Skip to content
The Portland Record
Automated data, not yet fully editor-reviewed. Figures on this site are collected automatically from the linked official sources and currently publish without line-by-line editor review. Records about a named person's votes, attendance, or statements still appear only after the editor approves them — one at a time, or in a batch that is labeled as such. See the methodology and report errors via corrections .

← Recent meetings · September 2026

The record · Transcript

Council Session — 2026-09-24

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (23,549 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.

watch the recording

Thu, Sep 24, 2026 · meeting length 2 hr 49 min · council salary-time ≈ $2,161

Council salary-time = 12 councilors × ($133,207/yr ÷ 2,080 hr) × meeting length. Attendance varies and salaries are fixed regardless of meeting count — this contextualizes the council time a session takes; it is not money the meeting "spent."

Session TL;DRAI draft · not editor-reviewed

Key points

Where the council disagreed

Roll-call votes from this session date

None published yet. Votes from this session appear in the vote ledger once verified; this summary never states a vote result.

AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions and not yet reviewed by the editor . It describes the discussion only. Each point links to the transcript turn it rests on, and a program checked that the words it relied on are in that turn; the wording of the point is the draft's own. Positions are given without names because captions do not show who is speaking — follow a link to see for yourself. Recording times are not stored for this session, so the links go to the transcript turn. 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.

Procedural episode · turns 0–6

Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.

0 Good afternoon everybody. I am calling back to order this meeting. This recessed meeting of the Portland city council. It is 201 keelan. Can we please call the roll?
1 Good afternoon. Koyama Lane. Here. Morillo here. Novick. Here. Clerk. Here. Green here. Zimmerman here. Avalos. Present. Smith here. Kanal. Here. Pirtle-guiney. Here. Lion. Here. Dunphy.
2 Here. And can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
3 Good afternoon. Welcome to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.Portland.gov/agenda. Information on engaging with the council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states. Otherwise, your microphone will be muted. When your time is over, the presiding officer preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually your testimony to 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.
4 Thank you very much, colleagues. We only have two items on our agenda today. We are going to read them at the same time. So keelan, can we please call items 12 and 13 together?
5 Document 20, item 12. Document 2026-311. Adopt the critical energy infrastructure hub policy project to support public health and natural hazards risk reduction. Amend code title 33 and 24, item 13 document 2026, dash three, 12 and bulk fuel terminal capacity reduction regulations code to reduce critical energy infrastructure hub fuel storage by 2036 in support of hazard mitigation ad code. Chapter 17.112.
6 Thank you colleagues. This is the first reading and hearing for item 2026-311311. The ordinance for the recommended draft of the cei hub policy project and a hearing for item number 2026 312. The ordinance for the bulk fuel terminal capacity reduction regulations. The legislative records for these ordinances will include presentations and discussions at the September 17th, 2026 council work session. We will take joint testimony on both items. Today. We had a full discussion of this item in work session last week. We're going to have a brief refresher from staff for the sake of the public record. We will then move to public testimony. But before we move to public testimony, I'll give councilors an opportunity to introduce amendments. But colleagues, I'll ask you to introduce them, but not formally move them so that people in the audience are able to testify about them, and then we will move to them almost certainly next week for discussion. So first things first, I'd like to welcome up staff for a brief presentation. I believe we have director Eric engstrom. We have tom armstrong and patricia diffenderfer from planning and sustainability. Welcome.
7 For the sake of brevity, I'm going to turn it directly over to staff to give you the refresher.
8 Thank you.
9 All right. Good afternoon, council. I am tom armstrong. I'm a supervising planner with the bureau of planning and sustainability. Before you today, as you just heard, our two ordinances. The first one includes comprehensive plan policy amendments, changes to the title 33 zoning code to place limits on storage tank capacity and transloading infrastructure, as well as changes to title 24, which are requirements for building permits related to the structural support. With the piping of hazardous materials. The second ordinance is title 17, the capacity reduction program that will place requirements on the bulk fuel terminals in the ci hub in terms of inventory and fuel volume reporting requirements, as well as reducing storage tank capacity out to the year 2036, we have legislative records established for both of these ordinances that can be found in files. This is where all of the backup documentation, the previous reports and studies that provide the information and evidence that supports your decision, and those can all be found in these two file locations. Briefly, the comprehensive plan amendments. There are amendments to two of the existing comprehensive plan policies, primarily to reflect the. Expanded limits going from just fossil fuels to include renewable fuels, as well as a suite of new policies that specifically address activities, development activities in the critical energy infrastructure hub. And in addition to establishing this geography and providing direction, there is a suite of sub policies that get into specific issues such as seismic upgrades, environmental protection, interagency coordination, community resilience, and a the future issue of considering limits on the storage of non-fuel non-fuel hazardous materials. Briefly, the title 33 and title 24 code amendments. Just to get everybody on the same page. Currently, our existing zoning code requirements prohibit new bulk fossil fuel terminals. That is, any terminal with more than 2 million gallons of storage. What you see here in yellow is roughly a 2.3 million gallon storage tank. So these are terminals with large capacity of storage capacity. We limit for the existing 11 terminals that are in the ci hub. We limit new bulk fuel storage capacity. So no new fossil fuel storage capacity. We currently allow unlimited expansions for aviation and renewable fuels, and we currently allow unlimited expansion for transloading infrastructure. The pipes, the offloading racks, the dock connections that allows the fuel to move through through the the hub, we allow for the repair, replacement and reconfiguration of storage of the existing storage tanks. That's to support seismic improvements and to provide the terminals some flexibility to serve the market as those market needs change. And we see, you know, increased use of especially renewable fuels. And so that they can reconfigure their existing fossil fuel capacity to serve those markets. The recommended zoning code changes place further limits on the expansion of storage tank capacity now, including all fuel types, including aviation and including renewable fuels. We set up a couple of different land use reviews that allow for some flexibility. We allow for for transfers of capacity between terminals. We have a a limited 5% expansion for aviation fuels, because aviation fuel is the only fuel type that is forecasted to increase in demand over the next 20 years, we limit the expansion of transloading infrastructure for all types of fuels and. But we do have a land use review that would allow for new transloading infrastructure. If it meets a series of criteria to to. To show improved safety and the need for such transloading infrastructure, we continue to allow for the repair, replacement and reconfiguration of the existing storage tank capacity and transloading infrastructure. Again, to support seismic improvements. The building code change in title 24 really is to reinforce and and match what is already required in title 31, the fire regulations, but that just. This makes clear that a building permit is needed for any structural support for piping, and that this makes clear the role that Portland permitting and development plays in the review of of such structural supports. The title 17 code amendments are a little bit different. These capacity reduction regulations place a requirement on the terminals that by December 1st, 2036, all of the terminals must reduce their in-service fuel storage capacity. By 20%. And this, the December 1st, 2036 number was that date was picked selected to match the rough timeline of implementation of the deq fossil or the deq fuel tank seismic stability program, where. Over the next ten years or so, these terminals will all be making seismic upgrades. To comply with that program, we want to send a clear signal to the terminals that at the end of that program, they should be planned to be 20% smaller. We have proposed some exemptions from that reduction requirement. One is for regulated utilities, northwest natural. They have a single large tank out there that is used for peak wintertime heating demand. And so rather, they don't have a lot of flexibility to meet that reduction requirement. And we did not want to force them to rebuild that tank. We also have exceptions again for aviation fuel, because that is the one fuel that is forecasted to increase in demand. And then anything that goes through one of those type three reviews would be exempt from those reduction requirements. We have inventory and reporting requirements, both in terms of establishing a baseline for the storage tank capacity that's out there, but also to get better information on how much fuel is moving through the system so that we can see how those that tank capacity is being utilized and those requirements kick in essentially upon adoption and with a reporting requirement by March of 2027. And then again in 2036 to show how they've complied with these reduction regulations. We also established review and verification processes for the information that the terminals are giving us, and then enforcement penalties for both the inventory reporting requirements and and eventually the reduction requirements. So that is what is in a very brief overall overall summary. That is what is before you today. And we're happy to answer any questions at this time.
10 Okay. Thank you very much. Colleagues, we've had a work session on this item. If there are any technical or clarifying questions from staff, we are happy to ask them. Now just want to verify councilor Green is just for the amendment or for technical clarifying.
11 It's just to talk about what we submitted.
12 Okay. Thank you. And. Councilor. Novick.
13 Yes, thank you, mr. President. I can't remember asking this last week, I apologize. Dick said that they actually don't expect the retrofits to be completed until between 2038 and 2040. And I think the 2036 date was supposed to be sort of in concert with that. I don't know that there's necessarily a contradiction, but I just wanted to know if you have any concerns about having our date be 2036, when the retrofits are going to be completed by 2038 to 2040, they think.
14 I think that the dick date has been a moving target that has been slipping through this process. And I think hearing the 2038 number in the work session was a bit of a surprise to me. So if if we want to true up and make it closer to that implementation, expected implementation date, then you could amend the ordinance accordingly.
15 Okay. But would we want to true it up? I mean, is there were there any concerns about our having our drawdown requirement kick in before their retrofits have occurred?
16 It would it could. Lessen the flexibility that the terminals have in those out years as they wrap up their implementation plans. We haven't seen any of those implementation plans. So we don't know how long, you know, are they going to take the full ten years? Are they going to move faster or not? But having that 20% capacity and was designed to maintain the the capacity we need to supply the fuels our economy needs while they take different elements offline to do the seismic improvements.
17 Thank you.
18 Thank you. Councilor Novick colleagues, any further questions for our staff here before we dive into previewing amendments? Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue for technical clarifying questions. Thank you folks. Counselor Green, I understand you. You, along with counselors pirtle-guiney, Kanal, Koyama Lane, and Clark have a package of amendments to both titles 13 and seven, 33 and 17 and councilor Novick, I believe yours are towards title 17, is that correct? I'm going to let counselor Green and et al preview their amendments. Now I'll come to you. Councilor Novick afterwards.
19 Thank you, council president. What we have done, I don't know that I'm going to go line by line through this because that's it's pretty exhaustive. And I I'll just hit the highlights. But from the work session last week, we got a we had a presentation from the community, which was a kind of a first of its kind. So what we did was we said, let's see what we can do to take those recommendations and then turn them into an amendment that we can make work with this process. And so what we have filed for both of these items, both. Item 12. Item 13 are what we're calling supplemental information, which is Green pirtle-guiney in both of them. They're just named that. And, and what that is, is what we received directly from the advocates that our proposed changes to the title. 33 you know, basically the comp plan, the zoning code changes and the title. 17 drawdown stuff. So we've done that for both of these items. And then what we've also done over the last couple days, long into the hour, and I just want to say thanks to the staff and city attorney, deputy city attorney lauren king for for answering emails and working with us until the wee hours of the night as well to help us land this plane. And so the proposed amendments that you'll see for items 12 and 13 are our joint effort and attempt to take what we got from the community and place them into an actionable framework that we think can make a meaningful improvement to what we what we received. And so, yeah, I don't know if I'm going to go into any further detail on that. I'll note that there are some pieces that are, as you're working through this and thinking through it, there's also changes to the directives in the ordinances, which speak to fuel definitions and speak to drawdown frameworks. Notably, there was a really robust conversation up here with david labby, tom armstrong. I think councilor Novick was engaged in that and just sort of like noodling in real time on what how to measure drawdown and how to really set that target. And so what we're doing in this amendment on the title 17 is preserving the 20% by, what was it, 2036, but then adding a directive to say, let's start the process of that other methodology that we heard from the advocates next year. So it creates two separate processes and allows us to move forward and not stall this land use process in this in this moment in time. So I'm not sure if I've missed anything that's important, but we wanted to place all that in the public record before we started hearing from you all. So that way it's all in play. And so the amendments that come out of this are all sort of in the record at this time.
20 Thank you. Councilor Green, do any of your co-sponsors want to also speak to this? Councilor pirtle-guiney. Kanal Koyama Lane or Clark? I'm seeing a lot of head shaking. Okay, great. Councilor. Novick.
21 Thank you, mr. President. I've got three proposed amendments. I'll actually start with the. Novick two, which basically is about asking for more information more frequently. It would require the fuel terminals to submit annually the monthly total throughput and average peak peak tank fill levels. I would ask that it would have asked the department of energy for its latest projection of liquid fuel demand through the next decade, every year, and and to compare average annual throughput and tank capacity with fuel consumption rates throughout the state of Oregon and the region at large. Novick three basically says, we know that this is not going to be over by 2036. We're going to we're not going to solve the problem by then. We're going to continue to work with stakeholders and gather more information with an eye towards doing more work in subsequent decades. Novick one is sort of in the nature of a. Whereas clause, and it says, I'll just read the whole thing. The council recognizes that unless there's an actual reduction in demand for liquid fuel, the state legislature is likely to override any drawdown requirement for that requirement becomes effective. Therefore, it is incumbent on the city to do what it can to reduce demand. Accordingly, council expresses our commitment to work with the committee and other stakeholders to ensure that the next climate investment plan. At least 40% of Portland clean energy fund dollars will be spent in transportation measures to promote transit, biking, walking, transition to electric cars, and the reduction of diesel emissions. And the idea here is to say that we're planning to put our money where our mouth is, because if if demand does not actually go down, then the legislature won't let it drawdown occur. And I do not think that we at this point are doing what we should be doing to reduce demand. We have the clean energy fund, which is supposed to address climate change issues and reduce emissions. Transportation is 40% of the emissions right now. We're spending 20% of the cf on that. Initially, it was zero. And we know that PCEF priority populations care about transportation. Councilor Kanal and I did a poll of PCEF priority populations that showed that they care about transportation, particularly improved, improved transit. So in addition to the fact that I think that we should be spending an amount on transportation proportional to the emissions and the fact that the relevant communities are supportive of action transportation. The cei hub is another big reason to invest in transportation, because it is literally true that in less demand goes down, not any drawdown requirement we have is going to go away. The legislature won't let us cause a fuel crisis. So I think that we need to be doing whatever we can to reduce demand. And the saf is a tool to do that. Thank you.
22 Thank you. Councilor Novick colleagues, before we turn to public testimony, I have a couple of colleagues in the queue. Councilor Zimmerman.
23 Just to clarify, councilor Green.
24 The same amendment for both. Am I reading that correctly?
25 So there's amendments that speak to item 12, which is a comp plan and the zoning code. And then item 13 I think is the title 17. And so we have a document that's titled. Yeah. And so.
26 It's two different, two different, all of you people ones. Exactly.
27 Okay. Got it. And for each of those they are consolidated. There's sub amendments in that, but it's a consolidated document.
28 Thanks. And then I don't normally do this, but to the staff this is such a technical situation that I would just say get ready. Because my question to you will be, what are the impacts of these amendments? Because that's quite hard to digest here. So I'm looking for staff to be digesting this right now. Thanks.
29 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Green.
30 Yeah, I, I did want to clarify something I said earlier when describing what we put in the record, the supplemental information for both item 12. Item 13 includes not only what the advocates put forward as their sort of, hey, we want to see these changes, but also what we received as responses by staff to their sort of proposals. And so that should include both of those pieces in the supplemental. Thanks.
31 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Novick, councilor Pirtle-guiney, sorry.
32 May I just add to that the goal in submitting that supplemental information is so that you all can see, and members of the community can see what the asks were for improvements from advocates, what the staff response was, and how we took that staff response to then build the amendment moving forward so that you can start to see councilor Zimmerman where those changes were made and where there were perhaps places where, through discussion with staff, we decided that the risk identified may not have been as great. I think it's absolutely incumbent upon all of us to ask staff to place those things on the record, but hopefully those documents can serve as a starting point for you to see where that was already taken into account.
33 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Novick.
34 I also wanted to clarify something. I'm not sure I said forcefully enough, which is that I'm talking about the next piece of cip that starts in 2029, having 40% go to transportation. I'm not talking about diving into the current cip and making that big of an adjustment.
35 Thank you very much. Okay, colleagues, in the interest of getting to the main show today, I'm going to move us to public testimony. Keelan can we please call the first panel of testify? Oh, actually, I'm sorry, I actually have an invited testimony. First, I'm beginning public testimony with invited remarks from jose guerrero jorgensen, who is the co-chair of the sustainability and climate commission. Jose. Hello, friend.
36 Hello, city councilors. Thank you for having me again. My name is jose jorgensen. I use he him pronouns and I serve as the co-chair of Portland sustainability and climate commission. I'm hearing I'm here today on my official capacity, giving testimony on behalf of the full commission. At our August 20th meeting, the commission received a briefing from the bureau of planning sustainability staff tom armstrong and Ryan singer. Similar to the one you saw today on the critical energy infrastructure hub policy project and the two ordinances before you. As you know, the sci hub along highway 30 in Willamette river holds roughly 350 million gallons of fuel across 11 terminals, and it carries over 90% of oregon's fuel supply. It also sits on some of the most seismically vulnerable grounds in the region, a known and serious risk to public safety. The package before you today are two ordinances. I'm here to testify just on one of them, the title 17 bulk fuel terminal reduction regulations. The ordinance reduced storage capacity at the hub by 20% from about 350 million gallons to 280 million by 2036. After hearing the staff briefing and discussing the proposal, the commission voted to support this package as written with no amendments. But just to be clear, we didn't know about any of these new amendments, so we couldn't vote on them or discuss them. We recognize that this doesn't eliminate the risk entirely, nor does it eliminate our region's continued dependance on the liquid fuels this hub supplies to our economy. Some of our commissioners pushed questioning whether this package goes far enough to achieve portland's climate goals. And even after the discussion, many of them feel that it really doesn't. But the commission's judgment was that meaningful work supported progress now is far preferable to continue delay, and that this proposal reflects genuine, years long collaboration between city staff, neighborhood groups, environmental organizations and industry and labor stakeholders. The commission recognizes that our role in developing the city's climate action plan is to create the strategies for which we can reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, fossil fuels in the transportation sector. And this is a good step forward. On behalf of sustainability and climate commission, I respectfully urge council to adopt this package. Thank you for your time.
37 Thank you very much. Okay, keelan just a heads up to everybody. There's about 60 people signed up to testify just to set expectations in the room. We will almost certainly not get to the point where we can actually vote on amendments today. This is will almost certainly be a continued first reading to next week. And so we want to hear from you all. That is our priority today. So, keelan, can you please call the first panel of testifiers up?
38 Thank you. I will call up testifiers in groups of five. Each individual will have two minutes. For those testifying in person, you will see the timer countdown displayed on the monitor in front of the testimony table. For those testifying virtually, the timer is displayed in zoom. You will hear the timer sound twice, once when there are 30s left, then a second time when your time is up. Before you begin your testimony, please state your name for the record. First up, we have tanya hartnett, diane mason halter, jejuna martin, juliet twemlow, janine crow.
39 Take your time. If you're coming from upstairs, please don't run. We will wait for you. And whoever sits down first gets to go first.
40 So there's a screw on the floor.
41 Oh. Thank you. Yeah, but. Welcome.
42 Thank you. My name is tanya hartnett, executive director of working waterfront coalition and a registered lobbyist. Wwc represents 31 industrial and maritime businesses of whom power portland's harbor economy and sustained tens of thousands of family wage jobs across our region. On September 17th, working waterfront submitted for the record formal written comments on bhp's original proposed cei hub policies under titles 33, 24 and 17 dated August 17th, 2026. Those comments did not reflect the new documents released on September 16th of 26. Today, my comments will focus on concerns of what the community and environmental advocates presented as a package of recommendations to bhp's policy proposals. The proposed amendments would change the regulatory regulatory framework from storage capacity to volume of product handled and moving through the system. We do not believe that rps has the jurisdiction to regulate throughput. The proposed amendments require the collection of data on volume of products, storage and handled by the facilities, which is proprietary information of the facilities and their customers, the appropriate safeguards for the collection and management of this information must be established to prevent violations of antitrust protections. We oppose the expansion of the products covered by this policy beyond fossil and renewable fuels, working waterfront cannot accept the assumption that the drawdown will not have an impact on consumer prices and available fuel supplies, the eco northwest study states. Any disruption to the cei hub operations, whether from policy changes, infrastructure constraints or external market shocks, has the potential to affect fuel availability and pricing for consumers and businesses statewide. The most direct effects fall on the household budgets were higher fuel prices function as a tax on disposable income, reducing the purchasing, reducing the purchasing power available for other goods and services. These effects are regressive, falling hardest on lower income households for whom fuel represents a larger share of take home pay. Thank you.
43 Thank you very much.
44 Thanks, diane mason. And please read my written testimony on the three policies. You can't do it in 30s, but I'm just going to give context. I mean, in 90s in 2019, as a neighborhood emergency volunteer responder, I started work on the sci hub after talking with our local fire department about what support we could expect after a major seismic event and being shocked. Despite being an environmental activist for half a century, I've also hadn't come to realize how truly frightful climate change is already in the global south. Until I started working daily with xr chapters in africa, latin America, and asia, scientists keep issuing increasingly desperate warnings about how fast climate chaos is accelerating, how close we are to irreversible tipping points, and how those contributing least to emissions are being hit first and worst. We can't afford to wait another ten years for something we as global citizens, can do now, for ourselves and others to hasten the transition to cleaner fuels locally, we must do all within our power to minimize the multiple risks the cei hub poses, or face human ecosystem and economic losses that are unthinkable for Portland and the state as a whole. This is why we want the community initiative amendments adopted. It's most critical to start next year with a significant initial fuel drawdown and continued phased reductions every three years based on real data and in line with oregon's climate goals continuing beyond 36, we must enact transportation and building decarbonization policies to nudge fuel demand downward. What you do here could put us on a path towards a wellbeing economy, with health and safety protections and prosperity for generations, or we will continue towards unmitigated multiple disasters. Please do the right thing and know that since we just got the the amendments and we haven't even seen them yet, we're probably going to be talking to you all a lot. But I would say I support your, your, your Novick, your third amendment, and I would take out numbers in the, in your piece of piece. But we do want that decarbonization. Yes.
45 Thank you very much.
46 Hi, my name is gina martin. And I have lived my whole life in linton, less than a five minute walk away from the sci hub. When I was seven years old, I had to attend my first community evacuation meeting. And the likelihood that a nine point earthquake might demolish my neighborhood. The unstable soil which these tanks are built upon is at risk of being destroyed, along with the soil that I walk through in forest park every day, and the water which I swim in during the summers is the same that might be poisoned. If these oil tanks were to spill into the Willamette, the predicted number of deaths in the case of an oil spill or an explosion are not simply numerical values. They are me and my family. They are my neighbors. They are real people. So I'm here on behalf of my community and my environmental justice class at lincoln high school, members of which stood here in 2016 fighting to prevent the expansion of fossil fuels that we're still here fighting against today. These big oil companies might not be concerned about the impacts of their expansion, but us students are. And we urge you to work on real reduction goals, using precise language to ensure that there will be a measurable drawdown of fossil fuels near my home in the years to come. This is necessary for prioritizing the safety of people like me and the land we inhabit. Therefore, I thank you for your consideration.
47 My name is juliette twemlow, and three years ago I moved to Portland from a small town in british columbia, canada. I grew up surrounded by the natural beauty in the north, and immediately fell in love with the expanse of greenery that Portland offers. I was enamored with the towering evergreens of forest park and the clean and winding Willamette river. Most weekends, my mom and I walked through forest park, exploring new trails and soaking in the lushness and tranquility. On hot summer days, my friends and I swam in the river's refreshing shelves and paddle board upstream, then leisurely float back down. It scares me to know that the future of both the forest and the river are threatened by the ci hub. A key aspect of Portland is the way nature is able to blend so well with the urban environment. The diversity of not only people, but the natural atmosphere, is what makes the city so unique and why we need to preserve it. I stand here today, inspired by all the past and present lincoln environmental justice students who are also brave enough to advocate and give future generations a voice. I want my children and grandchildren to be able to experience the wonders of Portland and fall in love with its natural beauty, just like I did. I hope that we are able to walk through forest park and swim in the Willamette river without the threat of contamination and fires. Our handling of the ci hub will show portland's commitment to environmental justice, climate action, and, most importantly, secured a safe community for decades to come. Our action needs to start now. Currently, the drawdown plan reduces fuel levels over the next ten years, but we don't have that time to spare. Future generations are depending on us, just like I am depending on you to adopt these amendments and preserve the unique and beautiful city that Portland is and can continue to be. There is no price we can place on our earth and our city's long term health. While my peers and I may be young, nobody's ever too too young to fight for a natural and secure environment. Thank you.
48 Thank you very much.
49 Good afternoon councilors. My name is deneen crowe. I'm the campaign director at 350 pdx and I live in district two. Thank you so much for your collaboration with community throughout this year long policy process to make the ca hub safer and reduce harm for all portlanders. So so many hours, resources and energy went into this process this past year, so it would be a disappointment to pass something that is just okay and in some cases could cause and continue harm at the hub. We need to take this opportunity to pass a bold policy with teeth and with accurate timelines. We need a fuel reduction program that begins a phased, data driven drawdown of fuels in 2027, waiting an entire decade to begin this process is unacceptable. We know more data is needed, but while that is being gathered, a drawdown can begin based on demand in our existing service area, and it is very important that any of this demand is from the coming from the local columbia river region. Otherwise, we put our city at risk of continuing to be a sacrifice zone for the profit of others far away. There also must be stronger enforcement consequences for noncompliance. We have seen companies operating in the hub just treat fines as the cost of doing business. The city needs to implement retroactive measures that revoke franchise agreements or business licenses for those repeat offenders that we know very well of city or state laws or policies. We also need one definition of fuel, which helps us avoid confusion and gets around the reality about the toxics and dangers of, quote unquote, renewable fuels. I support the amendments that were developed in collaboration with community. Thank you all.
50 Thank you very much. Thank all of you for being here. Thank you.
51 Our next panel includes heather king, jerry brannon, john rosapepe, sherry spock, maeve felderhof.
52 You made it down to the here first. You're welcome to go.
53 Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is heather king. I'm co-executive director and lower Willamette riverkeeper at Willamette riverkeeper. I want to also thank you for the work that you've done with the community advocates to put these amendments forward. And I know you've already heard much of what I'm about to say. And yes, I could have just simply submitted written testimony to all of you, but this decision is important enough that I wanted you to hear it directly from me before you is an opportunity to pass sensible, strong public policy that will shape public safety, our environment and our economy for decades to come. The cei hub presents an enormous risk not just to Portland, but to the communities throughout Oregon and the pacific northwest. Last week, I joined members of the community coalition to present amendments intended to strengthen the proposed p. S policy. Our requests are straightforward reduce risk, increase safety, align city policy with state regulations, and use clear language that strengthens implementation and enforcement. And when it comes to draw down, we're asking you to take that same common sense approach a one time 20% reduction in tank capacity by 2036 is a start, but it doesn't actually answer the bigger question how much fuel do we need to store at the hub? We know that fuel demand is changing and we have the ability to track those changes. So rather than settling on one reduction target today and walking away from it, use the data the city collects to continue reducing fuel storage as demand changes over time. That is what meaningful drawdown should do reduce the amount of fuel stored at the hub when it is no longer needed, and reduce the risk along with it. This is your opportunity and our opportunity to get this right. Be brave. Listen to communities asking you to protect them. Use the data and reduce the risk. Support the community coalition's amendments and adopt a stronger c e hub policy. The goal is not simply fewer tanks. The goal is less fuel stored at the hub, less risk to our communities, and always enough fuel to meet oregon's needs. Thank you.
54 Thank you very much.
55 Hello. My name is dr. Brennan. I serve on the Portland planning commission, but I'm here today speaking for myself as a lifelong and fourth generation portlander, the cei hub is an environmental justice issue. North and northeast Portland communities have lived with the consequences of industrial development, displacement, and major infrastructure decisions for generations. We must stop asking communities to carry disproportionate environmental and public health risks simply because reducing those risks is difficult, expensive and inconvenient. I support this proposal, but I urge council to strengthen it. We must address the dangers of holding hazardous materials on liquefiable soils by improving emergency preparedness, evacuation planning and ensure Portland is aware of the risk they live by. Additionally, while working on this policy, I strongly advocated for higher structural standards. But seismic improvements do not address why we are continuing to store hazardous chemicals on one of the most seismically vulnerable areas of our city, directly beside our incredibly precious Willamette river. The river is important. It is a habitat, a cultural and tribal resource, part of portland's identity, and it is central to the future waterfront that the city is now envisioning. Council spends a considerable amount of time prioritizing portland's economic future, but you cannot separate that future from environmental resilience. You cannot build businesses on a flaming river or with a multibillion dollar cleanup, or support workers while putting them at risk. Our zoning code should prevent further expansion of this risk, prevent further expansion of this risk. That means avoiding exemptions that allow additional fuel because it is for aviation or renewable, despite what fuels purposes, public health and safety should be the utmost priority. The 20% reduction by 2036 without requiring actual drawdown is not enough. If we are already collecting data, real time data, we should be using that information to evaluate reductions. Along this way. Use data to measure progress and require compliance as we do for other infrastructure. We deserve accountability. With so much at stake. Yes, Oregon depends on the sci hub now, but dependance should not be an argument for weak policy. It should be the reason why we deliberately plan for a transition which is not just a city goal, but a statewide goal. I urge you to adopt these. This proposal.
56 Thank you very much.
57 Hello, councilors. Good to be with you this afternoon. My name is jerry bock. I'm the climate policy director at 350 pdx, and I appreciate the chance to speak with you again. I reiterate everything that heather and I said last week. And on the ci hub, I've talked to you in the past about my kids and as I as we're considering their future and about the thousands of portlanders who. 350 pdx organizes with and who care about climate justice. One thing you may not know about me is that I also teach a class every semester at university of Portland in the environmental studies department, and every semester I have to break it to my students that they basically live in a superfund site and across the river from this extremely dangerous cei hub. It makes them kind of consider their life choices, but I hope that we can give them more better news in the future. So I appreciate the intense work that has been put in, in the last week, in particular by bp and councilor Greene and pirtle-guiney and their staff in a marathon last night, and with a cursory look at the Green pirtle-guiney Koyama Lane Kanal Clark amendments that just appeared on the the website within the last hour, I would say that it looks like we can support those amendments that say that we can. We've they've incorporated many of the things that we asked for and say that the that they're going to be implemented this coming year and then bring it back next September. After doing more work with community and stakeholders to fix some of the issues that are a little bit outstanding that we haven't don't have quite the time to work on yet. So as far as the Novick amendments, I think we're we're agreeing with the goals that Novick is sharing their Novick one, we agree with the goal of reducing the need for fossil fuels through various policies and transportation, but we disagree with naming a 40% amount of stuff that is going to be applied to that without first going to the community to ask for that. Thank you.
58 Thank you very much.
59 Good afternoon. My name is maeve felderhof and I live in district two. I came to Portland last month to begin a year of service with jesuit volunteer corps northwest. Through this program, I live on a small stipend and do nonprofit service in the Portland community full time. While I'm new to Portland, I am no less impacted by this policy. Me and my house of volunteers live in district two, close to the sci hub. Some of my housemates work at placements right by the hub every day. I am no stranger to environmental disasters. Three years ago, in my home state of ohio, a freight train derailed in east Palestine, just hours north of where I was going to school at the time. The fires burned for two consecutive days. Carcinogenic chemicals and gases were released into the air, soil, rivers and groundwater. Officials repeatedly told residents it was safe to return home, all while tens of thousands of dead fish were washing up on their shores and chemicals were seeping into their waterways. Last year, a lawsuit was filed alleging that seven people, including a one week infant, died due to the lingering effects of these chemicals. This should serve as a warning. In Portland, highly dangerous fuels are transported by the same old decaying trains through our city every day. The only difference is that the town in ohio had less fuel. In a population of only around 4000, a derailment here in Portland would be much, much worse. What happened in ohio was not an accident. It was a failure in regulation. It was what happened. When legislators know the risk and choose not to act, inadvertently deciding what people and ecosystems are expendable along the way. Supporting the amendments to the cei hub policy plan is an important step to ensuring a safer Portland. You have something here that I did not have back home the opportunity to act. It is a privilege to have the opportunity to mitigate environmental disasters before they happen. Take it from someone who spent most of her young adult life fighting to prevent them and watching them happen anyway. You don't want to be on the other side. Thank you everyone for your time and work on this policy.
60 Thank you very much.
61 Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is john vincent rosapepe. I live in district three. I love Portland back in 1993, and I came back three years ago. And one thing that unfortunately, lots have changed. But one thing, unfortunately that hadn't changed was the c, e, I and its danger to the community and to the environment. As other members have said, we have a chance to make a difference now, especially with the new amendments. We've had people today who are younger. I can speak a little bit for the people in their 70s, I. The clean air act, clean water act were passed in 19, I believe, 73 or around that time. And what we heard then was from industry is, oh, we can't do it. It's going to be too expensive. We have proprietary data we can't give to you. This is going to destroy our economy. And that hasn't proven to be the case. Instead, we have better rivers, better air. And you have an opportunity to do this with the c e. I thank you for your time.
62 Thank you very much. Thank you all.
63 Next up we have laura noble, lillian weaver, david lavie, lori king, kaylee roll.
64 Welcome, folks. Come on down.
65 Hello. Thanks for having me this afternoon. I'm laura montez noble. My husband and I own a floating home on the Multnomah channel, just miles from the tanks. There are 15 homes and we are mostly over 55 retired, some with health difficulties who have lived there a long time while working, raising children and building their forever homes. Recently, I was informed that in the event of a fire or earthquake, families in the marina probably would not be able to escape safely. There are no city supported protocols or evacuation protocols for our marina or other marinas on northwest marina way. Our street is a dead end and highway 30 is a one mile walk to get to. If there's a train on the railroad tracks, we won't be able to drive away. Linton, our closest neighborhoods fire station service, ended in, I believe, 1983. The lack of safety, the lack of fire service, the lack of protection from hazardous material and poor infrastructure is frankly appalling. I really don't want to believe that my beloved Portland, the city that I have lived in for many, many years, would not opt for a draw down when we are at risk. All of us who live on the water and the land deserve to be protected by our city's government. The white tanks running along highway 30 are holding fuel that could one day be responsible for the destruction of land, water, animals and citizens of Portland. And I am asking you to support the community coalition amendments. Thank you.
66 Thank you very much.
67 My name is lillian weaver. I'm a phd student at PSU, writing my dissertation on the sci hub. And I want to talk to you about two points from my research a 2019 economic analysis of hazard mitigation, produced by the national institute of building science, cited in the plan for a resilient Oregon, found that every dollar invested in hazard mitigation saves six. When it comes to fuel infrastructure such as the c e hub. Based on my research and on the scale of disaster we can expect from the hub b it earthquake, wildfire, landslide, human error, whatever. I expect the returns to be much higher and to far exceed the potential costs outlined in the eco northwest report. Stronger sci hub policy is stronger economic policy. Next, I want to talk about the seismic stability policy. It's excellent, but we can't rely on this alone. The ten year timeline given for for facilities to do their seismic mitigation starts once vulnerability assessments and implementation plans have been approved. The initial deadline was June 20th 4th June 2024, but it's iterative. Kinder morgan, northwest natural, mccall oil now all have until July of 27 to submit amended assessments. Another facility has until December 31st, 2028. If these are approved, the facilities then have six months to submit implementation plans, which also go through a back and forth process, including public comment, which takes a while. Once these are approved, the ten year timeline starts. I'm not faulting deq. It's a huge undertaking. I'm simply trying to point out that we cannot depend on seismic mitigation alone. Based on my research, I don't expect to see mitigation finished until we are well into the 2040s, by which time it may be too late. The last cascadia earthquake was in 1700 326 years ago when it ruptured. It had been 330 years since the prior quake. That's like if it were to rupture in 2030, you have the opportunity to make our communities environment safer and healthier, and to do so in just a year or two, reducing fuel stored at the hub, not just storage capacity. And starting that timeline as soon as possible is how we take a tangible step towards impactful change. This cannot wait until 2036. I support the community amendments. Thank you for your time.
68 Thank you very much.
69 Thank you. Councilors. My name is david levy. I would like to take the time today to demonstrate why average fuel levels at lowering average fuel levels on site is so important, and why closing loopholes to expansion is so important. As you know, or you may know, the vast majority of tanks at the hub simply sit on the ground. They're not anchored. So that means that the amount of fuel that's in the tank is actually determinant of what happens in an earthquake. That's an earthquake. So of course. An a tank could be anchored. And in fact, at the Portland airport, they are anchored. They have three they have 130 pilings going down over 100ft. These pilings are 12.12 and three quarters in diameter and filled with cement. None of the old tanks at the hub are anywhere near that, even though they are 50ft above basalt. So of course they could do that. But dick has given them the option, however, of not anchoring the tanks but simply putting them in a container like that. And so when they when they rupture, I want you to imagine hundreds of open pools of fuel all across northwest Portland fuels that will be susceptible to flame, to fire, to explosion, to fumes, etc. And there is absolutely no current plan for emptying those pools. That will be a reality after the earthquake hits. So the less fuel there is at the hub, the more we are safe. The less expansion, the more rigid we are in terms of demanding the absolute need for expansion, the less fuel there will be at the hub. This is why that's so important. Thank you.
70 Thank you.
71 Good afternoon, city councilors. I'm lori king and I'm speaking to you as a st. Johns resident, I've had the pleasure of meeting with many of you over the last months about amendments to the cy hub, and I thank you for your dedication and your collaboration. I haven't had the opportunity to really look at the the amendments that were just released, and I will study them and thank you for them. As I see it, the heart of the community initiated zoning code amendments is that any expansions at the hub must be justified. There must be guardrails. And we were thinking it must be justified by being essential to meeting fuel demands in Oregon and the columbia river region and the heart of the community. Title 17 amendments is that if and most likely when demand in this market goes down, there must be commensurate reductions in flammable, combustible toxic substances stored at the hub. Considering the existential danger that communities closest to the hub that I live in are in and have been in the community proposals are incredibly modest. The amendments have been calibrated to thread the needle of what is possible in this legal system. Anything less risk reducing than upholding these amendments, such as allowing paths to expansion in the bureau of planning and sustainability amendments, would leave all portlanders vulnerable and really would be a stomach punch to the communities most affected. Linton and the northwest industrial neighborhoods. Saint john's cathedral park, Kenton, portsmouth university park, arbor lodge and other neighborhoods. These. Many of these areas, bipoc and working class neighborhoods have been sacrificed for decades. We have a concentration of polluting industries brownfields, diesel pollution, and proximity to the substances in the hub. Council members. Even if these neighborhoods are not in your district. Equity is a guiding principle of our city's comprehensive plan. Past environmental harms must be redressed. Do not yet add another blow by squandering this opportunity before us. Thank you.
72 Kelly.
73 Good afternoon, council members. My name is kelly roll. I'm a tenant in district four, a registered nurse that works in district three. And I'm speaking today as a proud member of the Oregon nurses association. If there is one thing that I've learned from being a nurse for the past 13 years, it's that prevention matters. I am trained to think about risk before an emergency happens, not after the damage has been done. And that is how I believe we should be thinking about the e hub. We've all heard about the very serious seismic risks that are contained at the hub site and how devastating the big one will be. But the impacts of a disaster wouldn't just remain localized at the hub site. It would have major impacts on the surrounding areas, which include nearby hospitals that would be expected to respond in an emergency, including where my union siblings work at legacy, emanuel and kaiser interstate. As I'm sure you're all aware, our health care system is already under tremendous strain. Not only would a disaster at the hub site be a mass casualty event in itself, but it would almost certainly overwhelm the critical health care infrastructure needed to respond to a natural disaster like an earthquake. I'm thrilled that oma, because of a resolution that we recently passed, which I will include in my written testimony, is now part of the community coalition to make the e hub safer. And we intend to use the full power of our membership to protect the health, safety and well-being of our community. So I strongly urge you all to support some of these amendments to the policy proposal, which make it much stronger. At a minimum, the plan must include ensuring that there are real safety and evacuation blueprints in place, which should be developed by the people that would actually have to use them, but most importantly, increasing safety and reducing risk requires that the amount of fuel stored at the hub site is drastically reduced. Health care workers know that when we can prevent harm, we have to try. Please protect your constituents, our neighbors, and our environment that we all love and cherish over the profits of fuel companies. Thank you.
74 Thank you all so much for being here.
75 Next up we have richard March, patricia kolberg, mark d'arienzo, howard bell, kathy cohen.
76 Welcome.
77 Good afternoon. My name is patricia kolberg, and I'm here on behalf of Oregon physicians for social responsibility. I have already submitted a much more detailed and reference version of my summary comments here today, including a number of policy options. I have very serious concerns about Portland positioning itself as an export hub for renewable diesel. Although renewable diesel is promoted as a climate friendly and public health protective fuel, a substantial body of literature disputes those claims. First of all, different feedstocks for renewable diesel have very different effects. The so-called high carbon intensity feedstocks like soybean and palm oil, emit as much or more greenhouse gases as petroleum diesel, and are also associated with environmental degradation and human rights abuses. But demand for low carbon intensity feedstocks is predicted to outstrip supply as early as 2035. Furthermore, the metric that we know as carbon intensity is not something you want to hang your policy hat on. Currently, dozens of models are used to calculate carbon intensity for renewable diesel, and their results are all over the map. This means that no one can say with certainty what the climate effects of renewable, renewable diesel from seed oil feedstocks are in 2026, much less in years to come. But a scientific study did show that growth of renewable diesel has led to demonstrably increased deforestation in the global south, as well as big increases in greenhouse gases. This is not a dynamic we want to promote. We should instead imagine the future we want and deploy every policy option we can to create that future. Thank you.
78 Thank you very much. Whoever wants to go.
79 Okay. I'll go. Hello, counselors. Thank you for having me. My name is richard March. I'm from district three. I realize that the amendments have changed somewhat in the course of the night. And my my comments, though, will refer to the community coalition's amendments. And those elements are still what I'm supporting. I urge you to to to support those. The coalition amendments strengthen the initial proposal by remedying ambiguous language and closing loopholes to ensure that one. The city's intent is indisputable that the city and cei hub facilities are fully accountable, and that risk reducing guardrails are enforceable. I want to highlight how the coalition amendments to the zoning code do this. Most importantly, they replace three disconnected and uneven expansion review processes with one inclusive review protocol. Why? First, fuel handling is an integrated process. Tanks are connected to transloading infrastructure and vice versa. Increasing capacity in one part of the system will necessarily affect the other parts of the system. The coalition's inclusive review criteria requires that applications for expansion be evaluated at this system level, not piecemeal. Second, by preventing unneeded expansion means preventing unneeded, unneeded risks, applicants for increased storage infrastructure should demonstrate need, and there must not be ambiguity about what that means. The coalition's review criteria for criteria prevents unnecessary risks by specifying that expansion must be demonstrated, need that can't be met elsewhere and prevents unnecessary expansion by linking unmet need to the c, e I hubs existing service area. Thank you. Go ahead.
80 I'll go. All right. Good afternoon, council members. My name is howard bell, business manager for opeiu local 11. And I'm here representing working people in the construction industry. I want to talk about economic prosperity and fuel capacity. Governor kotex prosperity council has made it clear that Oregon needs to retain businesses, attract investment, create good paying jobs, and improve our business climate. Those goals have to be considered in the cei hub discussion. We already are facing a difficult economic environment in the construction industry. Depends on reliable and affordable fuel. Our excavators, loaders, cranes, graders, trucks and other heavy equipment cannot operate without it. If we reduce fuel capacity, we risk increasing fuel costs and reducing reliability that ultimately makes construction more expensive, more projects harder to finance, and can mean fewer hours and fewer opportunities for Oregon workers. We should absolutely improve seismic safety and protect our communities. But reducing fuel capacity should not be the objective. There is another path. Look at the next clean fuels project in class, and I propose to take waste products like using cooking oil and other organic materials and turning them into renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel. The project represents billions of dollars of private investment, thousands of construction jobs and the potential to reduce millions of metric tons of carbon emissions. That is the kind of economic development Oregon should be encouraging. We don't have to choose between economic prosperity and reducing carbon emissions. We can modernize fuel infrastructure, improve seismic resilience, maintain adequate fuel capacity at the same time, invest in cleaner fuels and technologies. If we want Oregon to be business friendly, we need the energy infrastructure to support businesses. If we want construction jobs, we need fuel to run the equipment. And if we want to reduce carbon emissions, let's invest in projects that actually produce cleaner fuels and create Oregon jobs. So I have two letters here from the department of energy, and they're asking you to make it safer, but don't reduce the capacity. That's a problem in the construction trades are asking you to follow that advice. Thank you.
81 Thank you very much.
82 Hi. My name is kasey cohen. I'm the executive director of Portland harbor community coalition, a second generation portlander, and a mother whose 11 year old's first testimony was actually on the sci hub and who gave me a pass today to not pick her up at school so I could testify today. So thank you, counselors who are open to moving forward, amendments that make the ci have the safest it can be for our communities and environment. We are 1.5 years away from the beginning of an estimated 13 year long, high level cleanup of the Portland harbor superfund site. This cleanup will be the most complex and likely the most expensive in the nation and city of Portland ratepayers are also contributing to the cost. We urge you to not waste ratepayer contributions and risk recontamination of the Willamette river. In what is anticipated to be the largest cumulative spill ever recorded in human history. If the earthquake hits. Is this what Portland should be remembered for? Immediate safety is critical for all living beings and for the health of the rivers and survival of endangered species moving forward, I want to share that I served on deq's fuel tank, seismic stability program, rules advisory council, as well as the current rules advisory council creating rules to implement house bill four 4100 holding c, c, e I hub operators financially responsible for spills and leaks. I want to say councilor, Novick and other councilors. We do not need to wait ten years for operators to reduce storage of fuel. It's not necessary. In fact, c e hub operators will save resources and increase efficiency by addressing multiple issues simultaneously without delay. Earthquake retrofits, reducing storage tank capacity, reducing fuels and securing funds for future leaks and spills. Eventually, we must get to a just transition to clean, Green energy sources devoid of renewable fuels that remain unsafe for humans and the environment. Thank you.
83 Thank you very much.
84 Well, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is mark dirienzo. I'm a retired geologist with a specialty in earthquakes and tsunamis, and also a member of climate jobs, a committee in the environmental committee of jobs with justice. I want to make three points. A magnitude nine subduction zone earthquake will shake the Portland area for 5 to 7 minutes, causing landslides on steep slopes and liquefaction along the Willamette river. With the c I was located, it will be followed by sizable aftershocks over several months, potentially triggering even local faults. It is unknown how the tanks and associated pipelines and proposed containment structures will hold up. There's a good chance they will fail, releasing toxic fuels into the air and water and trigger fires unless retrofitted or built to a very high seismic standards. Even if the containment structures hold or release fuels, the fuels could be easily ignited. The potential is also high that rail cars carrying toxic liquids fuels to the hub that travel through the city will derail and release their toxic fuels. Given these unknowns and potentials, the wisest course, in my opinion, for the city to take would be transition equitably and rapidly as possible away from these toxic liquid fuels to clean energy, changing zoning codes, updating comprehensive plans, drawing down tanks, or dealing with franchise agreements are all well and good, but too slow to face the urgency of the climate crisis we are in. Thank you.
85 Thank you very much. Thank you all.
86 Next up, we have jamarion. Molly. Jenny o'connor, anna tejerina, jonathan fink, daniel eisenbeis. Jamarion. Go ahead.
87 Hello. How are we doing, councilors? First, I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration. My name is jamari and I'm the campaign director at Portland harbor community coalition. Secondly, I'd like to request that all councilors vote in favor of the community endorsed cei hub amendments to address ongoing environmental injustices that have plagued my family and community for far too long. Qtc, our partner organizations and community members have dedicated efforts and going on other ongoing efforts documenting and reducing the severe salmon habitat void in the Willamette river by track. By tracking critical salmon habitats. In the case of catastrophe, efforts such as these, and many more will go to waste, along with immense implications on the planned superfund cleanup at a cost no one can bear. Not humans, not the environment, the habitat, the city, nor the industry. I do not believe that it would be too cumbersome for bts to monitor annual capacity reduction. Entities already have to report tank condition and average fill levels. The reduction would reduce maximum legal fills, but should keep all reporting the same. Within the new guidelines, bts could seek a partnership agreement with other regulators that already monitor maximum field levels. So just to give a further drive on what we bring from the community and what we're looking for within these amendments is, you know, measurable, verifiable reduction and storage volume and immediate science based drawdown, increased safety for environmental and human health, foolproof zoning codes tailored for the purpose of ensuring utmost safety, transparency, and acknowledgment of our risk of current zoning presents. This is what we seek your consideration in. Thank you and have a good day.
88 Thank you very much. Whoever wants to go, jump on in.
89 Good afternoon. My name is jenny o'connor and I live in district four. I am part of the cei hub community community coalition that's worked with baps on the cei hub policy plan. I've been focused on emergency preparedness, which which has been has been brought up by several people before us, but it hasn't really been focused on. As I was looking through the recommended draft, I came to the proposed ordinance in the proposed ordinance, 2026 113. It provides a starting point to coordinate an emergency response plan, specifically, directive seven directs, which is a council directive, directs Portland permitting and development pbem and pbem and Portland fire and rescue to continue collaboration and coordination to support public health and natural hazard risk reduction in cea. And this speaks specifically, commissioner Councilman Kanal, to what you said last week about how, you know, what else are we doing besides these these amendments? I I'm proposing that you take the authority that's given to you in this ordinance, take it further. Instead of just coordinating that you, you, you direct staff to implement an emergency response plan. If you look through pages 96 through 101 in the recommended draft, there's a whole long list of all the things that's been identified by city staff and by other agencies of actions and proposals that need to be done to prevent, as a preventative and to be able to respond to an emergency that the earthquake, when it comes, we can respond to. So therefore, I've already asked you to take the step to direct the staff to do this with pbem in the lead. Thank you. And to make sure there's funding for this work to be done.
90 Thank you very much. Thank you, thank you.
91 Council president Dunphy and members of council. For the record, I am Dan eisenbeis. I'm a registered lobbyist for the port of Portland, where I serve as regional affairs manager. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today. You will also find written testimony from the port's executive director, curtis rubenhold. The port is a public agency whose mission is to build shared prosperity for our region through travel, trade and economic development. We operate major economic engines, including three marine terminals, six industrial parks and three airports, including pdx. Over 10,000 people work at pdx, which serves 18.5 million passengers, as well as exports of high value Oregon goods like semiconductors, footwear, aerosols and berries. We project significant growth in aircraft operations and jet fuel demand over the next 20 years. The federal energy information administration also projects growing jet fuel demand in the broader pacific region. This is reflected in the recent pdx terminal expansion. Airlines work underway to rebuild the pdx fuel fuel tank farm and with this, council support alaska airlines building its first widebody maintenance hangar on the west coast. Airlines also started making purchases of sustainable aviation fuel for use at pdx last fall. Pdx receives all of its jet fuel via pipeline from the sea hub and is dependent on adequate storage and blending capacity in the hub. The port supports addressing seismic vulnerability while maintaining the security of energy supplies, protecting economic competitiveness and advancing climate goals, particularly in hard to decarbonize transportation sectors. We respectfully urge council to adopt policy that does not create doubt or uncertainty for continued adequate aviation fuel supply. We ask that you retain provisions to exempt aviation fuel from drawdown requirements in the hub, ensure that terminals have the flexibility to add capacity specifically for aviation fuel and maintain an exception for facilities like the pdx tank farm. Thank you for your consideration.
92 Thank you very much.
93 Good
94 Good afternoon councilors. My name is anna. I'm a civil engineer. I'm a resident of milwaukie, Oregon, and I worked on my master's research on the sci hub, specifically in civil engineering. I'm here today to support the proposed planning updates and the reduction in fuel storage capacity at the hub. The sci hub is a massive and difficult problem to fully comprehend. It sits on loose and weak soils next to our largest population center, and it is expected to undergo significant deformations during a major earthquake. How significant are these deformations? Well, various studies have estimated expected ground movements at the hub, which range from 1m to 10m during a cascadia subduction zone earthquake. That is just the base of the problem. But this isn't just about whether the ground will stay stable. It's about whether a tank can withstand withstand such an earthquake. The amount of fuel in a tank affects the demands on that tank. Lower fill levels generally mean lower seismic demands, including lower overturning moments and shear effects, and, of course, less fuel available to be released if something does fail. The potential consequences are enormous. Even conservative ca hub spill scenarios would likely be larger than the 134 million gallons released in the deepwater horizon disaster. And even once we make secondary containment resilient enough to hold that fuel containment does not mean that fuel will be usable or free of hazards after a major earthquake. Facilities will be dealing with damaged infrastructure, disrupted power and transportation, aftershocks, and potential ignition sources. That is why I believe strongly that this requires an everything and all approach and solution. We need the seismic stability work. We need resilient containment. We need emergency planning. And we also need to reduce the amount of fuel concentrated in this one extremely hazardous location of our state. I recognize that Portland cannot do this alone. Oregon needs a statewide effort to distribute our fuel supply and reduce our dependance on this concentrated location. But it also doesn't mean Portland should wait. The proposed capacity reduction is the lever that the city can pull now. It doesn't solve the entire problem, and it isn't a replacement for seismic upgrades, but it is one piece of a larger strategy to reduce both the demands on these facilities and the consequences of a catastrophic earthquake. As an engineer, I don't think it's fair to ask for one single event intervention to solve a problem this large. That's why I support the planning updates and encourage the council to move them forward, while continuing to push for the broader state and regional effort that will ultimately be necessary. Thank you.
95 Thank you very much, jonathan.
96 Yes, thank you, mayor wilson and council members. My name is jonathan fink. I'm a geology professor at PSU. I'm co-investigator on a national science foundation grant about cascading hazards. And I'm former chair of the national academy of sciences panel on the future of wildfires in the west. I urge you to pass the two items under consideration today. My research has focused on a dangerous blind spot. The bidirectional fire risk between the ca hub, forest park and portland's urban forest canopy. Forest park is not an isolated ridge. It's part of a continuous Green belt connecting directly into Washington park, markham nature park, OHSU and residential districts in northwest and southwest Portland. Crucially, this threat works in both directions and does not require an earthquake, while a fuel tank explosion at the hub will shower embers into forest park, a summer wildland fire starting in the canopy will blow heat and embers downhill directly onto the cei hubs unreinforced fuel tanks, causing an industrial catastrophe completely independent of seismic activity. As seen last month in spokane. Wind driven urban wildfires leap miles ahead via airborne embers. In northwest Portland, a canopy fire will choke highway 30, germantown road and cornell road within minutes, trapping hundreds to thousands of people between burning slopes and an impassable riverfront. While municipal water pressure fails to prevent an unmanageable conflagration and multi-decadal damage at the hub. Please adopt these code amendments. Thank you.
97 Thank you very much. Thank you all for being here.
98 Next up we have robert mccullough, michael weisdorf, max brum, lynn hanlon, bonnie mckinley.
99 And colleagues. And those watching at home will get through this next panel. And we're going to take a ten minute break. So thanks folks coming on down. And then thanks for everybody's patience. Whoever wants to go first, jump on in.
100 I'll go first. I say yes, bonnie mckinley. I say yes to the community community coalition's amendments. And thank you to the council's midnight oil offenders. The message throughout the council work session was that the fuel needs of Oregonians will not be compromised by the ce hub policy project directives near the close close of the work session, councilor Kanal said, quote, I am not interested in how readily available fuel is in a world in which thousands of portlanders are dead. I think we are living beings before we are consumers of fuel and anything else. There is no economy without people, unquote. It's hard to disagree with his words. We can lessen the fuel needs of Oregonians. Portlanders and fellow Oregonians could do a great deal to prevent the loss of lives. But how can Oregonians be asked to limit their fuel use if they know nothing about the impending risk of the sci hub? The vast majority of people do not know. We must inform people about oregon's scariest secret. We need public media campaigns to point out the direct link between hub risk reduction and limiting consumption, and the use of fuels for transport, Oregonians, individuals and businesses should receive public service announcements about the sci hub and how we can collectively act on reducing its risks. With the knowledge of the safety and economic threats from the sci hub and remedial actions, we can decrease fuel needs while we transition to more danger free energy sources. The people of Oregon have a right to know. Chris voss, Multnomah county office of emergency management director, has said, quote, the ce hub poses a risk to Portland during an earthquake unparalleled anywhere else in the u.s. Unquote. Let's let the people of Portland and all of Oregon know about the ca hub and give them the means to do something about it.
101 Hi, my name is lynn hanlon. Please support the ca hub community amendments. Green amendments. Not entirely sure there I, I let you all sort that out. Bts refers to the importance of economic prosperity, and a couple of the presenters have talked about economic prosperity. I agree economic prosperity for all portlanders, not multinational multinational corporations. The impact on economic prosperity will be catastrophic when the big one hits. If the city does not start acting now to shrink the disaster in the making, that is the ca hub. If you do nothing, the main economic activity will be industrial disaster cleanup and retrieval and burial operations. And who will pay for that? The final ticket price of the deepwater horizon spill was over $60 billion. When the expected earthquake hits the ca hub, disaster costs will likely be greater certainly in the billions. Does the city have some spare billions laying around? Probably not. A good chunk of the cost will be carried by people who live here. Small businesses, local governments, those who depend on the river for their livelihoods, wildlife. I think you all get the picture and it is not a pretty one. The economic impact to the rest of the state will also be severe, since the fuel they need will be in the river spilled on the land or up in flames. There are current economic costs as well, and I don't think I have time to get into that because there's also climate change. There is no business on a dead planet and we're heading there fast. We need to act now and do everything possible to reduce carbon emissions, electrify and use less so we can shrink the hub. I'm interested in in the Novick three amendment. I'm I want to hear more and need to work with staff. But I agree with the goal. The sci hub must be must begin drawing down measured by fuel volume, not capacity. Now. Not ten years from now. Thanks.
102 Thank you very much. Whoever wants to go.
103 My name is robert mccullough. I am an economist. I am the principal of a successful consulting firm based here in Portland. I know a number of you very well, Loretta, Steve, Mitch and Olivia and the others I've not met. I hope to meet you in the future. I was interested to see the citizens identify their districts. But as we learn from doctor fink, the last wildfire, the old trail in spokane was significantly different and massive. In fact, it moved five miles in the first day across urban landscape. That would take you from the zenith terminal to pdx. So this is a whole different world we're living in. Just so that, you know, I've testified before congress, state commissions, provincial legislatures, both here and in canada, testify in federal court, worked for the department of justice and the federal trade commission. I have a very deep background in petroleum and petroleum products. Worked with governor newsom of california on ab 1322, which is a number you need to know closely because, Steve, we get monthly data in california. The antitrust argument is fallacious and has been rejected every time it's raised. You are the government. The government can collect data. The antitrust says they shouldn't exchange it. So bottom line is we need the data. Policies without data are ineffective. Enforcement without data is ineffective. Counting on firms to follow rules that we cannot watch does not work. We've seen that in multiple cases. Two separate antitrust settlements in california were based on this. So getting the most data as quickly as possible is critical. Thank you.
104 Thank you very much.
105 Good afternoon. My name is michael weisdorf. I use he him pronouns and I am an analyst at mccullough research as well. I spoke with all of you a few weeks ago on an issue quite similar to this. And at that time, I told you how important it was to collect regular, timely data from firms like those at issue today. So rather than repeat myself, I thought I would direct your attention to some of the other materials in the record. For instance, the parametrics model review prepared by eco northwest states on its first page. Challenges in data availability and limitations regarding the operations at the bulk fuel terminal required. Parametrics to make assumptions around key model components. The next sentence is in bold uncertainty. In these assumptions limit the use of the model to evaluate potential economic consequences of the proposed regulations. That means it doesn't tell you anything. Technical memorandum from parametrics published in November of last year. Several key metrics needed to assess total facility throughput capacity were not available, so estimates for throughput capacity were generated through inference from average volumes, tank storage capacity and benchmark operational metrics. Another report I would direct your attention to today is from the pacific northwest national laboratory. They prepared this for the us department of energy was published in August of last year. And they say right in the executive summary, fuel chain fuel supply chains are challenging to analyze. Data is proprietary, protected and not available. Data is partial. Data is not granular. Data represents static or annualized conditions, which does not support an analysis of flows or relationships. We need data. We need it now. We need it forever. Not once, not every three years, every single month.
106 Thank you very much.
107 Max. Prem.
108 All right, colleagues, I'm going to give us a it is 331. If everybody could please be back here at. I'm going to say 342. Give us 11 minute break. Welcome back folks. Thank you so much for giving us a humanity break there. Keelan can we please call the next panel of testifiers up next.
109 Next up we have lindsey hutchinson, ann turner, sarah kovalevsky, robert galanakis, kelly callahan.
110 Come on down, folks. If you heard your name and take us away at the table.
111 Good afternoon. My name is lindsey hutchinson and I'm a resident of district three. As it stands today, without proper policy past the cei hub is a public health, environmental and economic disaster. Picture this the cascadia subduction zone earthquake hits in the next few years. The ground under these massive fuel tanks liquefies and they start falling into the Willamette river and collapsing on one another. An oil spill larger than the bp oil spill in the gulf of mexico overtakes the Willamette river and flows quickly into the columbia river and the pacific ocean. That's just the oil. Here in Portland, we are experiencing massive explosions, toxic air, and a river on fire. Forest park is burning and residents are trying to escape. Those most at risk, including the elderly, children and those with preexisting health conditions, aren't able to breathe because of the air pollution from the toxic plumes. Our river, the lifeline of the state and the city, is out of oxygen, and all living creatures are dying quickly, including our iconic salmon and lamprey. Cleanup efforts are stalled. Almost all of the state's fuel storage is destroyed, along with all of the fuel that it held. The coast guard and the EPA are figuring out who should take the lead. The coast guard is supposed to, but it's trying to help those on the coast after the tsunami hits and the EPA wasn't given authority in advance. Everyone is confused, everyone is scared, and things keep getting worse because we can't act immediately. Once cleanup and recovery efforts start, many billions of dollars will be needed not just for river cleanup, but for our soil and our air to help our people rebuild and find safety. To rehab the wildlife that gets caught in this disaster, to start repairing riparian habitats and to rebuild fuel storage. Does this sound apocalyptic? Yes. And that is what our future portland's future looks like. If we do not prioritize protecting our people, our environment, and our communities. We need to take action on the ca hub and make sure that action centers on public and environmental health and safety. Bp's proposal is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. The community initiated amendments move further toward safety and securing our future. I hope that as both leaders and residents of this city, you support the community amendments shaped by well-informed, well-meaning residents who want us all to be safer, including our fuel supply, which we will need for recovery efforts after a major earthquake or other natural disaster. Thank you for your time.
112 Thank you.
113 I'm kelly callahan from district three, and I'm here speaking on behalf of kelly costa on solidarity organization, a grassroots environmental justice organization in Portland and a member of the international coalition for human rights in the philippines. We support the community amendments to the ci hub policy proposal led by councilor Green, in order to protect people here as well as around the world. Yesterday, this council voted to transfer the franchise agreement from the notorious ci hub occupant zenith energy, to I squared capital, a private equity firm invested in energy, infrastructure and logistics all over the world. In addition to its acquisition of zenith energy, which operates 84 storage fuel fuel storage tanks along the Willamette river at the cei hub, they are invested in a major fossil fuel import terminal in subic bay in the philippines. They're also proposing a $4 billion investment in lng pipeline and energy production in central luzon. This is likely to supply energy to the packed silica economic security zone, 4000 acres of farmland and ancestral domain of the people, which is being handed over to foreign corporations to power. The rush to dominate the ai supply chain. From critical mineral processing to data centers, packed silica is going to displace indigenous people, destroy farmland, and divert water and energy from already struggling communities. Not only is the philippines the most natural disaster prone country in the entire world, the corrupt government neglects disaster preparedness and response and allows corporations to plunder natural resources. They're making disasters more likely and tearing families apart. For thousands of filipinos living in Portland, both their homeland and their home here in Portland are at the risk of environmental destruction, where we call for the significant drawdown of toxic fuels at the ci hub as soon as possible. From Portland to the philippines, people's land and lives are more important than the profits of companies like I squared. And we're calling on you to heed the voices of your constituents as you consider these important, important, important amendments. Thank you.
114 Thank you very much.
115 Hello, councilors. Thank you for listening to us today. My name is rob galanakis. I'm speaking today on behalf of bike loud pdx. We welcome the drawdown of ci hub storage. We'd welcome a much larger drawdown, but given current trajectories, the drawdown could be a fairy tale. There are many stories of governments planning to wind down fossil fuel infrastructure, but political realities cause those plans to be preempted or reversed. This has happened in at least texas, colorado, Washington, throughout california, and countries including new zealand and germany. The underlying cause is simple demand has not fallen. Supply side constraints with a fixed demand can only drive up price. Without a demand reduction, this ordinance will likely be rendered moot by the state or a future city government. Nearly every argument opposing this ordinance is based on the idea that demand won't fall. Business as usual says they're right. It means we need to change business as usual. Look outside a closed freeway and gas above $5 a gallon, and portlanders still feel compelled to drive. We've delayed building a transportation system that allows more of us to ditch fossil fuels. We have a 30 year history of setting sensible emissions reductions goals and falling short. The drawdown should be coupled with a real financial commitment to decarbonize our transportation sector and thus decrease fuel demand. It's time to spend the money we need to help get portlanders out of their cars and onto busses and bikes. The ci, the ci hub has drawn an incredible amount of discussion for good reason, but at the same time, we're missing a bigger picture. Why does it say that this small drawdown in the face of existential, seismic and climate threats is so difficult? If demand were falling, would it be nearly as difficult? I implore you, councilors, to approve this ordinance, approve the Green amendment, and approve some version of the Novick one amendment that commits to spending real money to decarbonize our transportation system. Thank you.
116 An.
117 Yes. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is ann turner, and I'm here on behalf of Oregon physicians for social responsibility. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Two years ago, the EPA chose 13 of the most polluted urban environments nationwide to look for unsuspected leaks of toxic industrial emissions. They chose Portland to study, and within Portland they chose the c e hub. In fact, hundreds of pollutants are emitted at the hub every day. But the single most dangerous is diesel particulate matter. These are very fine particles produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuel and renewable fuels. They're like minuscule toxic bombs that you inhale deeply into your lungs with them. They carry a rogue's gallery of poisons, including nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, arsenic, lead, mercury and carbon monoxide, and many more. The most common adverse effects are heart and lung disease, various cancers, poor birth outcomes, dementia, and learning disabilities within our community. People of color, low income residents, industrial workers, and truck drivers are the most exposed. The polluters do not pay for these harms. We do through reduced productivity, decreased school attendance, higher health care costs, illness, disability and premature death. Here's a constant stream of diesel powered trucks, trains and barges at the hub. Their exhaust is completely unmonitored and largely unregulated. Commercial trucks are not subject to tailpipe emissions testing, and tank owners are not held accountable for the diesel exhaust they generate from these mobile sources. This is yet another compelling reason to effect a rapid drawdown as rapid a drawdown as possible of the fuel transloaded through the hub. Thank you.
118 Sarah.
119 Greetings. My name is sarah kovaleski and I'm the coalition organizer for Portland jobs with justice. We are a community and labor coalition. In my seven years of organizing the safety concerns with the c. E I hub have been among the issues our coalition hears about the most today. Educators and frontline health care professionals and members of climate jobs are testifying as well. The fact that our state is dependent on the c e hub for 90% of its liquid fuel should be understood as an economic vulnerability, not an economic asset. And frankly, no one sought the consent of the community to accept the hubs unparalleled risk. So we are asking you now to meaningfully mitigate this risk. You can do this by passing the community amendments, which will make the codes risk reducing responsibilities crystal clear and stand up to legal challenge. Let's replace words like may with shall. Let's require third party audits of drawdown. Instead of trusting corporate self-reporting, we support drawdown as a safest path. Any increase in fuel storage or transloading capacity must be subject to rigorous review criteria, and any expansion must have clearly defined public benefit, not just more risk. So please, respectfully do not let this plan for the next decade fall prey to the kind of shenanigans that we saw yesterday. Kelly just mentioned this around the zenith transfer transfer proposal. Let's make progress today on this matter of health, safety and climate action for our community. Thanks.
120 Thank you. Thank you all very much.
121 Next up we have benjamin platt, jan zuckerman, ruth dallas, nancy heiser, laura feldman.
122 Welcome, everybody. Want to start us off?
123 Okay. My name is ruth dallas and I live in district two. I do not feel the bureau of sustainability plan is sufficient to improve safety at the hub. I support the plan made in collaboration with the community. The cascadia earthquake is likely to hit the east the west coast in the next 50 years, which means it could happen tomorrow. When does our. Our own PSU scientists have said that the cei hub will cause damage that could be as bad as fukushima event. The authorities in fukushima thought that their facility was going to hold up to an earthquake. It did not, and an entire community was destroyed. Their lack of foresight caused it. Is Portland going to just hope for the best, or is Portland going to do something to prevent something like fukushima? The tanks at the hub are mostly owned by wealthy multinational corporations. They have the resources and the responsibility to make their tanks safe. But although these fossil fuel companies have known for decades that their products are dangerous, they don't work to make them safer. Instead, they pay billions to lobby legislators to avoid responsibility. I imagine all you city councilors don't like sitting through these public hearings. I don't know if you think about us. None of us want to come here. Most of us hate. Thank you. Most of us hate public speaking. We take time out of our day to come down here, to try to convince you guys to do and ladies to do the right thing. So I'm asking you to please put our children's future in front of profits of fossil fuel companies. Thank you. Thank you.
124 Can I go next? Okay. Hi.
125 My name is jan zuckerman from district two. Thank you for working together with us to address the very real risks and safety concerns. Concerns at the hub. The sci hub policy project provides us with an opportunity to not only walk or talk baby steps as they be, but walk arm in arm when millions of gallons of fuel pours into the Willamette, igniting fires and poisonous plumes spread across the county, threatening threatening the lives of thousands. The average person will not have the ability to protect themselves from this kind of danger. The only true way to limit the risk at the hub is to reduce the fuel that's stored there. This means supporting one review protocol for all facility upgrades, eliminating expansion loopholes and exemptions for any type of flammable, combustible and toxic materials at the hub, while ensuring that data driven demand for fuel won't leave us in the dark. Knowing what is in store for us once the cascadia earthquake hits should make our work easy to do. But unfortunately, emotional and political winds can blow us in the wrong direction, leaving us vulnerable to toxic winds that endanger us. All the lives lost at vanport still haunt us as we repeat the same mistakes hazardous location, flawed infrastructure, disregard to science and warnings. No evacuate evacuation plans of official inaction and systemic racism. It took this tragedy to overhaul the levee system. We must not wait for unfathomable destruction to overhaul our fuel storage strategy. It will be too late. We are looking to you to support amendments that provide us with the kind of reasonable safety regulations that will lessen the impacts from natural disasters and limit mass casualties. Thank you for all the work you're doing to push this forward.
126 Thank you.
127 Hello, my name is benjamin platt. I'm a volunteer with 350 pdx and dsa and a resident of district three. I appreciate the work that bp has put into getting to this point, but I want to encourage everyone in this room to take full advantage of this once in a generation opportunity. This policy project sets out to reduce risk and increase safety of not just our city, but our entire region. But some of the language is too weak, and we need to prohibit all expansion, remove loopholes for type three discretionary reviews, create a single definition of fuel that acknowledges the dangers of all liquid fuels, and act with urgency in drawing down the fuel being stored in the hub. We heard earlier about community members who testified in 2016 in the year of our lord 2026, returning today to speak on the same issue. We don't need another decade to even get things moving if we're trying to reduce risk as much as we can. Delay is an increase in risk. Not holding things as they are. Support the Green et al amendment package and help make the city safer and healthier. Thank you.
128 Bravo. Hello, I'm nancy heizer. I live in linton.
129 I'm laura.
130 Feldman, I live in portsmouth.
131 I see the fuel tanks from my front door and forest park is my backyard.
132 The black car trains carrying flammable, combustible and toxic fuels snake through my neighborhood daily.
133 We live near the hub.
134 In a quadruple natural hazard zone. I'm worried about bridges collapsing and toxic lethal air.
135 We're afraid about fire and no emergency responders. We are 151 years old. I thought we were going to be older than that.
136 But disasters don't discriminate.
137 Yeah, we have families with young children.
138 My neighbors are diverse. All ages, all backgrounds, many already. So vulnerable.
139 Is this.
140 What I call.
141 A sacrifice zone is. We face existential risks. And you do too.
142 There will be no fuel for the entire state. Transportation will collapse, the economy will grind to a halt.
143 And after the disaster, no water. How can we survive without water? How can we fight fires without water? How can we build back without water? Reducing is key. Reducing risk is key.
144 What will you do to protect us?
145 Thank you all very much.
146 Thank you.
147 Thank you all very much. Very much.
148 Next up we have jessica vaughn, linda wysong, amy johnson, Candace jimenez, amy rothfeld.
149 Welcome, amy, take us away. You sat down first. Are you sure? I'm technically last. You sat down first. You're good.
150 All right.
151 Good to see you all. Good afternoon, council president, members of council. My name is amy rothfeld. I'm the local community and government affairs manager for northwest natural, and I'm a registered lobbyist, also live in district four. We are a state regulated utility headquartered in downtown Portland, a couple blocks from here, and we provide energy for more than 2 million people and thousands of businesses throughout Oregon and southwest Washington. More than half our workforce is represented by opeiu local 11. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify today. We also appreciate that the current draft includes an exemption for state regulated utility infrastructure, which addresses our concerns regarding the Portland lng site. One as of September 2026. The parametrics analysis does not include an evaluation of lng operations, direct use, natural gas peaking facility operations, or Portland lng single take tank configuration. As a result, the proposed 20% drawdown requirement is not supported by underlying technical analysis. Two Portland lng is a critical peak winter reliability resource that helps serve over 150,000 Portland area customers during severe cold weather events. Because Portland lng has a single tank design and limited refill capability, reducing available storage could materially affect winter reliability. Three Portland lng also helps reduce dependance on constrained interstate pipeline capacity and exposure to high cost peak day gas purchases, supporting affordability for our customers and for safety is northwest natural's top priority. We continue our emergency preparedness work each day and look forward to working alongside the city on this. We are currently completing engineering analyzes to meet Oregon deq's fuel tank seismic stability program requirements for Portland lng, with an expected submission to deq in 2027. We believe the exemption appropriately recognizes the unique operational and reliability role of this state regulated utility infrastructure. I'm also here with mike mckenzie, engineering senior manager, and we would be happy to answer any questions you have about this. Thank you.
152 Thank you very much. Please.
153 Hello. Hello. My name is linda wysong. I'm a resident of the Kenton neighborhood of north Portland. This is commonly known as the explosive zone or sacrificial zone. We see and hear the trains carrying toxic and flammable materials daily. I shudder and cross my fingers as they rumble by. The cei hub is a danger to not just one neighborhood, but to everyone in the city. The bureau of planning and sustainability is. Drawdown proposal needs to be expanded to include actual measurements and goals that will reduce risk and harm at the cei hub. Starting now. It is unacceptable to wait another decade to begin to reduce the fuel levels and risks to portlanders. Additionally, the proposed plan suggests a decrease in the volume of potential storage but does not actually mandate a reduction of fuels stored at the cei hub or use verifiable data. It is based on speculative estimates. Remember the recent tank explosion at longview, Washington? To picture the speed and devastation of the explosion of just one tank, there are 630 fuel tanks at the cei hub. An earthquake, a fire or other disaster would be devastating, and it is common knowledge that to reduce risk and plan for disasters, one must start with the factual information. The less fuel there is at the cei hub, the less risk to the community. It is Portland city's job to make sure that the economic development is not at the expense of the life and health of its people. Please support the community amendments. Thank you.
154 Thank you very much.
155 Jessica.
156 Hi. Good afternoon councilors. My name is jessica vaughn. I live and work in district two. I serve on the boise neighborhood association, and I'm also a neighborhood emergency team volunteer covering three neighborhoods. I also have a background in health care. This issue matters to me for many reasons, but today I'll focus on two our health and our emergency preparedness net volunteers train for the day. We can't control when cascadia hits. We'll be on our blocks, pulling neighbors from damaged homes, bandaging wounds, and knocking on the doors of elders who live alone. Hospitals will be overwhelmed for days. We will be. All our neighbors have. We can't stop that earthquake. But the sci hub is not out of our control. It's a choice. Picture that same morning with a chemical fire burning on the river and toxic smoke rolling over our neighbors neighborhoods. Children struggling to breathe, neighbors with burning eyes and lungs and no ambulance coming. It is unacceptable to ask volunteers to plan around a disaster this city can reduce, and it isn't right to ask anyone to live next to it. As people near the hub already do, breathing its pollution every single day, you have a moral responsibility to reduce that harm and you have the power to do it today. That's why the drawdown matters so much to me. Every gallon we remove means fewer people hurt, fewer homes and neighborhoods lost a faster recovery, and cleaner and cleaner air for the families living beside the hub right now, the current proposal waits until 2036. That's ten more years of risk. The amendment package, led by councilor Green starts in 2027, and I urge you to keep the drawdown going until this fuel is gone. Because until then, our health and our emergency preparedness are built on unstable ground. When the earthquake does come, net volunteers will be there for our neighbors. I'm asking you to be there for us now. I urge councilors pirtle-guiney, Ryan and Kanal and the full council to approve these amendments. Thank you.
157 Thank you.
158 Amy.
159 Hello.
160 My name is amy johnson and I'm a resident of Beaverton. I'm also a student at Portland state university. I'm here today to ask you to support the sci hub amendment package sponsored by councilor Green and others, the bureau of planning and sustainability proposal, as it stands, does not do enough to increase safety at the hub. The hub. The proposal allows for the expansion and does not reduce risk, allows for expansion and does not reduce risks or increase safety. It's not good enough. I urge you to vote yes on these amendments to increase safety. This is my first time testifying to Portland city council. I'd like to aim my advocacy at the people who are elected to represent my family and our neighbors. Given that I'm 44th on the list, I know that you have already heard from smart, passionate, and compassionate individuals all of the reasons supporting the amendments to the sci hub comprehensive plan is crucial. So I'd like to add this. What you decide matters beyond your borders. This bills that could happen due to the cascadia subduction zone earthquake will flow downstream. The wildfires sparked in forest park could spread over the tualatin mountains. The toxic gas plumes will know no borders. Their dispersal governed by wind speed and direction. The magnitude of the potential disaster is catastrophic, especially for your constituents who live near the ca hub. We cannot allow false solutions like switching to Green fuels to persuade you not to reduce this potential disaster. I urge you to support and vote yes on the amendment package by councilor Green and others. Thank you.
161 Candace jimenez.
162 Thank you, dear councilors. My name is Candace jimenez. I'm a citizen of the confederated tribes of warm springs and board chair of the Portland harbor community coalition, as well as a resident of district one. I speak today on behalf of pf cc. Cc supports the community back amendment sponsored by the councilors, Green, pirtle-guiney, Kanal Clark and Koyama Lane. Community members have spoken about reducing fuel storage and protecting the Portland harbor superfund cleanup. I ask you to consider the future we are choosing for the river. Your ordinance draws on accounts from the makah tribe and the first nation to explain the 1700 cascadia earthquake. Tribal knowledge helped this region understand the power of the earth. It can also help guide how we live. With that knowledge, mother nature will move with her own timeline, and our responsibility is to decide what we place in that path. Along the Willamette, we have concentrated enormous amounts of fuel on vulnerable ground. Those choices put the river, salmon, lamprey first foods and sustenance of tribal nations and community members at risk. Tribal, traditional ecological. Ecological knowledge comes from generations of living with these waters, observing change and caring for what sustains us. I hope that you can bring that knowledge into decision making about this river. Name tribal nations in the amendments, coordination as well as the notice provisions, reach beyond what the city's current contact list is to invite regional tribal nations with connections to these waters. And when a tribal nation seeks that consultation, please require it early enough to shape decision making, including future fuel tank reviews. I speak as a tribal citizen, but I can't speak for all tribal governments on behalf of anyone else. We cannot choose when the earth moves, but we can choose how much fuel remains beside two and in relationship to the land and the river. We can choose who whose knowledge guides us, and we can change the future for our children and what they inherit. Thank you.
163 Thank you very much.
164 Next up we have kate murphy, lindsay huber, sophia steele conley, margaret thomas, edith gillis.
165 Hello there. My name is kate murphy. I am the senior community organizer with columbia riverkeeper. I have a background in public health with a focus on environmental systems and human health. And I just want to start by expressing my gratitude for everyone who has worked on this very long process. The reason I'm here today, and the reason many of us are here today, is the same reason I've been
166 Here. Every time you've seen my face in this room. We are working to protect our community. To prioritize health and safety and to stand up for the places that we love. We are not here to make a deal. We're not here to make a profit. We are here to protect one. Time and time again we have been told why our decision makers hands are tied, why the ball is in someone else's court, and why public health and safety cannot take priority over business as usual. Now we have an opportunity before us to really make an impact on the health and safety of our city. Our community has worked diligently in coalition to draft amendments seeking sound solutions to many of the issues that we see. I strongly support the amendments that have been put forward by the community as a baseline for moving forward towards more protective policy. Despite all this work, I want to address what feels like a significant disconnect. As we have navigated this process, it appears the city's approach is to identify the potential impact. If industry were to do their absolute worst and then to reduce the likelihood of that hypothetical worst case scenario. What the community is asking for the city to do is to identify the impact real world today at the cei hub and and to reduce harm from the baseline of what our reality is now. The objective of the FEMA grant is intended to reduce harm without addressing the real, on the ground harm that we're facing. I do not know how that objective is being met. We are we are failing to meet that objective. And if in the end, the plan allows for an increase in combustible fuel at the hub, that is not a plan for harm reduction. Today we are here doing the work of planting seeds that, with proper tending, can blossom into a healthier and safer future for generations to come. So what will you bring to the garden? What seeds will you plant?
167 Thank you. Thank you very much.
168 Hi, my name is margaret thomas. My pronouns are she her. I live in district four. I'm going to try to read this off my phone. My vision is limited. It'll be short, I promise. Good afternoon, city councilors. Given that one of the five guiding guiding principles of portland's comprehensive plan is environmental health, I wish to speak about how we can address safety concerns at the cei hub. The hub poses a risk of possible tank fire and explosion. A spark could easily set off forest park and surrounding neighborhoods on fire. A fire in forest park could move at 14 miles an hour, endangering forest acreage in the coastal range. An explosion could cause an oil spill larger than the deep horizon spill, and cause contamination of our two rivers and potentially the pacific ocean. Please support items 12 and 13 in the cei hub policy project. We need a significant drawdown of toxic fuels in the cei hub. Clear, actionable language and a directive to redefine the use of fuels. The word fuels in the text. Thank you.
169 Thank you.
170 Hello, I'm edith gillis, district three.
171 I support 350 xr, psr riverkeeper. And that we must have risk bonds required of all the polluters and all those who own the dangerous products that transport it, store it and sell it. When I drove my first baby to and from our home, through lenton and past the dominoes of tanks decaying from the toxic, caustic, flammable, explosive, radioactive deadly chemicals, past truck and car collisions near the tanks and train derailments and dripping flammable fuel. We would get irritated eyes, nose, throat and upset stomachs. I knew that no one has invented or made train cars safe for the tar sands, frack gas, oil, the vibration and weight, or have invented any effective, safe way to put out their fires. That the foam that can only be used days after the oil bomb trains burn lasts for generations of disabling dna destroying disabilities. I was scared my son would be poisoned by the fumes, burned or blown up or disabled the rest of his life from horrifically painful burns. As it turns out, he has brain injuries and lasting disabilities some experts say are due to the poisons. We just went by for six months. Brain injuries cause immediate dysfunction of the gut immune system, nervous system, vision, sleep, pain, emotional regulation. Portland cops are already proven more violent and irrational from the diesel fumes and chemical weapons they use. So this disaster will make those gun prone to violence when they are uncomfortable further endanger us all. There are six security tanks. One tank has 100 times the tnt of the hiroshima bomb. For decades, I've been every hour in chronic severe pain due to Portland policies. Don't do it again. When my daughter ran the Portland marathon, runners got sick from the fumes and she easily placed first or second 100 kilometer or 100 mile races under harder terrain. But her body started to shut down when she slipped on the squishy mats, soaked with the blood of people who had had a car wreck between the highway and the tracks that could have started a two mile, fiery dominoes that blow up the tanks. When she goes to forest park to run for 20 miles, she could get lost. I mean, she could get burned up on leif erikson roadway with the fire highway.
172 We are over time, unfortunately, friend, thank you very much.
173 Good afternoon, city councilors. My name is lindsay huber and I'm the interim executive director of the street trust. I'm also a resident of saint john's. So the risk posed by the cei hub are quite literally close to home for me. I'm here today to support councilor Novick amendment connecting the proposed fuel storage drawdown with greater investment in reducing our demand for liquid fuels. The cei hub is not just a Portland issue, it's a critical piece of oregon's fuel infrastructure. Yet Portland and the communities surrounding the hub shoulder an enormous share of the risk created by concentrating that infrastructure in an area vulnerable to a major earthquake. We need a long term solution that reduces the risk while recognizing the energy and transportation needs of people throughout the state. An important piece of that solution is reducing our dependance on liquid fuels in the first place. Transportation investments give us a practical tool to do that more, making transit more accessible and reliable, making it safer and easier to walk and bike, supporting the transition to electric vehicles and reducing diesel emissions can all help reduce demand, while giving portlanders more ways to get where they need to go. We support working with the sff committee and other stakeholders towards significantly greater investment in these transportation solutions, as envisioned in this amendment. Reducing the risks at the cei hub and reducing our demand for fuels stored there should go hand in hand. We encourage council to pursue both. Thank you.
174 Good afternoon. My name is sophia conley and I'm the director of government affairs for the western states petroleum association. I'm here today in opposition to title 17, the 20% drawdown of inventory for bulk fuel storage. This proposal dictates that terminals will be required to provide a January 1st, 2027, inventory of existing tanks and capacity. The inventory would then serve as a basis for calculating the required 20% capacity reduction by 2036. To put this into practical terms, imagine requiring every grocery store in Oregon to permanently reduce its warehouse inventory by 20% based on whatever happened to be on its shelves during a single month several years earlier. The concern is not what happens on a normal day. The concern is what happens when a winter storm arrives, a pipeline goes down or a supplier experiences an outage. Storage and inventory exists to provide flexibility and resiliency when conditions are not normal. Similarly, fuel inventories are not maintained. Supply for average daily demand. They provide the flexibility necessary to respond to disruptions, emergencies, seasonal fluctuations, and unexpected market conditions. Reducing inventory can reduce the margin available to respond when Oregon needs it most. Thank you.
175 Thank you all very much.
176 Next up we have kelly caldwell. Susan parmenter. Steph. Ralph. Jordan lewis. Jennifer. Corral.
177 Hello. My name is susan perlmutter. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I have lived in district four for 35 years. I am represented by councilors Green, Zimmerman and Clark. My friends and family in district four are highly impacted by your decisions, and we are watching your participation in this process. Four hours ago, I was hiking with many of these district four friends in in parks connected to forest park, and the information about the fire risk that was presented was hair raising. Clearly, this is about safety and risk reduction. And we've already seen work throughout our city on this. This building, our city hall and our fair city was seismically upgraded. Seismically upgraded. That's smart. City councilors advanced a resolution to research renovating and replacing keller auditorium because of seismic hazards. That was smart. Portland schools have been or currently are seismically updated to in preparation for that big one. That was smart. We can't live another decade with this amount of dangerous fuel at the hub, and without more safeguards for that fuel that is there, the smart move is to pass the policy with the community amendments that have been negotiated. Thank you for your service, and I'll be watching.
178 Thank you for the opportunity.
179 To testify today. I'm doctor jennifer kroll, an ecologist living in district four. As a scientist, I urge you to support the Green amendments to the sci hub policy project items 12 and 13. While many here are talking about the earthquake, I'm extremely concerned about climate change. As time goes by, the most realistic models are increasingly the scariest ones. As our leaders, you must press for the boldest plans possible. We are at a turning point for for energy, and this is the last gasp for fossil fuel company viability. You must prioritize our children's safety over their demands for maintaining profits. I urge you to support a phased, significant drawdown of fuels at the sci hub beginning next year and based on real data, with additional reductions every three years and annual reports to council. Crucially, you must specify drawdown amounts in terms of actual measurements of average daily fill levels of the tanks, not estimates or forecasts. Finally, the current proposal is a start but does not adequately address the safety concerns we all have here. I urge you to link equipment, age and condition to something like catastrophe bonds to incentivize companies to prioritize safety upgrades. At the same time as they ensure funds are available when not if, disasters happen. You have the authority and ability to do this. We're watching you.
180 Endorse. My name is steph rouse. I am the chair of the planning commission. I'm here in a personal capacity. The question before you and us all is what do we do with this very sloppy joe. We've been handed. And while I know we are here to talk about the gut churning placement of our supply. I invite you to join me for a few minutes in dreaming about the great decisions that are in our future regarding demand, specifically a decarbonized transportation future. So next year, I believe you will consider the update of the transportation system plan. To the best of my knowledge, serving on that community advisory committee. This will be the first time that the tsp has ever centered the concepts of our roads, not just as a conduit, but also as a place. And that is a transformative framework that can help develop walkable, climate resilient neighborhoods and business districts. Every decision you make to support vision zero, and I just want to really be thankful of all of you for unanimously supporting that resolution to retrofit and build a truly multimodal transportation system carries with it so many benefits. Only one of which is reducing our reliance on fossil fuels beyond what is in your direct control is what is within your influence. As I'm trying to go as fast as I can. Your influence at the state legislature two years ago, in the last full session, we had the opportunity to stand up a task force for high speed rail, and after that could have considered, for example, using $10 million of connect Oregon funds to actually fund a study. We need to bring that back. And the other is let's refund the rating of the excise bicycle tax that they did last year as part of a related clause to the judicial compensation, which I will never understand how that was possible. That mostly funded safe routes to school in Oregon community paths. So let's bring that back. Thank you very much.
181 Thank you. Hey.
182 City council, my name is jordan lewis. I'm a volunteer lobbyist for Portland dsa. I'm supportive of the community based Green et al. Amendments to the comprehensive plan, the zoning plan, and the fuel drawdown plans. We need to go further than existing plans. And these amendments close. Expansion loopholes create a comprehensive definition of bulk fuels designed for all natural disasters and not just earthquakes, and consider real world fuel throughput rather than nominal tank capacity, which is all great. These amendments address real safety concerns without risking fuel supply shortages where they are truly needed. I want to thank councilor Novick for proposing demand drawdown commitments from the city, especially on transportation, though I'm not sure that a 40% allocation mandate is the answer. Transportation is a topic you aren't really supposed to talk about in this city, and I wouldn't disagree that it's been given short shrift in the city and in the state. My main concerns with transportation mandate to staff are one, the planned reductions on greening fuels rather than doing the hard work of mode shift and two, many existing transportation decarbonization opportunities are largely free or low cost to the city and yet have not been pursued. Some examples are the recent rebuild of west Burnside street, which did not commit to any transformative changes which could have driven mode shift. I'm thinking about the montgomery park streetcar expansion project, which will place street parking to the right of streetcar tracks, ensuring future traffic conflicts which slow the streetcar down, making it a less attractive mode for the public. I'm thinking about the near removal of bike diverters on northwest 20th after they'd already been installed, or the removal of a two way bike boulevard on southwest alder, despite it being planned for nearly a decade with no viable parallel route. Where was the city in 2025 when public transit was defunded? We could lobby the state to improve amtrak cascades and or union station, which prosper Portland owns. My hope is to communicate that all these things are connected, and I hope we can keep this work going forward after this discussion as well. Thank you.
183 Thank you all very much, kelly.
184 Hello. My name is kelly caldwell. I live in southeast Portland, district three, and I'm speaking in support of stronger action to reduce risks and increase safety measures at the critical energy infrastructure hub. I'm asking council to focus on three things real emergency preparedness and resilience, actual fuel reduction and enforceable safety requirements and and limits to expansion. That's more than three things. I urge you to make the program more meaningful and actionable by establishing measurable reduction targets based on documented fuel volumes and usage, and require reporting to council so that they can be monitored. If the goal is risk reduction, measuring risk reduction, and not just tank capacity is important. We should not reduce capacity with one hand while creating pathways for new fuel storage and transloading capacity with the other. A smaller tank does not necessarily mean less fuel risk. We should use ask data to know what is really being stored, and look at the safety measures in particular, as we move forward on changes 20% by 2036 is a long time to wait when the hazard is already here. Every day. The question is not whether fuel infrastructure can be made somewhat safer. The question is how much are we willing to to risk to leave in place when we know the consequences of major earthquakes and such other disasters can be catastrophic? Thank you.
185 Thank you all very much.
186 Next up we have helena boec, marty glickman, sandy fletcher, alice christine walker, benjamin gilbert.
187 Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Second.
188 Okay, I'll go first. Good afternoon councilors. My name is marty glickman. I'm the executive director of braided river campaign. I am happily living in district two, and I'm a registered city lobbyist. For years, many of the portlanders you heard from today have worked to develop policies to make the c I hub safer. With so many hard working, caring staff members at the bureau of planning sustainability last night, councilor Green, councilor Pirtle-guiney and their aides burn the midnight oil, working together to put a package of amendments together to make this package safer. The proposal better. Excuse me. And. And now our hearing is almost over. But our work together is not done. We are here to day and night with you to help you make this package better, and to get it across the finish line to make the c e hub much safer for our children and for ourselves as we do this final work. I hope you will keep a few Portland values in mind. We must acknowledge and repair historical harm to successfully move forward. Natural resource conservation is essential to healthy communities. All people have the right to a safe and healthy environment. No one community should be sacrificed for the benefit of another. Finally, a thriving economy is best built within the context of a healthy environment. Portlanders stopped the mount hood freeway and we turned another freeway into tom mccall waterfront park. Oregonians have made our beaches public and free. We can and must make the c e hub safer.
189 Thank you.
190 Hi, my name is sandy fletcher and I'm from district three. I'm here to urge the city council to support the Green amendments to the cei hub project. But it seems necessary to first talk about what it feels like to sit before this council on this day talking about environmental issues. I felt compelled to come here and speak today because of the profound disappointment that I and many other portlanders in district three felt after we learned that one of our councilors, Steve Novick, once again voted in lockstep with the interests of fossil fuels and corporate polluters. Many of you on the council seem to have forgotten that as our elected representatives, you should be taking your assignment from Portland citizens, not big oil and corporate interests who conduct commerce here. I feel betrayed by all the councilors who have recently voted for the best interests of fossil fuels, but only you. Councilor Novick ran in 2024 by touting your record as an environmental lawyer. What is becoming clear is that many councilors votes are being corruptly influenced by the Portland metro chamber and their political action committee, united for Portland. It seems to me that these councilors are selling out Portland and its environment in exchange for campaign endorsements and financial contributions from the Portland business alliance, united for Portland and other groups lobbying to maximize their corporate profit at the expense of every portlanders future. Making Portland a major west coast hub greatly increases the risk to portlanders and the city we love, while doing very little to benefit our local economy. I will end by asking you all a simple question which side are you on? Portland families or the side of more trains, more risk of spills and explosions, more corporate profits and more risk for portland's environment for decades to come? Thank you all.
191 Thank you.
192 Hi, my name is helena. I'm a resident of district four. Since I know the industry pressure is powerful, let's address the elephant in the room. The combustion fuel industry, and have no illusions. Most renewable fuels are produced by the same mega corporations that produce fossil fuels. I can give you references. And they are. Who brought us president trump and his war of delusion in iran, which has not only blown up people but has blown fuel prices out of the water. Additionally, this industry has blown smoke to try to hide the impacts they knew for decades about climate change, and their product eats into frontline community pocketbooks with asthma care, lung and heart disease, early dementia, and other illnesses. Is our economy better because of fossil fuel industry recommendations? Our jobs paying more livable wages, or are they more secure? I want good jobs, but I don't think listening to the fossil fuel industry is the way you get it. I second what councilor Kanal said. There is no economy without people. And beyond that, there's a disconnect between this idea that the industry is saying between them, quote, needing the flexibility of more tank storage to help us in a disaster and the fact that a disaster will likely spill fuel into the water and come on fire and prevent more fuel from coming in at the same time. So at a minimum, I urge you to support councilor Green's three amendments based on community coalition recommendations. I want to highlight that it's essential to eliminate loopholes for all fuels. Renewable diesel, aviation fuel and renewable natural gas are not safer than fossil fuels. Instead, they create the same local hazards threaten human fuel supply. I'm sorry. Human food supply, water supply and slow the transition to more efficient electric options. Separately regarding councilor Novick amendment number one, I appreciate the intent. I am concerned that the 40% requirement is too prescriptive, and I do not want to see money going to the, quote, reduction of diesel emissions by spending money on renewable diesel. That contributes nothing to the safety of the sea. I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
193 Thank you.
194 Alex. Christine walker. You're muted. There we go.
195 I actually don't know if you guys can see me, but either way let my words carry. Good afternoon, mayor and councilors. My name is alice christine walker. I'm a 20 year resident of Portland, a small farmer in the land use chair for east columbia neighborhood. Testifying today. In my personal capacity as an impacted community member. I am here in fierce solidarity with our neighbors in linton and the river communities, fighting for real protections at the c. E I hub. North and northeast Portland have carried the burden of the city's heavy industrial footprint for far too long. Linton carries catastrophic fuel and seismic risks along the Willamette east columbia absorbs unchecked freight expansion. 24 over seven industrial noise and uncontained runoff along the columbia river. And yesterday, we learned our community skies are set to be filled with amazon delivery drones. Both of our communities share the exact same underlying vulnerability high risk, liquefaction prone soil. Hub risk does not exist in a vacuum. It is the direct result of a city wide planning strategy that concentrates high hazard unvetted industrial uses in portland's most unstable alluvial soils. When you allow heavy industrial operations to expand right next to our homes, our working farmland, without real oversight, you aren't just creating a daily livability crisis. You are compounding our vulnerability to flooding, levee strain, and seismic disaster. I am here today to demand that the city finally reckon with this. The systemic harm and disparate damage being done to our frontline communities and environment. For decades, our neighborhoods have been treated as expendable sacrifice zones for portland's industrial economy. We are calling on the city council to enact serious, enforceable, comprehensive, city wide policy that protects not only our most vulnerable neighborhoods, but future generations. As you deliberate on these amendments today, I urge you to vote for the strongest, uncompromised protections on the table. Do not create industrial carve outs and do not delay compliance timelines. A watered down safety code protects corporate profits, not human lives. Please stop looking the other way while our soils are saturated.
196 Thank you very much. Alice. Sorry.
197 We're acknowledge the harm, stop the bleeding and protect our river corridors before the next disaster.
198 Thank you.
199 Thank you very much.
200 Benjamin gilbert, our last testifier today is michaela mccormick.
201 Hello, councilors. Michaela mccormick. We'd be glad to know I'm your last testifier. Maybe that'll help you remember what I say. The city's draft of a so-called comprehensive plan is just dancing around the kind of plan needed to transition to a decarbonized economy. The world scientists have pleaded for years to address the ever growing catastrophic effects of fossil fuels on our climate. Continuing to merely regulate the kinds and amounts of fuels in the cei hub doesn't come close to addressing the problem. The city needs to immediately begin collaborating with other local, state and federal governments to devise a concrete transition away from fossil fuels and a sequestration of the carbon in our air. Adding more co2 to an already overloaded atmosphere that is helping to kill millions of humans and more than humans, defies logic and any sense of compassion. One crucial step toward that transition is beginning in 2027, the immediate and complete drawdown of the fuels in the cei hub. It needs to include all liquid fuels, including fossil, so-called renewable, and so-called sustainable aviation fuels. All of them are combustible and highly toxic. There needs to be one definition of fuel that aligns with state regulations. The draft plans need to the needs to be cleansed of any and all loopholes that allow for expansion of fuel storage facilities for new construction retrofits, expansion of transloading facilities, exemption requests, and fuel transfers. There needs to be one review protocol with a clear set of criteria, which require demonstrated evidence of reduced risk, increased safety and public benefit. There must be deep and repeated engagement with the impacted communities, particularly the neighboring poor and bipoc portions, where decision makers are required to respond to concerns before making decisions. Finally, and crucially, the plan needs to be included needs to include consequential incentives for the public to transition away from fossil fuels to truly sustainable energy sources. Without that, a complete drawdown is not doable. Thanks.
202 Thank you very much. Okay. Colleagues and the friends of the public, thank you all so much for showing up to testify today. We have 17 minutes left scheduled for today. That is not enough time for us to meaningfully engage in discussion of the amendments. And so I will preview for the community that we will be back to hear this and have more public discussion on this. On sorry, grabbing the date October 1st. We'll be back to do more work on this. So councilors, rather than move to any amendments, I'm going to open the queue to see if there's any additional thoughts, comments or discussion, and then we may get out of here on time. Councilor Kanal.
203 Yeah, thanks, everybody for testifying. I really appreciate it. I did want to note that someone mentioned in testimony looking at directive g on document. You know, it's the one that says city bureaus including pb and d pbem and Portland fire and rescue shall continue collaboration and coordination. And I would just welcome any specific things there because I'm absolutely going to be looking at that. Thanks.
204 Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Green.
205 I just want to thank everyone for the testimony today. A lot of people referred to support greens amendments. And I just want to say I didn't work alone on this. So there's a number of co-sponsors on this. We all work together to get this there and worked with you and the staff. So I just want to give credit where it's due. Thanks.
206 Thank you, councilor Green. Okay, colleagues. Oh, councilor Ryan great.
207 Thank you. First of all, for all of you for being here in the testimony. For the record, I actually do enjoy public testimony and there was some really entertaining moments today. So thank you for that. I do want to make sure we have time for a full legal risk review of each amendment. Has that already taken place? And I just don't know because I also received some of these just prior to the meeting.
208 I can direct respond. I mean, I can't speak for other amendments, but the ones that are Green. Pirtle-guiney clerk, Koyama Lane and Kanal were developed in sort of constant communication with city attorney lauren king. That's not exactly the same as, you know, pencils up, sit with it for a period of time and go through a full long think on it. And so I think between now and October 1st, I expect that that's what's going to happen. But I want you to know, we work directly with our land use attorney who has the experience on this.
209 Thanks. Thank you councilor. And did you want to add anything, lauren?
210 Not not in the council meeting.
211 And then my other question is I'm trying to sort through all of the amendments within the amendment that you all did. Good work, by the way, and the one that I want to separate and spend more time on is the aviation fuel exception. Would that be possible or is it all clumped into one package? I can't tell if it's a separate amendment within amendments, or.
212 I'm getting the nod from the council president that it's okay to respond. The reason.
213 I'm used to being able to do this. So sorry. I have old habits.
214 The reason that we formatted the amendment in the way that it is formatted is to make it easier to guide ourselves to discussion of different concepts. It is introduced as a single amendment. I would say as a co-sponsor, my hope personally is to be able to pass it as a single amendment, but it was introduced in that way so that we can dig in on different pieces, think about what's in each of them with those separate listings and headers to guide us to those places, knowing that there would be portions of the amendment that are potentially that potentially raise more questions than others.
215 Like the one I mentioned.
216 Like the one you mentioned.
217 Thank you. I'll get out of here since there's not much time left, but want to get that into the record. Thanks.
218 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Pausing for dramatic effect. Okay, colleagues, the hearing on the recommended draft of the c e hub policy project is continued to an additional meeting before the city council on October 1st, 2026 at 2:00 pm. The hearing on the bulk fuel terminal capacity reduction regulations amendments to title 17 is is continued to a meeting before the Portland city council on October 1st, 2026, also at 2:00 pm. As a point of information, we are also tentatively holding time for these items as necessary. On October 7th, 2026, the record for oral testimony on these two ordinances is now closed. The written testimony will remain open until 12:00 pm on Thursday, October 1st. That doesn't make. Based on how council deliberations on. Based on council deliberations on possible amendments, council may decide to reopen the record for oral or written testimony at a future meeting. I'm looking to my land use attorney to see what else I need to say.
219 You did a great job and I'll just recapture so everyone understands that this item, both of these items are coming back October 1st at 2:00. At this point, the oral record is closed. That means there'll be no more public testimony on that date, but the written record. So your opportunity to submit written testimony will remains open until October 1st at noon. Council may, in its deliberations on October 1st, decide to reopen the record for additional oral testimony. So continue to follow along because there may be more opportunities for oral testimony. But at this point it is closed.
220 Thank you lauren. Thank you all so much for your testimony for being here today. With that, we are adjourned.