, councelor canel. Councelor Ryan.
205 Yeah, thank you. Uh, council president, this has been u because I'm in city life perhaps. You all have spent so much time here. Um, and I appreciate that. I'm I I would ask if the sponsors would be okay if we put an asterisk on this as an emergency. I'm sure we have nine votes and so you don't have to keep coming back for additional um times.
206 Do I have a second? Okay, cool.
207 Wait, what?
208 Oh, sponsors are cool.
209 All right.
210 Also, we will we'll need language specifically to uh designate why this is an emergency. Um, and we need that uh in writing, unfortunately.
211 I know
212 It's hardship that they have to keep coming here over and over and over again and not out there making money and serving the the public. And, you know, it's I feel like you could invoice us at this point. Um, [laughter]
213 So president.
214 Yeah. Good.
215 President.
216 Yes. Might an appropriate emergency be that um the right that that there are drivers who are facing um let me get my language totally correct. There are drivers who are facing deactivation every week in our city and that enacting this more quickly would allow for them to have the proper support um to address those deactivations more quickly. I think that's a a valid uh excuse for sure, but if somebody could please reduce that to writing so that we can uh move on it.
217 Ryan, you made a motion. Would you like to do that or would you like me to type that up?
218 Yeah, go ahead. I'm not used to this. You I we've been able to do this in the past.
219 I'm being a jerk about it.
220 I don't know about that, but [laughter] I think you might be taking it too seriously.
221 Well, I just want to make sure we have the exact language for for our clerk to to vote for.
222 So, all right. All right, two minutes on this and then
223 On it.
224 Great. Uh, in the interim, councelor Green. [clears throat]
225 Thank you, council president. Um, I will speak long enough for the [laughter] language to be drafted because I I will support an amendment to make it an emergency ordinance. Um, I can say that over the last decade or more, but probably acutely over the last decade, more and more of the labor market has shifted toward uh sort of 1099 or contractbased labor um in sectors that uh have very little protection um that are often times feast and famine uh when it comes to the the the the dollars that you earn. And I'll just share a vignette with a driver that I had a conversation with uh just the other night because I rode my bike to work and then it was in the middle of a heat wave and I was like, I'm not trying to ride this bike home. I forgot to charge it here. So, I took a lift home or I took an uber home and the entire the entire ride I I listened to the driver who was exacerbated about the economic conditions that that he faces and it's getting harder and harder and harder out there to just make ends meet. And so when you also look at the rest of the political world that we inhabit, whether we're talking about the local or the federal level, um you have people who are putting in the work every single day to try to provide for their families. And then we nickel and dime them on fees and you know, sir charges and the like. And sometimes we have to do that to pay for the infrastructure. But if we're not going to take one basic step to exercise our regulatory authority where we have it to provide some sort of bull work against the erosion of the protections that these workers have, um then we are failing those workers. And so it is an emergency in that regard because today you could be driving some picking someone up from the airport. You could be in good standing and tomorrow you can be de deactivated like that and there's no recourse and now your family has to deal with that
226 And now you are maybe at risk of losing your housing and then it then you get connected to the broader set of crises that we have in the city. And so to me this looks like a this feels like a minimum step we have to take. It's not the end of it. Um and there are a lot of workers who are in this sector now. Um and there's going to be other things that we talk about. Next week at the public works committee, we're going to hear some um some discussion on autonomous vehicles. We're going to have a conversation around that. And for me and for this body, we have to recognize that these these this landscape of policy is is all woven together. And so acting with the urgency that we need to in the moment and I want to thank the sponsors of the ordinance that you took the time to have the meetings that you needed to have with the drivers also at the tnc companies to get to a place where you can we can pass something that has a um a path to victory at this council. That that that's time out of your schedules that you you decided was a priority and I I commend you for that. Um, I also want I I want to give special accommodation to council Loretta Smith because uh a lot of these conversations began in the labor and workforce development committee and you always made room for the drivers. Uh not once, not twice, there were maybe five different meetings that we had that you guys raised the issue up and the counselor gave due air time for. And so a lot of that early work happened in that committee that no longer exists. So I'm really grateful that that continuity transferred to city life. Um and that um and that the the other counselors picked it up. And I'm sure by now there is some language uh that we can consider for an emergency ordinance. But I just think that if we want to think about economic development in the city of Portland, if we're not centering those of us who put in the work every single day, work long hours in dangerous conditions, um who spend most of our paychecks, um then we're not serious about economic development. So I just needed to name that. I wanted to thank you guys for what you do for portlanders and uh you've kept me out of trouble many times [laughter] uh when I should not be driving from point a to point b. I can pick up the phone, I can, you know, click a few buttons and I got a safe ride home. So, I appreciate you all. Thank you.
227 In a heat wave, right?
228 In a heat wave. Yeah.
229 May I uh do you need another 30 seconds? No. Okay.
230 You're [laughter] ready?
231 Okay.
232 But you're welcome to say response if you'd like.
233 Thank you. Uh for the record, nathaniel hudson hartman. I use hehim pronouns. I've been a ride share driver for over nine years now and a proud uh advocate uh on behalf of drivers with drivers union Oregon. I just want to say thank you all so much. I'm like just overcome with emotion to think, you know, to not quite prepared for this to become an emergency ordinance. I've learned that now that can become a thing. That's really cool. Um, but just to think of the last year, how far we've come. And I just want to appreciate and recognize everyone who was in this building last week that recognizes that this is the start. This is not the end. We have so much that we need to accomplish to help our community. And it's just um great to be getting this off of the ground and looking forward to collaborating um and and doing, you know, so much more uh to help our community. So, thank you all. Thank you very much. Uh, councelor canel.
234 Yes. I forgot to mention I actually asked I was uh traveling um over the course of earlier this month and I asked um I asked uh two drivers in los angeles uh about a driver's resource center because I have uh things that aren't work to talk about and I do that but I also talk about work even when I'm traveling. Uh, and both of them, the level of enthusiasm that they had was really, really interesting. And I don't know what it's like in la, so in the the broader economic conditions of of a driver there, but it was really fascinating to me. Um, and it was like, do that, do that immediately and then help us get one here.
235 Um, so you might get reached out to by some folks uh for for advice uh after this and um from our numbers
236 And uh cool. Uh, and I just wanted to to say that and and um, you know, I tend to take uh, ride share a lot more when I'm traveling, but I I do occasionally here as well. And and it's um it's something I've asked locally earlier also. But it was it was great to see that um, that that's a common ex well, it's not great. It's actually very bad that that's a a common set of experiences that make people around the country want there to be uh, localized drivers resource centers in their communities. So, um, but but the existence of that and our knowledge of it gives us, I think, a little context that I thought would be helpful to share.
237 Thank you, councelor canel. Councelor plegine.
238 Thank you, council president. Uh, you all should have an amendment in your inboxes that devon sent at 256. Thank you to everybody for creating the time there. It's listed as Ryan 1. Councelor Ryan, are you comfortable with that?
239 Yeah. Yeah. We're always working with deon.
240 Perfect. Um, and council president, I really just wanted to take a minute to thank the drivers, both the leadership who are here in the room and the folks who are out on the streets every day and not in the room, uh, for your patience because this has been a long time coming and it's it's about bread and butter for your folks, right? This is about people's ability to advocate for their needs in the workplace in [snorts] a successful way. Um, and that is a really hard thing to work for. So, thank you for your patience as we made sure we got it right so it can be something that is sustaining. Um, and then I wanted to thank the folks who have supported this along the way, including all those who have been shouted out and all of the co-sponsors on the amendment, and I know a lot of other counselors have been involved in this work and and have been interested in the work even if their names aren't on it as well. So, I just want to make sure that we're spreading that credit around. And then thanks as well to folks at uh peabot who have worked with us to make sure that the way we word this fits in with the regulatory body of work that already occurs. Thank you.
241 Thank you very much. And councelor Ryan, would you like to formally move Ryan one?
242 Sure.
243 Just read this.
244 The council declares that an emergency exists due to the ongoing deactivation of ride share drivers in Portland. Immediate implementation of the deactivation requirements and establishment of the resource center are necessary to provide timely protections, support, and due process to affected drivers. Council Ryan moves Ryan one. Is there a second?
245 Second.
246 Oo, that was a lot of I don't even know who that could possibly be. Um,
247 I'm going to say a mario.
248 There we go. Colleagues, is there further discussion of Ryan one? I see some concerned looks from my friends over here. You guys okay? Okay.
249 Just the second was mario.
250 We're gonna call it mario.
251 Thank you.
252 Yeah. Cool. Colleagues, discussion of Ryan one. Councelor novik. No.
253 Councelor purleini. No. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue for discussion of Ryan one, can we please call the role? Uh, calling the role on the motion to add an emergency clause to document 2026-192 as shown in Ryan 1, moved by Ryan, seconded by mario. Quoamlain
254 I
255 Mario,
256 You have done enough. I
257 Novik,
258 I
259 Green,
260 I
261 Zimmerman.
262 Hi,
263 Avalos.
264 Hi,
265 Smith.
266 Hi,
267 Canel.
268 Hi,
269 Furle guinea.
270 Hi,
271 Ryan.
272 Hi,
273 Dunkey. I
274 And the amendment is approved with 12 I votes.
275 Okay. Colleagues, to the now newly amended emergency ordinance, councelor novik.
276 Thank you, mr. President. I just wanted to echo what nathaniel said and to say that this is a really important step, but it's the appetizer. Uh the ordinance on compensation will be the entree and councelor purlein and the other sponsors and the drivers and peabot are working together to ensure that that entree will be as nourishing and delicious as possible. Thank you, councelor novik. Colleagues, is there further discussion of the now amended emergency ordinance? Seeing no one in the queue,
277 Rebecca, could we please call the role?
278 Calling the role on emergency ordinance.
279 Requires nine votes to pass.
280 Document number 2026192. Quamaly
281 Proud to vote. I
282 Mario
283 I.
284 Novik
285 I.
286 Ark.
287 I.
288 Green.
289 I.
290 Zimmerman. I
291 Avalos.
292 Very proud of the advocates. Good job. I
293 Smith.
294 I
295 Guiney.
296 I
297 Ryan.
298 I
299 Dunfy.
300 Congratulations all. I
301 Passes with 12 I votes.
302 Thank you all very much. Can we please call item number 12 now?
303 Uh
304 Wait 11. Item 11.
305 I jumped ahead.
306 Item 11.
307 11. Thank you. Item 11, amend partial and full exemptions of system development charges for affordable housing developments code to temporarily remove income requirements for home ownership units. Amend code section 30.01.095 document number 2026-205.
308 Thank you very much. Colleagues, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Uh claire adams with council operations is supposed to be here, I believe. Well, council president, I was going to ask since this was continued. We already did the
309 Oh, we did do that already, didn't we? Yeah. Well, I'm just going to turn over to councelor Avalos then very briefly if you have any other remarks to catch us up or we can jump into uh
310 No, I said it all in the in my last time, so I don't have anything else to add. Thanks.
311 Sounds good. Perfect. Thank you. Um, so colleagues, there are a number of amendments that have been proposed. I see two specifically. Um, I'd like to turn it over to councelor purleini to introduce hers.
312 Thank you, council president. I raised some concerns when this was before us in committee because um [clears throat] we you know the let me take a step back. The discussion around this in committee was around um the fact that perhaps the work we had done on other sdc proposals had made it harder to sell these houses. Then as we got into some of the details of the discussion, it became clear that we were actually looking at a challenge around the market and a challenge around um finding the right buyers for these houses. I feel strongly that if we lay out a policy, a policy that folks who make what is in this case an average wage for our community should have the opportunity to find a home that is affordable to them to buy. That we shouldn't undo that policy because the homes aren't selling. We should lean into the policy and figure out why they're not selling and provide the tools necessary to ensure that they can sell. Having raised that concern, I didn't think it was fair to come to council without some proposal to try to move us in that direction. So, working with councelor coyama Lane, thank you for your um partnership on this. Um, I have an amendment for us to consider today that does two things. Rather than simply remove the income requirement before us, go from an income requirement of 100% of median area median income to homes available for anybody, we stair step it. If a home isn't selling, let's allow a a slightly higher income level individual an opportunity to try to purchase it. 120% after 60 days, 140% after 120 days, and then if a home is still on the market after 180 days, remove that income requirement altogether. But at the same time, let's lean into the policy itself and ensuring the policy can work. And so this amendment does two other things in the uh therefore parts of the the code change before us that first was a change to the code to the exhibit. But in the therefore portions of the language before us, add a b and a c. And b would say that the would direct the city administrator and through the city administrator, the housing bureau to identify funds that may be used for down payment assistance. Again, to lean into that policy, what do we need to do to make these homes actually affordable for individuals who make 100% of median income? And to report back to us by October 1st what funds might be available for that work. Um what the balance of those funds are and if there are any current planned or reasonably anticipated uses for those funds. What would this work be competing against and is it something that we think is more or less important than this topic so that we can make some decisions there. And then second in the the new c, it asks the housing bureau again through the city administrator to [clears throat] market these programs because another piece we have heard is that the appropriate buyers for these homes, folks at that income level are not always getting the information about the programs that are available to them. Um a significant amount of marketing already happens through our housing bureau, but to make sure that we are doing that work to the fullest extent practicable and looking at places where we might be able to have better coordination with lenders and real estate professionals so that individuals at 100% of uh median income or if a house doesn't sell 120 140%. Know that these opportunities exist so that we can lean into the policy choice we've made in the past rather than scrapping it.
313 Thank you. Council,
314 Are you wanting us to move amendments now or sure.
315 Okay. I would move uh pleini quayama Lane one.
316 There we go.
317 Councelor plegine moves. Councelor coyama seconds.
318 [clears throat]
319 Colleagues, discussion of pleg guinea coyama Lane one. Councilor coyama Lane.
320 Thanks. So when this item was discussed at committee, my first questions were around how eliminating the income limit would negatively impact families, specifically families that would qualify under the current income limit and make it harder for those families making 128,300 or less to complete to compete and purchase a home. Um, you know, after asking quite a bit of questions in committee, I'm not convinced that we should completely remove the income requirement entirely. And I think this amendment does do a good job of introducing a phase or laddered timeline that makes a window for families that are at or near the mfi threshold to find ways to purchase these homes. Um, I think this amendment preserves the original purpose of the affordable housing sdc exemption program and also expands at the same time the pool of qualified buyers for these homes in in this lattered phased way. So, I would appreciate the support from my colleagues.
321 Thank you, councelor coalain. Um, I put myself in the queue. I had a couple of technical sort of clarifying questions on this. Um, do we know that I mean what the level of administrative uh burden would be of implementing something like this? Um, I'm worried about well we've heard repeatedly that the housing bureau staff are uh very tight in their time and this seems like a a pretty heavy burden. Um,
322 I'm happy to share the communication that we got from the housing bureau director who I see coming up as well. Essentially what I would say is the our our staff have my staff have worked with the housing bureau and this proposal is not without an administrative burden. You're right. This proposal certainly uh is makes it a little more difficult to do the verification. There is a verification that already exists that um 100% of ami verification. So compared to the underlying which removes that alto together it's a significant administrative burden compared to the status quo what we have without moving this ordinance. Um is it fair to describe it as a slightly greater administrative burden because there are those checkpoints um on a check that already happens. I would contend that there are large challenges right now to folks ability to um afford a home. And I think the decision that we need to make today is whether we want to continue to prioritize that policy and whether we're willing to accept a small additional administrative burden to do so or whether that policy um affordable home ownership for folks making the average wage in our community is not a policy priority at this time. And do just sort of following up on that, do you think that um I mean do we have a sense of the the number of existing homes as of right this second that are uh that this would apply to?
323 Yeah. We I want I think I know the number but I want to make sure I guess somewhere in that two around 200 to 400 homes that this could apply to. I can't remember. So,
324 Thank you. So, just to clarify, um I'm dory helier and I manage the development incentives programs and it was how many homes do we believe fall within this category? Yeah, we're estimating um around 2 to 400 depending on current status of ones that are pending for sale.
325 That's like 200 to 400 like physical buildings that exist in Portland today.
326 Yes. That are just sort of vacant or unable to move. And just so I'm clear, no one is currently building under this program right now since we have a a citywide sdc waiver. Is that right?
327 We do um receive a handful of applications still when um developers are seeking other incentives that are related such as for a exemption of tree fees. And um there are others still building under the same requirements in order to receive a tax exemption that benefits the buyers and some other benefits associated with that.
328 And uh recognizing that there is as councelor plein said there's an administrative burden. Um do you think that you would your bureau would require additional resources or would have to stop doing other things in order to prioritize this? So, councelor um quisha light for the record light interim director. I think if we look at this program just by itself, that's one thing, but the reality is is that dory's team is managing multiple programs. And so when you add programs that have all these distinctions and nuances within them, that's when for us the administrative burden comes in because you're adding on to multiple programs that already exist and they all have all these nuances. And dory has a small team that is trying and their map of these programs is honestly something you know that should be hanging on a wall in in an art museum because it does not is is it is a web of if this then this if this then this if this then this and so yes resourcing resources would be necessary to keep doing these things.
329 Thank you uh councelor maria. [snorts] uh, thank you, council president. Um, can we have matt gander come up as well to answer some questions on the just I just have some questions on the language of the amendment. Um, I I think I'm curious for the the sponsors of the amendment why it's so specific to say it says additional down payment assistance rather than writing something that's a little bit more general because my understanding is that title 30 tends to be about general affordable housing support. Um, and I understand that there's an emphasis on home ownership that we're trying to strike, but I also feel like there are so many challenges in the affordable housing space generally that I'm kind of wondering if we should make that a little bit more general. So, I guess first that's my question for legislative intent from you and then I I'll have some questions for matt. The policy intent here was that because we are looking at loosening the income requirements for a homeownership program, we look simultaneously at providing additional assistance for folks who are seeking to um undertake home ownership under this program. We didn't specifically call out this program when we talked about down payment assistance uh because that seemed like it would get too narrow. But the goal here was to say if this program is not working as is. And if the reason it's not working as is because there are not people who can afford these homes, let's address why people can't afford the homes through down payment assistance rather than raise the income requirement. That was why it was focused on the the ownership side and not on affordable housing more broadly.
330 Gotcha. Um, anything you want to add? The only thing I wanted to add is it was hard for me to understand and get clear answers if this home ownership program wasn't working or if there were developers that felt like we got in line and the rules were one way and and when we got in line, we had to make sure that there were income requirements for when we sold these buildings, sold these units. Um, but now you made an sdc waiver for everyone. So, we wanted we don't want to have to jump through those same hoops. Um, the rules changed when we got in line. Um, it was unclear how when I asked questions how many of these buildings how long they had been on on the market, it was said that, you know, right next door there's going to be buildings where people don't have to do the same income requirements, but we just passed that sdc waiver in the fall. So, it was unclear, are there really buildings side by side? Um, and are we taking opportunities off the market for people who who can't afford um who are who are at this this level and would be able to buy a home because they qualify for their because of their salary or not.
331 Gotcha. Okay, that's helpful context. I think what uh I I like the amendment generally. I think what I based on what you said and I would like to hear from you as well, mr. Vander um is that the to me it would make sense to change that part into and making it more general. So I think I would change the language instead of um additional down payment assistance to instead say affordable housing support opportunities. Um is there any reason attorney why we shouldn't make it more general like that or do you think that would work either way?
332 I think either way is fine. Uh matt gander for the record. Um, do you have any preference for either? [clears throat]
333 No.
334 Okay. Thank you.
335 Thank you, council mario. Councelor Green.
336 Thank you, mr. President. Um, having a little trouble with the amendment and it's not for lack. I I know that you guys are well-intentioned and you're you're trying to make you're trying to get to a place where your concerns are assuaged with this and I I see that here. Um, I think the thing I'm concerned about is my understanding of this dynamic is that through accidents of history, through maybe um the fact that we weren't thinking broadly enough when we did an sdc exemption, we placed a new hurdle on an already strained market condition. Um you have high interest rates and you've got soft demand and it is hard to find an a capable buyer in this market. And so if you've got new construction that's basically at par, um then you're going to have all this other stock under this other program that's going to lieow for for for a while while this other stuff gets sold. And my concern with that dynamic is the the segment of the market that's being served by this um kind of means um home home ownership prop um uh home ownership uh opport you know uh production. Um we risk those providers going belly up and they they bring with them capabilities that um that serve this target population. So they bring with them the ability to market and work with lenders to work through the paperwork to make sure that uh folks know about these opportunities. And if if they go out of business because we can't kind of correct the uneven playing field that we created, then that's capability that we've lost that we need to try to get back somehow when the market does pick up and then there is more demand chasing a tighter supply of housing. Um, and it also means that they don't have the ability to recycle their capital into a new pipeline of development and take advantage of some of the other uh residential infill project and maybe god willing the inner east side for all project um to ramp up production. So, I think if we I think this amendment makes it more difficult for them to dispose of their properties. And I think we would require, if I'm looking at section b of the directive part of the um resolution or the ordinance, it looks like it's repurposing scarce resources to then uh focus on these these types of properties that would have other otherwise go to programs like the northn northeast preference policy or some of the other kind of home ownership efforts that we were trying to cultivate and develop. And colleagues, it down payment assistance dollars don't go very far. They really don't. Uh and so if you if you take that capital out and you say that's a priority, um we just had a presentation the housing committee on the northn northeast preference policy um work over the last decade and it's good work. The message though in there was that we need more money for down payment assistance. And so I'm worried that if we if we say we want to prioritize down payment assistance for those at or below 100% median to help solve this problem, um then we're going to pull resources away from that northn northeast preference policy problem. Um the other piece is uh the underlying ordinance has two protections that uh preserve I think the intent here. It's a there's a sale price cap on 400,000. You're not in a situation where someone's some wealthy person is going to come in and speculate and bid up the price of this house. It is capped at 400,000. So there might be a queuing problem, but we are in a soft market. So there is not much of a queueing problem. Um the other piece is this can't be a speculative investment property. This is supposed to be your your primary residence. So, I think if we were to adopt this amendment, um it would add more reporting requirements and actually further complicate the ability of the there's like three different trunches of incomes to check and it further complicates the ability of these um developers to sign contracts to get these things off of their books so they can get into the business of developing the next property. And we need a lot more housing bill. And so, uh I'm not not supportive of the amendment as it stands. I I'm just seeing it. I'm still digesting it. I'll I'll listen to the the balance of the conversation, but um I want to note that these are not large, greedy developers. These are very small boutique developers who operate on very thin margins. And um bankruptcy is real and liquidation is a is a policy choice we could choose, but that's much closer to kind of like free market economics than it is something else. And so, uh that's my understanding of the of the of the dynamic and the state of play here. And that that's why I'm hesitant to um support the amendment even though I know I know what you're trying to do is to serve the people I care about too.
337 So I'll just kind of leave it there for now. And if folks want to like grill me too, I'm happy to be in cross dis dialogue and defend my case. But um I'll leave it there for now.
338 Council president, may I respond? Sure. Is that okay?
339 Yeah. I appreciate what you shared and um I think it's trying to find the the how to thread the needle with balancing the the importance of what you just said, developers being able to dispose of properties and also making sure that homes that were built with the intention of them being for families who meet certain qualifications that they also have access to those. So I do see this as um an attempt at a compromise between just lifting all of those in income requirements and then you know having the ones that are holding back certain families to ex accessing these homes. Um I see that as some sort of in between and what I felt in our committee is I could not see that there were steps taken in between that um and that the the solution was really just to lift the caps. So that is why I feel more comfortable with there being certain stages thank you, councelor. Councelor Smith.
340 Thank you, council president. Um, I agree with uh, councelor Green because I'm looking through uh, my district and my district has new properties that have been on the market for 245 days, 336 days, 246 and they range in between 220,000 a year to um 349,000 a year. And so those are and these are brand new properties. Uh no one is buying them. And so that may work in district two where you have a different um you have different residents there that can afford different types of uh levels of of housing. But for my district, if you're talking about some of these folks who are developers, they can't they need their capital stack to build. They can't wait 245 day days, 330 over a year for some of these folks. And adding some of these uh restrictions and this amendment um is going to make it very difficult for those folks and you know and they may not even and let me tell you the the zip codes they're in. 97220 97236 97230 and 97233 uh and 97266 out in uh lint. So they can't um afford to keep their capital in in a project and not sell these these uh type of uh of uh units. And I think it would make it much more difficult and they'd be in the same position that they're in right now. So, I wouldn't be supporting it. Um, councelor purleini, I am a big fan of trying to make sure that people who are at the 60 percentile to the 120 percentile that they're able to buy homes, but this is going to put a huge burden on a group of folks who build these kinds of houses and it's not going to be good for us. Thank you.
341 Thank you, councelor Smith. Councelor Ryan.
342 Thank you, council president. Uh, I agree with much of what was just said by councelor Smith and earlier by councelor Green. The people who approached the housing committee as I recall and then worked with dc alivera. Um, I recall justin wood. Um, and I can't remember the name of the the construction firm, but it doesn't matter. It's he's the one that's been doing this this work for a long time. Did you have conversations with the actual builders? You know, this was brought forward by the committee chair as something that she had been working on. Uh there was one builder who testified, but there was not a a significant number of folks there. So, no, we did not in developing this work directly with those builders. What we tried to do was uh balance the intent of the program, the calls for the change we had heard and make sure with the bureau that it was workable. I try to generally work with stakeholders, but because there wasn't a big stakeholder group there, we were told this had come from the chair, we didn't have those groups to work with.
343 Okay. I think this does get up supply and this amendment goes against the spirit of just trying to make a simple fix for a very specific policy and now we could be adding a new unintended consequence. And sadly, this council has had a history of adding these type of amendments that add unintended consequences that have impacted the supply of housing in the city of Portland and low-income housing specifically. So, I can't support this um amendment. Thanks.
344 Thank you, councelor Ryan. Councelor novik.
345 Thank you, mr. President. Um I echo what councelor Green and councelor Smith have said. Um I also want to say that uh a concern I've heard is that in this housing market um there's properly priced homes available to people who meet the income requirements who would prefer to buy those homes because meeting as I think councelor Avalos said proving that you're poor is a pain in the neck. So I think that's something I used to work on medicaid eligibility issues. I mean it's really familiar with how much of a pain in the neck it is to prove that you're poor. So I think that's another factor to be considered. [snorts] thank you, councelor novik. Councelor pleini.
346 Thank you, council president. I wanted to just address a couple of things that uh have been called out in testimony and I also want to be clear that this solution is not an elegant solution. I recognized that uh we were trying to figure out how to address the need that was brought forward while still maintaining the policy goals of the underlying program and there wasn't an elegant way to do that. Uh but I do want to note that in the amendment to the exhibit the language around number of days is after a property is listed on the market. So the concern that councelor Green raised and those homes that councelor Smith identified, homes that had been on the market for 245, 336, 246 days are all well past that 180day marker. If this amendment were to pass and the underlying ordinance were to pass, those would all be eligible to sell at um to any buyer without any income restriction because the language is not tied to the passage of this amendment and this ordinance, but rather to when properties were listed on the market. And that was done very intentionally knowing that we have a backlog, but that this applies to properties built over a period of time. Uh a a timet capped period of time, but nonetheless one that's extensive enough that we might have properties that fall into each of those different tiers of um tiers of days on the market right now. I also can I I'm sorry I would like to flag one other thing which is that the uh upper portions of the amendment specifically uh section b does not redirect any funding. It simply asks what's available so that we can make an informed decision about whether this is a program whose underlying policy goals we still want to lean into or whether we don't. And to suggest that this would pull money from other programs, particularly from the north and northeast housing preference policy program where we have heard loud and clear. Uh more down payment assistance is absolutely needed is this does no such thing. This identifies sources and allows us to make informed decisions later. I would contend that we should be looking at ways to support home ownership across programs that already exist more robustly. Thank you.
347 Thank you, councelor plegine. Councelor canel.
348 Thank you. Uh technical question then a substantive one. Um technical question for the administrator. Uh October 1st, 2026 is proposed here. Are there any concerns on that?
349 I'm not sure. I had to defer to staff to kind of answer that one if there's any concerns on that one.
350 I would say the challenge that we have right now is we have unified housing strategy, we have social housing report, we have a whole bunch of things that are coming due at the same time. Um, and I didn't think about all of that until I was sitting here and the date was set again. I was like, "oh my gosh, October. No, that's not good for us." um, so I would say we it would be good to have that moved out some because we have a lot right now.
351 Okay. I appreciate that uh answer and and um I'll leave it to the the amendment sponsors to to work on that. I I just kind of need a little bit more on the the concerns around northn northeast preference policy because that obviously got uh everybody's uh attention I think and um and I just love to get a little bit more from councelor Green as to the the concern because I'm not on that committee so I don't have that context. Uh but what I do I do see like a plain text reading doesn't have any moving money but I I'm curious if I can get a little bit more there um at some point you know the up to you whether you want to do it now or in the queue. Thanks.
352 Thank you counselor. Did you want to respond?
353 I'm I'm happy to and councelor proini I appreciate you clarifying the intent of sections b and c. I had misread that as more of a directive to reallocate. So that's I apologize. Um it is confusing however to put that in there as part of this. And so as long as we're clear that that the other parts of the amendment are not con dependent upon some sort of report of findings here. Is that what I'm understanding? The intent, and I will look to the attorney who reviewed this to make sure that that is um how our legal council would interpret it as well, is that if the amendment were to pass, the underlying ordinance would do three things. It would adopt a code change in exhibit a, and the amendment provides some changes to that code change. Uh, it would direct the bureau through the city administrator to bring us a report on funds that could be used for down payment assistance again to help us keep the policy goal here by October 1st. And if that date needs to be changed, that's okay. Obviously, in an ideal world, we would have those funds before we lifted any income restrictions so that the two things could work in partnership, but that didn't feel um workable to tie together. So they're they're operating on different timelines here. [snorts] uh and the third is that it would ensure through c that we are marketing to the fullest extent practicable including with our lenders and real estate professionals. Uh some of which is certainly already happening. I don't want to diminish that at all, but make sure that we're maximizing it. So those are three separate things that code change in exhibit a and then the two new uh requirements which all operate independently but are related to ensuring that this program can be successful.
354 Okay, that that's helpful. And so I will I will concede that passage of this amendment wouldn't necessarily follow that there would be a redirection of funds from you know efforts like the northn northwest policy. But I do raise it because um we did hear that uh sort of um state state of the program presentation in the housing and permanent committee recently and the big takeaway was we have spent significant resources under that policy um for the purpose of building home ownership opportunities for the target population. And it's still several dozen to 100 some odd households. And that's not a lot. It those h it's meaningful for those households, but for the scale of the money, we're talking maybe about something like 300 to $400,000 per unit. And that's that's the assistance that's necessary all in to make sure that you put someone in that house uh and and meet the intent. And so I get nervous every time we try to solve a policy gap by saying, "well, we need more down payment assistance, especially in a market where um if we don't make hey, while the sunshine and and try to sell off and kind of dispose from the balance sheets the the real property that that was paid for on a previous lowerc cost paradigm, then we're going to be getting into a situation where we have to chase um more expensive goods with scarce dollars. And I'm always going to be really hesitant of that piece. And so the reason why I'm supporting the unmended underlying is it provides what I think is a much lower cost mechanism to allow these developers to move forward and sell these houses for like 20 to 30,000 a pop maybe instead of a couple hundred thousand a pop. Um and so that way they can hit the reset switch and go out and try to um try to build something new. So that's the basic underlying logic for me. Um uh I I did feel it necessary to kind of correct my earlier statements on the sort of tight linkage of the redirect of the funding because I had misread that. So thanks for clarifying that. Um but uh my my other concerns around the other thresholds and the two more stages of testing means is I I don't see how that results in solving the problem frankly. But um uh I got to think a little bit more about what you said earlier, counselor, about you you mentioned something about the timelines and the time hacks and you're saying that there's no effective difference here because if there's if most of these houses are already been on the market for 180 days or so, then maybe there's no point. But I'm just seeing this resolution before we walked in here. So I'm I'm trying to process the things that you've said. So I'll shut up and process.
355 I appreciate that clarification. I think I still have the yeah. Um and I I share some of the uh the questions around well I'll say concerns about means testing broadly but that's the whole thing. Uh so as it is as it would be amended and as it would be amending the amendment. Um I since we were talking about the north northeast preference policy and since there is this piece here about actively marketing affordable housing programs. I don't think it necessarily needs to be uh changed textually. If uh if this amendment should pass, I would I would hope that this is that we're doing culturally specific marketing as well. Um and I just wanted to get that on the record while I have the floor. Thanks.
356 Thank you, councelor kell. Councelor mario.
357 Um thank you, council president. Yeah, just listening to this discussion, I definitely am leaning more towards the analysis that I think councilors novik um and Green have outlined. And I think to councelor or to council president duny's point, uh I am a little bit concerned that phb's capacity is reaching a limit. I'm definitely hearing you with all the reports we're making you do. And I expect that if and when this report comes out, the first question that we're going to have to answer is, are these funding sources for down payments also going to apply to this home ownership opportunity or this affordable housing opportunity? And that's sort of forcing phb to do that same work again. Um, and I think the some of the language is also just a little bit inongruent. Like in section c, it says marketing on affordable housing, but then in b, it says a detailed report on down payments specifically. So, um, because of that, I think I'm just leaning towards supporting the underlying without this unless uh, but I'm open to changing my mind as I listen to other folks talk about this a bit more. Thanks.
358 Thank you, councelor mario. Colleagues, just a programming note. We will get through this amendment. We're going to take a restroom break, come back for an additional amendment. Uh, and then councelor Avalos.
359 Yeah, thank you. Good discussion. Um, like I have said before, I spent a lot of time trying to understand the problem with the ordinance and what it was trying to solve. Um, and we heard that essentially the issue isn't the income limit. It's that these homes are competing against similarly priced homes that are built under that broader sdc exemption that doesn't require the verification. So, I don't see how this amendment is addressing that. Raising the income limit doesn't solve that competitive disadvantage. It also doesn't address the broader affordability challenges that we're seeing with today's interest rates. And so I see the way that the ordinance is written without the amendment is um it's affecting about 200 homes, but it's still preserving important protections like the sale price caps, the owner occupancy requirements, and many of those homes are also going to be incomerestricted through other phb programs. So I think that the ordinance addresses the problem we're actually trying to solve, and I will be voting no on the amendment and yes on the ordinance. Thanks.
360 Thank you, councelor abalos, vice president clerk.
361 Thank you, council president. Just really briefly, I I appreciate the intent of the two um amendment co-sponsors, but I thought that we had the underlying ordinance was really an elegant, simple solution to just moving the inventory. And um I I don't have a problem with that and especially given what uh my colleague councelor Green has said and I don't want to put any more administrative burdens and make this more difficult for the housing bureau. So I'm I'm going to vote no on the amendment.
362 Thank you, vice president Clark. Councelor Smith.
363 Thank you, council president. I want to go back and answer one of council councelor purlein's um issues. And so she said since these these projects are over 246 under, you know, in days that they would be eligible to uh to buy at a higher rate. But this is my point exactly. They've had to wait already 246 days. If that was lifted like 150 days ago, that would be okay. But apparently the people who can buy these houses in this price point, they're not doing it. There are other people who want this house who who may make a little bit more money, but they're not able to buy them. So that is the other issue, leaving stock. I mean in most play I remember a time in Portland where if you had a brand new house under 349,000 220,000 195,000 the minute that you put it on it would be gone before you could uh get off work. So that doesn't that doesn't help for me. I I still think that it's adding too much administrative um bureaucracy on this program and uh we need to help folks right now sell these houses now.
364 Thank you, councelor Smith. Councelor Zimmerman,
365 Thank you. I have a ton of concerns about this entire underlying, but to the amendment, I think that this thread about making something more complicated is is gaining traction for me. Apologies for some harsh comments, but right now my faith is not in the housing bureau, right? I have a lot of concerns about the future of the housing bureau and the ability to execute programs and so making something more complicated is not something I feel like can be executed well. And so I I I would have concerns here. Um the inability to just get straight answers from the housing bureau, from home forward, from the entire affordable housing industry right now, I think is leading us to try and shoehorn in some solutions without a lot of straight answers on the problem we're trying to solve. And that's a problem. And so, uh I do see the intent here for those sponsors. I like I said, I'm not I'm not sure I even like the underline that much. Um I care a lot about these income restrictions and and I'm not sure what what solution we think we will have done at the end of this, but this amendment having a cascading of different times and different amounts is I I guess I'm just I'm missing the how it gets implemented and actually makes any difference. And so like that's where I'm challenged right now. Councelor.
366 Thank you, councelor Zimmerman. Councelor pogini.
367 Thank you, council president and colleagues. Thank you for your feedback. There have been a lot of things said about this underlying that are very interesting to me and and a lot of reasons for its need that have been pointed out, but I think that I think it was counselor Clark who really laid out what it seemed to me the underlying was for, which is just move inventory. And when I saw the underlying before me and the reasons for it that were brought forward that it's too hard to verify people's income that people who can um buy these houses under the restrictions maybe are buying other houses because of that or maybe can't afford to buy a house at all. There have been many reasons thrown out for the need for this. But the reality is this is about allowing folks to just move inventory. And so I would ask if our underlying goal with this program is to make it easier for people who make an average wage. We're not talking about low-income folks here, y'all. We're talking about people who make an average wage in our community and can't afford to buy a home without some intervention in the market. Is that a policy goal? In which case, how do we solve the concerns that have been brought forward by developers in a way that still meets that policy goal? Or is it not? And do we want to just move the inventory and say that ensuring that we're doing everything we can so that folks making an average wage can buy a home have that opportunity. Because when we remove the income restriction, what we will do is say that this home that has a capped price can be purchased by anyone whether or not they need that capped price. And so I just want to be really clear about the reasons we brought this forward and what the underlying changes in terms of our our policy thrust versus what we were trying to get at which is addressing concerns that were brought up. Um while still maintaining the underlying policy goal of ensuring people who make an average wage in our community have the opportunity for homeownership. As well. Um, so I just I want to be really clear about that as we move toward a vote. Thank you, council president.
368 Thank you, councelor bleghini. Councelor Zimmerman,
369 Thanks. I mean, I I think those are good points. What I'm trying to say is I don't see how your your amendment is making that difference. I'm actually not sure how the underline is making that difference. Right. $455,000 is the cap that's in this document. $128,000. We're really talking about people buying houses at 50% of their take-home pay. So, I that's where all of this when I say shoehorning into solute, I'm not sure that we're shoehorning into anything other than like we moved some numbers and the same problem exists 30 days from now that existed 30 days ago. That that's what I'm trying to talk about and try to understand. So, I guess I'm not hearing that you've made the case that your amendment makes this any better. I'm not I'm applying that to my statement that I'm not sure the underlying is even going to do that. So if you can make that case if there's something there okay then the secondary part is do you have fa faith in the housing bureau to be able to deliver a more complicated thing that's a that's a critique I have but I think across the board we're trying to see like what what you're you're you're saying this thing but we're not seeing how you've made that case yet in this amendment. Council president, can I respond to that? So, right now, these homes can only be sold to somebody who makes 100% of ami. Under the underlying change, un amended, that income cap would be removed. So, the homes would still have a sale price cap, but anybody could go to purchase that home. Hearing that there aren't buyers right now, what we are trying to do in the amendment is say, okay, there aren't buyers right now at 100%. Let's give the market time to see if there are buyers at 120%. If there aren't buyers at 120%, let's give the market time to see if there are buyers at 140%. And if there aren't, then raise the income cap. But try to ensure that we are still allowing folks who need a little extra help the opportunity to buy this house which has a a capped sales price an artificially capped sales price
370 Before we open up that benefit the benefit of an artificially capped sales price to any buyer on the market so that's how we're trying to address the concern what I had mentioned um with regard to the homes that councelor Smith has had raised is that four homes that have already been sitting been on the market for 180 days, they would go straight to that no income cap. There are also plenty of homes that would be affected that have not been on the market for 180 days where that um stairstepped cap would apply at those different levels. Does that provide a little bit of
371 Given that my suggestion would have been just just set your number?
372 Staircases, stairstepping, whatever the right term is, is I think what's leaning me away from this. If you have a concern, and I and I think I share it, right, that that there are certain things that are not going to sell at at frankly what should be able to sell. $128,000 should be able to buy a home. It's really sad that we're in this situation. I agree. So maybe instead of this like incrementalism, go bold and be like to move this market, we're going to do 150%, 180%. I don't know what the right number would be, but just say one thing. The administration of how many days have you been on stairstepping is what's killing your amendment counselor. So I think if you could say here's the magic number and we're admitting it's not a great move but here it is I think you'd have power in that and then the other part that is giving me so because that that's one aspect of it but then you've got this other stuff about moving balances and number b or letter b that is I I don't it seems erroneous to the point you've been actually talking about. So, so
373 Maybe you've included too much or you've tried to be too good at it and just be simple.
374 The original proposal as we were iterating on it on my team was to just pick a number and um because that concern was out there of well, what if it still doesn't sell? Do we need to get to raising the cap completely? Getting rid of that that income cap completely? We stairstepped it. Um, I would be perfectly comfortable saying, you know what, 140, that's it for everybody. Uh, doesn't go away. It's 140 now instead of 100. Um, that's something I would be very comfortable with. We were trying to be a little more responsive, which is why we didn't do it that way. I'll note again that the idea behind b, and the timing is not tied on these. It is not a you must have this to do that. But the idea behind b was that if we really want to look comprehensively at this problem, then we say, okay, perhaps 100% is too low an ami. It needs to be I'm going to take the number 140. So, let's raise it. See if we can get some buyers there. But we also know that in some cases the purchasing power isn't there. That down payment power because frankly rents are so high. So if you don't own a home right now, saving for a down payment is very difficult. So let's simultaneously say, my goodness, we need to do more to make sure that people can get that down payment. And there are a lot of other tools out there that I think we should look at as a city, but right now the tool that we have is to put our public dollars into down payment assistance. So, simultaneously, let's raise that cap and let's start looking at whether there are funds that we should be putting into down payment assistance more aggressively, which would also help with the other side of it. Do people have purchasing power?
375 That sounds like a resolution though rather than an ordinance, right? I think you're setting a direction for bring us a budget offer. And I think that's where I think a few of us are kind of in theory, many of us have talked about some down payment assistance stuff and this is different. And the last thing I just want to mention, right, I'm a person who's watched values change in my own portfolio, my two house, my one rental and one house I live in, right? I'm watching it. We're in a world in which these numbers are now dipped below these numbers that we're talking about. So, I was an appraiser for mult county during the boom. I have gone to more skinny homes, more more regulated properties that were designed for this type of program. It was awesome. It was really great. It taught me a lot about it. Taught me a lot about how people were getting in. But we were in a moment where we could build at a place where that buyer could qualify and it could be acceptable. The market has changed in a way in which the new build is not the target for a person in the income level we're talking about. It's it's an older home which is perfectly fine. My house was built sometime in the 50s. You know, it's like this is focused on builders. And this is where I kind of gave councelor Green. I'm a little concerned about the whole thing here because we're talking about capital and turn your stack over and those all made sense in 2007, 2006. It all fell out in 08 and 9, right? But this a a new build given the price of the workforce and housing, I'm not sure that this is actually tackling because if if you are struggling at a 6.2 2% interest rate, you're at 100% ami, the new build is really not targeted for you. And I don't think that this changes the market enough to make the new build your target. I actually think that going after the older home who is who is um stagnant or maybe even losing value in these years is the area in which we want these home buyer programs to target. But when we target this as just being about new family homes, that's where I'm I'm wondering how big the impact is. And that's why I think we might be talking about just a couple of dozen homes at this point, which seems like a big squeeze for a market that's in trouble in so many facets. Thanks.
376 Thank you, councelor Zimmerman. Colleagues, I'm limiting debate to this on this amendment. Councelor Green, you'll be our last.
377 Thank you. I I wanted to address the hypothetical that councelor purleini posed to us, which was like what is the objective here? Is the objective to make it about making sure there's opportunities for um people at the 100 ami level to be able to have a path to home ownership or is it to simply move the houses? I'll remind us that we're in we're facing this ordinance in the first place because we adopted a temporary sdc waiver just cart launch that created some conditions. The the sdc exemption only existed for these affordable housing units in the first place. So this council took an action that upset a balance in the market. And this this is an attempt to address a potential um unintended consequence based upon that action that in my view could result in a loss of capacity for the ability to deliver this type of program in the decades to come. Because these are things that don't this is the thing that these private sector developers are are delivering a capability for the market. They have invested in a a type of build. They have invested in um relationships with lenders. They've invested with programs that work with sort of from soup to nuts with with the with the buyers. And so if you lose that capability because they have to walk away from a project or they have to abandon this program because it doesn't work anymore and they need to stay in business. So they just completely walk away from the affordable housing uh sector as a whole because this period is tough, then that capability won't exist in the future unless we build it intentionally. And so there's a preservation piece here that I think is an analog to other things we're trying to preserve in our city right now. Um and so that's for for me the the effort and or the decision on before me right now is do I want to make a decision that um helps preserve capability or not. Um this is you know uh not a pre I think I think you said yourself this is this is not the preferred method for any of the conversations that we're having. Uh I do think that we need to find resources to more deeply subsidize home ownership or long tenure social housing opportunities as a whole. Um, but if a sis if a sdc waiver can make the difference, that's 20 to $30,000. And if it doesn't, well then this was all a moot point anyway. So the opportunity cost really I think the stakes are pretty low, frankly, because we're in a we're in a market where um we're earning outside those normal conditions. So, um I think adopting the underlying has pretty low risk, frankly, to the to the overall intended uh program objective here. Um so, for that reason, I'm I'm not going to support the amendment, although I I know that the intentions behind it are pure and align with my values.
378 Thank you, councelor Green. Rebecca, can we please move?
379 I would move to amend this amendment instead of the stairstepping at 150% of the ami. I think you have it at 100 currently now. And just have that set as a standard.
380 Sorry, council president. Okay.
381 I was forming thoughts as you were getting ready. No problem.
382 Um, do we have that in writing?
383 No, you certainly don't. I will type it away. Um, but I'm gonna need some assistance here. I'll just let me explain a I think I can get there on the underlying but I'm so concerned about relieving some sort of income restriction on these properties. Like it is really a huge concern for me. I I I hear what councelor Green is saying and I want to keep the pipeline going, but the idea of removing a restriction is giving me so much heartache because this is intended for a purpose. And so I'm trusting that some of you who were at the council realize or at the committee realize that this could be a path. And I guess what I'm signaling is I think that if we had a more concise number, I might be able to get there on the underlying. So I'm really looking to the two sponsors of the amendment. I'm getting one thumbs up. I'm getting maybe I'm getting a nod from the other that this seems like it would be a workable amendment to to this. Council president, permission to add something. Councelor, I'd request that if you're going to offer an amendment, you also change the report deadline to December 1st.
384 Yes, that that works.
385 Okay. Um the bureau had originally seen this with October 1st, but it sounds like has some concerns now. So, change that to December 1st to provide a little bit of space for the bureau. [snorts]
386 I have no opinion on that part.
387 Okay. Um, councelor, do you want a couple minutes to
388 I've got it.
389 You're good. Okay.
390 Thanks. Somebody just gave it to me.
391 No.
392 No. Is that not what
393 I want.
394 Oh, is this [laughter]
395 Do you want to articulate what you're sending?
396 Councelor maria.
397 Yeah, sure. Um, I was going to say if we're going to make adjustments, uh, I just sent you a part that I would like to change from down payment assistance to affordable housing support and supportive services just to make it more open-ended if you're interested in adding that in. [clears throat]
398 I don't know what that means. I know what down payments are. I don't know what the other six words that you listed meant.
399 Uh, affordable housing support and supportive services. You don't.
400 Yeah, but when we're talking about a housing purchase program, I guess that's where I'm like I'd like to use housing purchase words and this seems like that's not part of that.
401 I want to say thank you, but no. Um,
402 That's fair.
403 Uh, so if I could have a minute to um type it up or even look to where it would be appropriate to change to change this.
404 Let's go ahead and take a 10-minute recess and give everybody a restroom break and be back here at 410 for a so if we just
405 Further work on this back in 10 minutes. Thank you.
406 We keep that. It shall be one. [music] I want [music] you. I want [music]
407 On [music] and [music]
408 Are you we know.
409 [music] hey, [music]
410 Okay, we are back friends. Councelor Zimmerman has let me know that he's not going to be pursuing the amendment at this time. Amendment to the amendment at this time. Uh I have limited debate already. Um and so I'd like to call a roll on pleini coyama 1.
411 Uh calling pleginey coyama one moved by pleini. Seconded by coyama. Coyamelain
412 I.
413 Mario.
414 No.
415 Novvic. No
416 Clark.
417 No
418 Green.
419 No
420 Zimmerman.
421 No
422 Avalos.
423 No
424 Smith.
425 No
426 Canel.
427 No.
428 Purlein.
429 I
430 Ryan.
431 No
432 Duny.
433 No. Uh the amendment fails with uh 11
434 10 to one.
435 Sorry 10 nay two I votes.
436 Oh thank colleagues. I am recognizing myself because I can do that. Um I have uh pre-filed duny one. Uh it is in your it is posted online. You should have a copy of it. Um a little bit of explanation of this. I have been working with the Portland housing bureau for multiple months on a problem that was brought to me by a constituent regarding the three-bedroom f density bonus program. This is a program that was meant to boost family-sized forale homes for moderate income buyers, very much like we're talking about right now. But only four projects have ever used this largely because it doesn't work. Um, right now there are 14 permitted town homes in district 1 that are remained unbuilt largely because the builder can't afford to keep losing money under the program. That's more restrictive than the sdc waiver limits that we're discussing removing today. Uh, we cannot expect builders to sell at cost just to get qualified 100% ami buyers in the door. That's not sustainable and it's not what these programs were built for. So my amendment does three things. First, it removes the income restriction on this three-bedroom f density program uh after 90 days. If a home can't sell to a qualified buyer in 90 days, the home the owner asks can ask to sell it without income restrictions. But the rest of the 10-year affordability covenant stays. It fixes the penalty calculation. And my proposal is a simple, more fair calculation that ties the penalty only to the bonus received so that it's not punitive of almost $40,000 per home. And lastly, it gives the city administrator discretion to reduce fees or release an owner from the covenant in cases of real financial hardship. I've talked to lenders. The problem with these programs aren't greedy developers. It's that very few buyers at this income have a down payment saved. They don't know exist assistance exists and they don't see the value in the extra cost of home ownership at today's rate. So if we're serious about affordable housing, we have to largely rethink our strategy. It's not our goal to put people who build out of business over market conditions that they can't control. Our job is to find a balance and to make these programs actually work so that more builders use them and build an environment where middle-income portlanders have a stability and access to programs that let them feel secure buying a home, too. So I would move duny one and I would welcome a second.
437 Second.
438 Thank you councelor novik. Colleagues discussion of this amendment. I'm happy to answer any further questions as well. Vice president Clark.
439 Uh thank you council president. I'm a little confused. There was a amendment one dumpy one July 8th
440 And then there's another dumpy. Is this your only dumpy?
441 Duny one is there's only one. We updated it because the underlying was changed uh slightly through committee. So, it is the same intent and definitions and everything.
442 Thanks,
443 Councelor Green.
444 Thank you. Uh, council president, can you I know that this is going to be painful, but can you walk me through your red lines and blue line? There's red lines and blue lines and just help me understand what's happen there are. So um in this amendment the uh because the a lot of these red lines are because right now this is talking about just the sdc program because I um I am trying to expand the scope ultimately of this ordinance uh to also include not just the sdc but also explicitly to tie in the three-bedroom unit and try to some of this uh specifically adds the background that we would expect for a regular ordinance describe what this three-bedroom room bonus was, what the intent was, um, and then describes part of this the, uh, challenge of why it would be included in this ordinance, and then creates an additional exhibit b that would uh, tighten some of our our definitions and um, does what I had said specifically around the penalties. Uh the ju just to be a little bit more clear an f I mean for people who maybe don't know f floor area ratio this this three-bedroom program was intended to give a builder additional buildable space in order to get that three-bedroom with a covenant that be remain affordable. Um this is saying that we wouldn't uh we would only reduce the or we would uh continue the payment or the penalty that that on the bonus but not on the entire program. Or the entire building, the entire individual property that was for sale. And then um looking through my redlinined very quickly. Um yeah, and then also is is about giving the city administrator the flexibility necessary to if there is a genuine financial distress or situation to to be able to intervene directly. So is the idea by sort of limiting it to the the bonus visa v the penalty that you're really sort of um addressing that marginal piece that sort of like that last leg that's not being used right now and playing around with the the penalty structure and the bonus structure as two sides of the same coin saying I'm going to isolate it to this
445 That is my intent that's how I understand when I read it. Thanks.
446 Thank you councelor Green. Councelor clerk vice president clerk. Uh, thank you, council president. So, my understanding is that there are very few threebedrooms being built.
447 Very few
448 At all.
449 Yes.
450 And that we actually need more of those, right? Absolutely.
451 Um, particularly in your district.
452 Absolutely. Maybe district two, I don't know.
453 Um, so are you thinking this is going to help incent developing more of these? We know that at least in a in a very limited situation, there is a builder who is permitted to build these right now, but cannot because his capital is tied up in buildings he cannot sell. Um, we know that at the very least there would be 14 more three-bedroom town homes ready to come. Uh, and as I said, this this bonus program has only been used four times in its existence. Um, developers don't really like it. Um, and with our current sdc waiverss and other things, it's not being used at all. So, yeah, the hope is to largely free up the capital of these builders so that they can build what's already been permitted.
454 So, you think if this passes, there's going to be more three-bedroom units. There's not going to be some uh giant rush to build three-bedroom units. I don't suspect.
455 No, I don't suspect that that will be the impact. I suspect uh the biggest challenge really is that it's just to get these ones that have already been built or permitted easier to sell.
456 And does this sunset? I didn't see. Um
457 Uh no,
458 Doesn't sunset. No, this program doesn't is I mean, as we said, this program, this three-bedroom bonus has been on the books for a number of years, and it's only been used four times. Um, I think that there is more uh I think also we have to have a bigger conversation as a city about uh our affordable housing projects and affordable home ownership specifically.
459 Does the housing bureau have anything to say about this?
460 I welcome to invite the housing bureau folks up.
461 They don't have to. I'm just curious
462 If they have a thought. What
463 I will say that we while we've been working very closely with them, I do think that uh they're probably not as thrilled with it as I am.
464 I'm a yes.
465 Done. We go now.
466 Thank thank you. I was just curious if you have a thought there on the three-bedroom amendment.
467 Um quisha light, interim director of the housing bureau. Um I would say that I understand the problem that is being addressed here. Um just like the underlying ordinance and the reality is we all recognize that we've created a lot of programs when it comes to affordable housing and the market has changed and we need to rethink a lot of stuff. Um, and my worry is that we create programs. We're we're essentially creating still one more thing. And we we don't know how all of this is interacting. And I but again, I recognize we do need to move stock. We have a very that's a very legitimate issue that we need to solve for. And um I'm newer in this so I'm I'm I'm just letting you know from my that perspective of observing and taking it all in at this point. There are a lot of opportunities to step back and reexamine. And I think that's a lot of what we're doing through the unified housing strategy work. I think that's what we're doing with the social housing report. We're getting an opportunity to look at everything again uh because that's what's needed and to figure out what worked before and what didn't work. Um, and we have some opportunities to be innovative in our thinking and so I appreciate that aspect here. Um, so I mean I don't I don't have a yes or no. The policy is yours to decide. The the issue for me is as I stated before and I want to be very clear. It's not about the capability of staff. The housing bureau staff is very capable of doing this work. Um I think it is more about all the things that we are trying to re-examine when it comes to the housing market, the housing providers, all the things that are happening. This team is trying to step back and re-examine a lot of things right now. So um it is more about feasibility in the sense of operationally we're trying to reexamine the structure, re-examine the work we've been assigned to do and carry keep the work going at the same time and you have to be able to do both and I think we're capable of doing both. It's but there is a point where your capacity is limited. But I don't like I said I I think that I understand what this this program is trying to solve, what it's trying to to get at um or what this this this amendment is trying to do. And um but I'll I'll turn it over to dory. She's a technical expert here. So [clears throat]
468 So just to clarify your question please, uh councelor or vice president Clark, is it strictly the effect on on the housing bureau? And
469 That would be helpful too, but I just wanted to get a general sense. I um I really appreciate what the director has said. The most compelling thing to me that you said is that we need more inventory and anything we can do to to make that happen. And this seems though it's very very narrow, very small. And so if you have any other comments on that if there is an administrative burden that comes with this one too. I mean there is an administrative burden in that if we are this there are other there is a program that is still operational although it hasn't been used to a significant degree um but there are a couple of things that we would need to implement with this particularly with um the financial review of any feasibility of a project um is a very complicated and trying to re do an objective review of someone's financials is not something that I think the housing bureau is is used to doing, nor are developers accustomed to turning that type of information over to the housing bureau for review. I I think that that could um be a pretty fraught and complicated process. Um and and nor is it something that the staff on my team is necessarily qualified to do in that they work on a lot of different things, but that's not something that they currently have the expertise in specifically. There are other areas at the bureau where they might, but they also are are are not staffed to do that additional work. As far as the underlying changes to the penalty, that would not be too cumbersome to change how the penalty is is implemented. Um I I mean I will say too that currently the there are no homes um that remain in the first project that are unsold. So this wouldn't be something we would immediately be testing necessarily. And um this is talking about a speculative project for this in this specific instance.
470 Oh, thank you. So, council president, these are uh projects that are already in the pipeline. They're just sitting there, right? So, they've already gone through a process.
471 My understanding is yeah, that there this has been used four times total. There are some there are uh actually in all there are 30 unsold units on long division street. Um and 14 waiting permitted ready to go but for the ability to sell the the remaining stock. So,
472 Okay. Thank you. I appreciate um your input on that. I'm going to mulle it over here.
473 Thank you, vice president Clark. Councelor Zimmerman.
474 Thank you, councelor dumpy. I guess when you say things like they're just unable to sell. I guess I'm I'm wondering why are you asking me us to insert in this case into the market? Because if I'm unable to rent a unit, I lower the rent. That's why I yelled at home forward last week. If I'm unable to sell my house, I lower the price. I think that some people build bad ideas. I think some people open bad idea restaurants. I think that some people are bad at business. That doesn't make them bad people, I guess. But there is a point in which I go, where is our role in government to interfere? And so what you're asking is allow this person to uh reduce the thing that they had agreed to be a part of like they made a business choice to do it. I think you know I'm going to stop that analogy. Um but I think that I I guess that's where I I'm wrestling a little bit with it of like I feel bad for whatever this situation is you're articulating. I'm not sure that my role is to bail them out. And so I'm struggling with that. I am all for this whole this entire conversation. I'd love to take this whole code, throw it in the garbage, and rewrite from minute one, right? Because this comp it complicated to verify your your your income is wild to me. It shouldn't be complicated to prove your income. Like, so these are the basics I think we should get to. And so I'm not I'm not I guess I want to give you an opportunity to answer that, but I I'm missing a point here of why would we help that if this just was a bad building decision and and maybe it wasn't. Maybe that's just how I'm hearing it and I want to give you a chance.
475 You know, I won't defend whether or not this builder is a good build. I mean, he seems like a good guy. Seems like yeah, seems like he's building quality homes. I can't speak to the specifics of that. I can say that he signed up for a program that thought [snorts] he was going to be able to uh do some good and ended up stuck functionally. Um I'm what this does is not we're not uh rewarding him in any way, but we're backing away from the the penalties specific around income requirements. It's not the so much the price of the unit so much as who as we were talking about earlier who can get into there. Um and there's just a lot of uh specific challenges about trying to get to those income requirements for these pe these folks. Um they have been marketed. They are actively working on I think a lot of these actually these 30 units are currently um being rented uh and uh but as I understand it uh specifically this builder took out construction loans and is paying back his rent or paying back the [clears throat] construction loans with rents um which is not what they're ever meant to be doing. So um and right now it is it is the am it is simply the the ami is too restricted for a market or a product that the market will actually give to that homeowner to be able to buy that house. So it is um I I think you know based off also off the fact that only four this or four times has in the history has this project or this bonus been used. I think there is something wrong here. And maybe that also implies that, you know, as you were saying, maybe this builder isn't the savvy builder to know, maybe every other builder in the city figured out you don't touch that one. Maybe the live wire. But regardless, um, as councelor Green was sort of saying earlier, we we we got to move product because we have jobs that need to get keep going and and we want to make sure we don't put this guy out. So that I mean, it is a choice. You're absolutely right. I mean, like is us interfering.
476 I do appreciate that and and I I want to be fair to that description. And I think that that makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not making any sort of value judgment against anybody who's been in a tough business situation, right? I I get it. I'm happy that there are some that are built and being rented. Like that's good. And and it's really unfortunate. Sometimes our ideas have to for financial reasons transfer to another person who can keep them afloat and we take a loss on it. That is part of a market economy. Um right Mitch, that's part of a market economy. Is that did I get that right? Okay. Uh it I I am all for fixing this systemic systemic issue. I'm just a little cautious on fixing a property for a person in code that is giving me some heartburn. So from the larger perspective, I think I can get there on this oneoff. I'm a little I'm going to kind of listen a little bit. I haven't made a decision.
477 Thank you very much, councelor Zimmerman. Councelor canel.
478 Thanks. On the rod uh statements just said I agree with councelor Zimmerman. Uh, and I don't have anything else to add on that part. Uh, I think I'm trying to see how applying that here because I I also see the the point you're making about it. It's good for us if a developer who wants to build more large units is able to do so because they have sold the units they already have. Right. I get that. I get that argument too. I have a couple uh unrelated to that point questions but that are part of this amendment. You have added in uh it's on page four the at the very top it's in 300160 c 4 and five or about to be reumbered to four and five you've removed and may inspect files documenting tenant income and rents of the affordable rental dwelling units and adding in phb may inspect files documenting tenant income. Did I miss something about another area where the rents, the ability to inspect rents were added back in, or can you speak to why that's being reduced, the authority there? This was a specific uh uh php uh edit to my original language. I was working back and forth with the housing bureau specifically, and this was one that came back um from php and the city attorney. So, I'm not specifically sure of that. Can I
479 See if perhaps matt gander canal is possible? Yeah,
480 It really is in clarifying how the penalty would apply to the different scenarios being one there is a rental um portion of the program that this can apply to for rent home or buildings as well. And then there's also a penalty that needs to be established um during the long-term affordability period. There's a 10-year um restriction during the o first 10 years of the ownership by the home buyer. And so these changes are clarifying that there are scenarios that apply to each of those three different criteria. They vary slightly only based on how the um penalty would be charged. And when I reorganized working with the city attorney to um clarify things that are for rent and things that are for sale, that was one of those pieces that just technically got moved around so that all of the pieces in that particular number apply to the for rent homes, whereas we don't do ongoing compliance on for sale homes and wouldn't need to inspect any records. So it's not changing of the actual content, but really just reorganizing so it's clearer between what applies to the rental projects built and for sale projects built.
481 Now I understand in the context of I'm looking at um I'm looking at the penalty section. I see that three part that you're talking about. I'm one section ahead of that. Yeah, it if you look in some of the um the strike through and the next number, that information was in there before and it's just moved to clarify that it falls into the for for rent projects and not for sale.
482 No, I guess what I'm asking is where does it still say you can inspect that you can get information on the rents? Where does it still empower php to do that? Um, if you go just above it in the number that starts number four now with the new numbering, at the end of that, it still does say php may inspect files documenting tenant rent or income, excuse me.
483 Yeah. So, but that's the thing. It used to say income and rent. Now, it says income. So I'm asking where did the
484 I mean so we do already have as part of the annual compliance tenant income and and rent information that's submitted. Um, I mean, I don't know if there's too much of a difference with that, but it's a technicality.
485 Yeah. In the preceding sentence, it says both. So, they're required to submit um both income and rents and
486 And then you can only inspect the the income once. That's how it reads right now. Well, I I think that this kind of the the language in blue allows php to request additional information. So if they had questions about someone's income, as it happens in the reporting process, I don't think that all of that documentation is provided to the city and but but if the city saw something in that information and wanted more information, it could say, could you give us bank statements or something like that?
487 Yeah, that's all about income. I understand that. I'm not asking about income. I want to reiterate my question because the information says the owner or representative is going to be submitting information related to rents how much they charge. It's their record. It is not the tenants in this case. And then it says php may inspect files documenting tenant income. It does not say ph as it previously did that php can document can inspect records regarding rent. And I would like to ensure that you have the same level of access protected by law to landlord information and they have the same level of oversight on them that tenants do as opposed to just looking at only only enabling php to get involved in tenant business. We need to be we need to be not on the side here where we're weighing ourselves, you know, we're tilting the field. That's why I'm asking. And so that's a concern to me. And I I this was honestly just a curiosity and now I'm I'm actually more alarmed after going through this exercise than I was at the beginning. Um council president, when you put forward down below the penalty change um the in excess of what would be allowed, do we have an idea of what the what's the relevant uh the relative level there? Like what what's the percentage increase or decrease we anticipate? Like how much of a bonus does the does this program give the individual uh builder?
488 How no how much does the penalty get reduced
489 If you're only charging it on the portions that are in excess in of what would be allowed in the underlying zone? Like how much more was allowed? If it's a 5% increase, then we're doing a 95% well slightly higher, right?
490 Uh yeah. Um I don't actually know the answer to that either.
491 Um it's a good question. See if my team has an answer to that real quick. Sorry.
492 Okay, I'll just get my other two on the record then just in case I don't know who needs to
493 Uh be able to answer it. Um are we expecting um the the median or or sort of central uh maybe middle 50 percentiles here? Uh in terms of buyer income range to change in any way based on this amendment and how will you evaluate whether or not the change and I'm going to ask this about the underlying too by the way how will we evaluate whether or not the temporary or sorry the change um will help actually move the units what's the process for that
494 Um I can tell you that my my team specifically just got back to me and said that um the reduction of in terms of the the dollar amounts of a penalty roughly reduces it from what would be about 40,000 per unit to down to about 13,000 per unit. Okay.
495 Okay.
496 Oh my god.
497 And then I don't know if you have any uh responses uh director lighter.
498 Can you repeat the the question that you asked? Sorry.
499 Yeah. I mean, are we expecting to see changes to what the median buyer in terms of their income level um based on these based on this proposed change? Are we expecting to see a change in that?
500 I think my my answer to that question is this. This is the challenge that I I have with when we're with programs, when we're trying to do them quickly and and because we're not in a place where um you know, my background is you when you run programs, you think about upfront like what is the what is the hypothesis for this program, right? What are you hoping to to learn from this program? And then you set up the the metrics around it. And those are things that we will need to be thinking through a little bit more as we say how are we going to be able to measure this to know that it's having the intended impact or so that we can adjust it and change it to a different program and and I think if for anything that I have observed in this time is we need more of that measure and evaluation on on all these programs right so that we understand the impact are we are we having the right impact or not um and so when we come before you and you're trying to figure out is this the right policy or not it then we we have we are in a better position. I don't think and I and this is not a a a negative. I just don't know. I think we've we were we've been in a time of just you know we've been constructing programs and now we're trying to step back and think about not just what this this program is but how do you measure and evaluate the impact of this program. So I don't have those measures right now, but those are things that we are talking about and thinking through as a team right now.
501 Yeah. And that that makes sense. Uh not only in the context of of your new role, but also in the context of we're discussing it. Um how would you the other the other question I guess you you kind of answered both of them so I'll leave it there. Um, council president, if you're open to adding and rents, that would be helpful for me um to get to a yes on this particular amendment. Thanks.
502 Thank you very much. And um yeah, I'm I'm certainly open to that. So, I will work with my team real quick to to add an uh updated language to that. Councelor Smith.
503 Thank you, council president. So, I guess I'm not clear. And you just put this um what question did I have? Why didn't this go through the housing committee?
504 You know, we've been working on this since uh with this constituent since at least April. Um working to try and find the right way to move this forward. Um we were working on uh a standalone ordinance to do this separately. And um the because of the alignment in sort of thematically, I thought this seemed appropriate as an amendment.
505 Yeah, I think this is a standalone. I think this is something that probably should go in the towel. Um this does not have anything to do with the underlying and I'm not quite clear what we're trying to do here. Um it's it sounds like a bailout and so that kind of thing should be a standalone thing where we can go up or down or you know try to work with the administration to try to help someone who is a business owner or go to you know prosper to try to figure out how we can help them with some funding. Um I don't think this is an appropriate place.
506 Thank you councelor Smith. Councelor Avalos. Yeah. Um, thank you, council president. I do appreciate the intent behind the amendment and have a lot of empathy for the builders that are trying to make these projects work. We obviously need more homes and we need those homes to move. Um, that said, based on what I've heard from the php staff, I'm not convinced that uh we understand yet how this change is going to interact with the rest of our home ownership programs or whether it addresses the underlying issue that we're trying to solve. So, um, to me, this is exactly why we're taking on the unified housing strategy, something we both did together and have a number of housing programs on the books. Um, and we owe it to portlanders to evaluate whether they're working as intended, how they're fitting together, and where they need to be improved. So, I want us to continue investing in that work rather than making changes program by program without that broader understanding. So, um, unfortunately, I can't support this amendment today.
507 Thank you, councelor aos. Um, I I just also like to very quickly mention my staff, uh, the intention was originally to have this as part of the original sdc ordinance. Um, that so that we didn't have to amend this in, uh, we've been working with the city attorneys and the and the housing bureau to finalize this language. It did not the timing did not align. So, um, [snorts] and councelor uh, canel, I'm getting the additional two words added to that amendment. Um, I will I believe my team are sending that around right now. Um,
508 Council president, may I ask um, councelor canal because I wanted to make sure that we're fully understanding what you're hoping to capture with the an rand piece because as I'm reading it, I'm I'm what I'm seeing is the ability for us to get those documents. And so I want to make sure that we're not missing what you're hoping for us to gain from.
509 So I'm going to save us all some time. I will answer your question, director light, because it's a good one. I'm probably going to vote no on the on the amendment to the just as a whole because I actually I don't think it should be part of the towel, but I do think it makes sense as a standalone. Uh and I I appreciate councelor Smith bringing that up. However, I do want to take this opportunity because I keep seeing changes that are we're going to dig into tenants stuff, but we're not going to dig into landlord stuff.
510 And I think we need to be a city that's on the side of the tenants. We need to be a city on the side of the renters, the 47% of people that rent, which is slightly higher in district 2. And I that's what I'm concerned about broadly is the um we're going to take away this tool that change. Had it not been there before, I I'm you know, we may not have noticed it in this particular case. We may not have looked into it, but it's the idea of we're going to get this information, but we're only going to look into the part where we can come down on a renter and by by verifying their income. It's it's we've already had the conversation about it being too hard to to verify that you're poor. And now we're only going to inspect that, but we're not going to inspect whether or not the um we're going to ask for the information but not be able to verify it, dig into it, inspect it. That's to me what the underlying concern is. And so, it's about what message we send. It's about where we give ourselves the power and who we're actually digging into because we have a tendency, and this is way bigger than the housing bureau. It's maybe not even applicable to the housing bureau, but it's certainly societywide of we're going to we're going to mess with the people that are poor. We're going to ask them for all this this this paperwork and stuff. And if you are rich enough to own a house that you can rent out for someone else, a house that you don't even need to live in, we're not going to dig into that. That's what it's about for me.
511 Okay. Um I I was just going to offer that. I honestly feel like the first sentence is all that's needed and the second sentence probably could have been removed, but and that would have probably taken care of the issue. Yeah. Yeah. Sure.
512 Okay.
513 Okay. Well, seeing no one else in the queue, I I will not bother drafting that amendment change. Um, rebecca, can we move to a roll call vote, please, on duny 1?
514 Calling dunfy one. Uh, amendment to document number 2026-205 moved by duny, seconded by novik. Quoamine
515 I.
516 Mario.
517 No.
518 Novik
519 I.
520 Clark
521 I.
522 Green. I invite you to bring it to the housing committee if it fails. No.
523 Zimmerman.
524 No.
525 I'm sorry. That was a no.
526 No.
527 Thank you. Avalos.
528 No.
529 Also a no from Avalos.
530 No.
531 Thank you.
532 Smith.
533 No.
534 Canal.
535 Yeah, I'm happy to be supportive if and when it comes to to the um committee, but no.
536 Purlein.
537 No. Ryan
538 No
539 Duny
540 I
541 And uh the amendment fails with with four I 8 nay.
542 Okay colleagues discussion of the underlying amendment or underlying ordinance now. Councelor canel. So, um I guess the same questions from before but now applied to the the underlying um about how do we have and this one I hope we may have a little more information about because it's been a little deeper in development. Um how do we expect things to change? How what are the metrics we would be looking for to understand if this if if passing this ordinance made an impact
543 On this program?
544 So we have um yes uh councelor canal there's again a limited number of homes that this will apply to at this point since uh new homes built with a temporary sdc exemption are already exempt. So um the intention and what we can monitor then is are these going you know are they moving forward with sales or are they not and if they're not um frankly we we do have a compliance process that we need to pursue and be looking at you know whether or not there are further you know default per our regulatory agreements recorded on title and that sort of thing. Our certain goal with the program. All things aside of the fact that we would like to review the total suite of programs for for goals and outcomes, but it is to have affordable units. It's not for them to sit on the market. It's not for them to be rented. And so, um, that's what we are trying to do with the program is keep them as affordable and home and homes that are affordable whether it's with an income or not. Um, and so we will be still monitoring the owner occupancy at sale and we will still be monitoring the sale price of the home. So we will be able to track still the progress of whether they're sold and at what point.
545 Yeah. Time on market. I would say we need to understand at what ami and if we can get a sense of that from the the the documents. [clears throat] some of it we won't because they're not verifying. And so we're going to try to do the best that we can to understand some of those things. Yeah.
546 Okay. Thanks. I I appreciate that and I'm intending to support this. Thanks.
547 Thank you, councelor k. Councelor Zimmerman.
548 I'd move to limit debate to those in the queue.
549 I will go ahead and limit debate to those in the queue. Councelor pleini,
550 I can take myself out of the queue so we can just move if others aren't talking.
551 And you're welcome to talk.
552 Last one. Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, we can pass we are going to pass this item to second reading. And colleagues, as we have 8 minutes left, we really don't have enough time. Actually, I'll check council z. Would you rather continue this to another
553 I think we can get through a first reading to be honest.
554 Okay, let's open it up then.
555 Yeah,
556 That's can we please call item number 12? Item 12, add electric vehicle charging systems funding code add code chapter 26.11, document number 2026-209.
557 This is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Christopher hair, who's been waiting patiently all day. Council operations is here with a committee staff summary report.
558 Read fast there, bolo. [laughter]
559 Yeah, we'll go fast here. Um, for the record, christopher hair, council operations policy analyst, staff to the city life committee. So the ordinance before you document number 2026-209 was considered in the city life committee on July 14th. It was referred to council with the recommendation to be passed. The ordinance adds city code chapter 21.11 electrical vehicle charging systems funding. The chapter establishes workforce requirements for electrical vehicle or ev charging system installations when the city funds all or part of the installation uh of the charging station uh system located on the customer's side of the electric meter. Under the chapter uh covered installations must see must be performed by contractors holding all licenses required by law to perform the electrical installation work. In addition, the contractors must hold certification through the electric vehicle infrastructure training program or evitp or an equivalent training program. One or more electricians with such certifications must supervise or participate in the installation during periods when electrical installation work is being performed. For covered installations that provide 25 kilowatts or more of power to an electrical vehicle, the chapter also requires that at least 25% of the electricians present and performing installation work hold an evitp or equivalent certifications. The chapter exempts from these requirements installation of ev charging systems serving single family dwellings, town houses, and multif family residential buildings with four or fewer dwelling units. Finally, the ordinance directs a bureau of fleet and facilities. Importantly, clean energy community benefits fund to provide annual reports to council on ev charging projects uh subject to the evi itp or equivalent training requirements including whether the applicable workforce requirements were met. Full impact statements on the item includes economic and real estate development impacts, community impacts to community involvement and 100% renewable goals. No verbally written testimony was provided prior to committee action on July 14th. And that concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
560 Thank you, christopher.
561 Look at that.
562 Really impressive. Councelor pleini, this came out of the city life committee. That overview was fantastic and I am going to turn it over to the person who brought forward the policy.
Procedural episode · turns 563–571
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
563 If you ever get fired, we know you can sell micro machines from the 80s. That was great. Um, hey, uh, so colleagues, this is really about a safety and workforce. That's really what this comes down to. As we expand into a larger network of vehicle charging, which is something I think is how we get electrical vehicles to the rest of the population as we make that change. Um the city of Portland is going to be putting money behind those projects, those community projects. The state of Oregon took action to say if you're going to use state money to do those types of things, we are going to require that you be certified in doing it. It's a basics. Uh I have with us uh chris from ibw. He he presented to us during committee. What you'd hear from him if he was presenting and he can ask question answer questions if you need them is that already for an electrician going through the training program the apprenticeship program they get this certification already in the program. This is about uh making sure that those who have been electricians for a long time are also getting that certification and coming back to the workforce and making sure that we are putting if we're going to put city dollars behind a thing, we're just like the state and we make sure that it's certified, it's safe and that it uh grows the workforce. Again, this is not about your home charger. This is about the banks and that's why you heard that. I think it was 25 kilowatt standard and I would appreciate your support on it. I appreciate the the chair who got us scheduled and also the council president who got us rapidly scheduled. Thank you.
564 Thank you, councelor Zimmerman. Colleagues, is there coun we are now into uh well actually first is anybody signed up to testify on this?
565 No one has signed up.
566 Great. Colleagues, technical clarifying or discussion questions? Councelor Green.
567 Yeah, I appreciate you bringing this forward, councelor Zimmerman. Um, I drive an ev. Uh, I routinely try to charge my ev at multiple commercial places and it's always out of order and my instinct is that maybe there was someone who didn't um maybe that firm, that bank or institution didn't pony up and get the right level of labor to do that. Do you think that this sort of gets us to a place that makes sure we have the highest quality um workers who are trained to do this work are actually putting those in so we have a better a better end use experience for the consumer?
568 I I sure hope so. Um I think that the provisions in here about about 25% of those who are working on that project have to be certified gets us to that place where it's a new technology and like all new technologies you might understand the the theory behind the industry which is what what we call it chris electrical theory but there's a point in which the the actual product itself has some specifications and I think that anytime you've got an emerging technology an emerging market we've seen a lot of things kind of explode in a good way. The market has exploded, but also we want to make sure that nothing explodes with real flames, right? So, I think that I think that we'll get to a more reliable system as we move forward. And as we're watching the market is now getting more universal, meaning this brand can charge at that brand's location versus the proprietary like you can only go to the one in which you bought from that that car dealership. But that's going to require more theory and safer theory to be a network. Uh and when the government is putting money behind that, I think us being smart to enhance all types of vehicles is better than just like one brand over the other as well.
569 Glad that you completed the next part of that analogy and made sure we're not exploding in the wrong way.
570 Yeah.
571 Um and I see here on item three, there's an intention. There's this idea that this helps invest in the future of our workforce. Uh are we thumbs up or thumbs down? Is this an apprenticeship pipeline thing that you're thinking? Got it. All right. I'm I'm prepared to support it.
572 Thank you very much, councelor Green. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, this item now moves to a second reading. That completes our agenda for the day, for the week, and we [snorts] are adjourned. Thank you. [music]
573 Get back.