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 · October 2026

The record · Transcript

Council Session — 2026-10-01

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (24,662 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, Oct 1, 2026 · meeting length 2 hr 59 min · council salary-time ≈ $2,286

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

From the vote ledger — the written record, editor-verified — not from this summary or the captions. Tied and split votes are listed first; other votes from this date appear once verified.

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.

0 Good afternoon. I'm calling to order this meeting of the Portland city council. It's 201 on Thursday, October 1st. Keelan. Please call the roll.
1 Yes. Good afternoon. Just a quick note, we have updated the voting order just so everyone's aware.
2 Clerk new voting order. Not me then.
3 It's last quarter with q4. Let's go d4.
4 Clerk.
5 Oh, sorry. Was that clerk.
6 Clerk right here. Thank you. Green chair. Zimmerman here. Avalos.
7 Present.
8 Smith.
9 Kanal here.
10 Pirtle-guiney.
11 Here.

Procedural episode · turns 12–20

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

12 Ryan.
13 Here.
14 Koyama Lane.
15 Here. Here. Here.
16 Here. Can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
17 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/council/agenda. Information on engaging with the council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless 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 an ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.
18 Thank you very much, colleagues. Before we get started, counselor Ryan, I see your hand in the queue.
19 Thank you. Hey, colleagues, I just want to say that that's an interesting background. I just want to say that I'm on family bereavement leave, and I'll be limiting my public schedule this week. This meeting is really important and they're all important, but this one's been on our docket for some time. And I'll be listening off camera. I might jump on when we're on discussing amendments, especially on aviation fuel. And I also just want to say, I really thank you for respecting my privacy at this time. And a special thanks to those of you who have sent me private notes, and I really appreciate that. Thank you.
20 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Okay, keelan, we have two items on our agenda. Can we please call items nine and ten.
21 Item nine, document 2026-311. Adopt the critical energy infrastructure hub policy project to support public health and natural hazards risk reduction. Amend code titles 33 and 24. Item ten document 2026-312 add bulk fuel terminal capacity reduction regulations code to reduce critical energy infrastructure hub fuel storage by 2036 in support of hazard mitigation, add code. Chapter 17.112.
22 Thank you very much, colleagues. This is a continued council meeting for item number 2026 311. The ordinance for the recommended draft of the cei hub policy project and for item 2026 312. The ordinance for the bulk fuel terminal capacity reduction regulations. The legislative record for these ordinances is now closed based on council. Based on council deliberations on possible amendments, council may decide to reopen the record for oral or written testimony at a future meeting. The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss proposed amendments to both ordinances. For the purposes of structuring the discussion, colleagues, I'd like to start with document 2026 311, the ordinance for the comprehensive plan policy amendments and the title 33 zoning code and title 24 building code amendments. We will only consider this item today and return next week for the other to help us know what we're doing. Planning and sustainability staff have prepared a slide deck and a brief presentation summarizing the amendments that have been proposed. We have with us staff from planning sustainability. Come on up. Director Eric engstrom, supervising planner tom armstrong and patricia diefenderfer, chief planner from bts.
23 Good afternoon. For the record, Eric engstrom, director of bts, and I'll turn it over to staff.
24 Good afternoon. Patricia diefenderfer, chief planner.
25 Good afternoon. Tom armstrong, supervising planner at bts.
26 Thank you. I understand you all have a little show us and help us. Help us all get caught up to what it is we're talking about today.
27 Yeah. There we go.
28 All right, there we go. Okay. I'm not sure how you want to run this meeting, but so as was read out, there are two ordinances before you. We have the legislative record for both ordinances. And as the council president said, the record is now closed for the time being, starting with the comprehensive plan amendments. Mainly, these amendments to the policy language are in the Green pirtle-guiney Kanal Clark Koyama Lane two that were posted today, and we have slides that can go through each of these. However you like to handle the discussion on, on this portion of of the Green two amendments.
29 Awesome. Thanks, tom. I would love it if you could summarize the comprehensive plan and the title 33 amendments. Just so we're all clear on what we're talking about here.
30 Yeah. So the comprehensive plan policy amendments we make, the planning commission has recommended two changes to the existing policies, and then a a new policy policy. 383 that is specific to the sci hub, and that policy has a number of sub policies that address the wide range of issues, from seismic upgrades to economic significance to environmental protection as a result of the public hearing and back and forth, there's been proposed changes to some of those policies. Not all of those policies, wordsmithing of those policy documents and and including one new sub policy around risk reduction.
31 Thank you. Is this a do you go further into it past this point?
32 Yeah. So the the first policy is to actually include some introductory language that really provides a little bit more context in, in where the policies appear in the comprehensive plan around the sci hub. And we have. You know, this language really explains why the sci hub is so important, both in terms of supplying the state's liquid fuel, but as well as the risks that it faces. And the need for sort of continued collaboration to address the emergency preparedness issues. Then again, for policy 372, this is one of the existing policies. You know, the what you see here at the end in blue is the added language that really brings in that that importance of safety and resilience, that that sort of that, that what we're
33 Trying to do here. The balancing of the economic significance of the hub and the area as as well as the the risks that it faces. Then in terms of the sub policies, again, there's some wordsmithing here. Policy 383 b has been expanded to acknowledge other natural hazards that the hub faces, such as fires, landslides and floods. The economic significant policy again has has sort of brought in the importance of finding alternative locations for these facilities. Again, that's, you know, alternative locations outside of the city of Portland. There's there's not really a safer location in Portland for these facilities. Policy 383 d again, sort of strengthens the verb, you know, a more active verb around protect air and water quality. And that bringing in especially acknowledging the role that tribal nations can play in, you know, helping to protect the air and water quality resources and prompting to for coordinated planning. Similar change to the energy transition policy. Again, bringing in tribal nations into that mix of local, state, and federal jurisdictions, as well as a change in reference from a low carbon economy to a decarbonized economy. Again, sort of reflecting the the larger climate goals when it comes to the energy transition. Community resilience. Again, this really speaks sort of beyond zoning code and development regulations, but to really the importance of the need for funding to for further risk mitigation of, of the, the dangers posed by the natural hazards in this area. And then and along a similar, similar line, there's a new policy around risk reduction. And, and again, a prompt to identify more strategies to, to mitigate the risk to the community and the environment and the economic health that that comes from concentrating all of these facilities at the sci hub. That is the suite of policy changes in what I'll call Green two.
34 Thank you very much. I'd like to turn to councilors Green pirtle-guiney, Kanal Clark and or Koyama Lane to see if there's further conversation about this, or to move into a formal motion. Yeah. Councilor Green.
35 I'll just jump right in. Thank you so much, council president. And thank you, tom, for summarizing. And again, I cannot for anyone watching this, I cannot stress enough how responsive bts has been to us during this process. We've learned. I don't know how many. Three iterations at least. And you all have other planned work and it just it's a it's a testament to your commitment to this style of policy making that is responsive to the community. And, and they and they hear it and they feel it. So thank you. Just broadly, you know, we've organized this as as one big amendment and what we've seen on the screen so far, the eight different amendments, some amendments that are speaking to the comprehensive plan. So do you want me to just to talk about the comp plan part first, or do you want me to just talk about the global suite of things.
36 And talk about the global suite of things?
37 That's fine. Okay. So just just to set the stage here, colleagues. You know, development happens in a cumulative fashion and it's historically situated. I study this in my dissertation. And you know, what you see for the city of Portland is development occurs along the river. It recurs. It occurs with railroads and utilities. And all of the investment that that engenders creates jobs. It creates growth and all that. But it creates also impacts to communities. And I think one of the takeaways from doing that work is, is recognizing that while development is cumulative, it's it's not inevitable where it goes and how you steer that and how you change that depends upon how municipalities and governments structure their regulatory apparatus and, and how you engage in politics. And so this is a this is an area I've been watching from the outside looking in, not as a person who lived adjacent to the sci hub, but but seeing that it was a big point of energy in the city of Portland and seeing, you know, community advocates take a deep interest and become land use experts and sort of try to find champions to take this work up. And then seeing in this post charter reform world where councilors and staff are, are in community conversation with them. And I think that's a really beautiful thing. And so I think what I what we have here, what we're moving, what we'll get into the details here in a second on is, is a collective effort by a range of councilors who recognize that we're not solving all the problems with the hub in this one action, but we have an opportunity to significantly improve both the safety at the hub, as well as our commitment to environmental sort of climate goals. While modeling how you do community driven policy making. And so there might be some pieces that are missed, there might be some differences of opinion, but this is how legislative stuff works. We try to find compromise to move the needle forward together. And so I'm proud of the work. But broadly, I would say that I am formally going to move this, which also contains a number of amendments for the title 33 zoning code as well. And so do we want to then jump into that or. Okay.
38 I second.
39 Councilor Green moves. Councilor vice president, clerk, seconds colleagues, we are now in discussion of the amendment. And councilor Green, you still have the floor.
40 Yeah. Do you have slides for the title 33 stuff? Maybe that's the easiest way to do it so everyone can see visually. Tom, do you mind doing the. Sure. Thanks.
41 So amendment nine in the document, there are some changes to the neighborhood contact requirements. And you know, this is designed to have advance notice to the surrounding neighborhoods of a incoming development application. And so these amendments expand the number of neighborhoods and, and education institutions that will get those notices. It also requires a an ad to be published in a newspaper that is broadly distributed in the neighborhoods that receive that notice. And generally this requirement is, is just to create awareness of a development activity. And and this is, you know, for all types of activity that we're expecting to occur out at these hubs as part of the implementation of their state required seismic stability programs, the risk mitigation implementation plans that are expected to occur over the next ten or so years. And this covers when they're building new structures or storage tanks to to replace the existing ones, or the demolition of an existing one, or an alteration to the transloading facility. In addition to that, this is also expanded to. The neighborhood contact requirement. In cases where a terminal is coming through, one of the type three reviews. And so what it requires is that before a terminal applies for one of those reviews, they have to have this neighborhood contact requirement, which is sending a letter notifying the surrounding neighborhoods, holding a meeting to talk about what the proposal will be. And then when that when they actually make the formal application to permitting and development as part of the checklist of application materials, they have to show that they've satisfied the requirements of this neighborhood requirement, contact requirement. The second amendment amendment ten is addresses those type three reviews and currently in the the recommended code package. There are three different reviews, one for new transloading facilities, one for transferring capacity between terminals and one for the aviation fuel storage expansion review. Under this amendment, those three reviews are deleted and replaced by two reviews. The first is a storage tank replacement review, and then the second one is a capacity and and transloading expansion review. So the replacement review again sort of kicks in when a terminal is going through is is implementing their state required rmip process. So they're making seismic upgrades and they decide that they're going to replace a tank before they can get a building permit for that tank replacement. They need to go through this type three process. And, and the approval criteria is such that, you know, importantly, that the replacement tank or tanks, the total capacity is not more than what they are replacing. The replacement tank is built to risk category four. And that, you know, they show that they're in compliance with their deq risk mitigation implementation plan, that the location of the replacement tank or tanks are have have either the same or lower seismic risks associated. So sometimes they're replacing it in the same place. Sometimes they're moving it. We want them to move it essentially away from the river to a place that in theory has lower liquefaction risks and that they replace. They post a performance bond again, that once they're done with the replacement, that we ensure that the old tank is demolished. So in some cases, they're going to build a new tank in a new location. They're going to keep the old tank online and serving fuel that we need. And then when that new tank is ready to come online, they'll take the old tank off. This performance bond ensures that they take that old tank off and they and remove it. So that's amendment ten or that's the replacement review process. The second review is is for expansions. And this is for both tank capacity and transloading facilities and includes the aviation fuel. Again it's a type three review procedure. What we've done is taken essentially the the transloading the transfer and the aviation fuel expansion criteria and collapsed it into one set of criteria, which is what we heard from the public testimony. To go through this process, you know, a terminal is going to have to show a need for the expanded capacity that that there is no alternative location that can accommodate that expanded capacity. There has to be net public benefits, including non-economic benefits. That's in criteria b and criteria c, that the expansion will not result in an increase in the total capacity of the hub, except for the 5% allowance for aviation fuel. And so essentially that this operates as a as as the the transfer between terminals. So as the terminals change. They can go through this process to move that capacity between sites. You know, and that's how they would show that they meet criteria. C d again is, you know, show us that you are, you know, up to date and, and compliant with your rmi p from dick criteria. E is, you know, again, that any new tank capacity is built to risk category four criterion f is same for the transloading facilities are built to that higher seismic standard. Criterion g is again any new tank expanded tank has to be set back at least 250ft from the river, and then h is again, that we're addressing public health and environmental risks and minimizing any increase to the extent practicable. I again similarly addresses public health and safety, especially from a wildfire. Associated with that new tank. And then finally, j is that, you know, you have a balancing test, essentially that says the expanded capacity, any need for that capacity outweighs the the added risks to the local community and environment.
42 I'm just going to pause there for a second and just an emphasis on approval criteria. A here and just for folks who are not part of the conversations that we have with these advocates and the and the city staff is that's an area where we spent a lot of time getting the language right. And we wanted to make sure that because this is a permitting process, that when we are talking about demonstrating the need, that there is language that says, this is a current needs analysis, that is documenting that need, that that really does demonstrate that there, there is that need and that there's no suitable other location for it. And so I think I don't want to lose that. That's a pretty binding constraint that I think the city of Portland will, will hold itself to, or I think that's what we we strive towards. And that's why the rest of it sort of follows after that. And that's. Would you agree with that characterization, tom?
43 Yes.
44 Yeah. Thank you.
45 Then just 11 you know, this really speaks again, to some of the public testimony that we heard. This goes into the ordinance itself, and it's just a directive to the city administration to bring back a work program to figure out how we're going to limit the storage of non-fuel hazardous materials. So right now, these limits cover about 80% of the storage capacity in the hub itself. But we have other materials like asphalt that make up the other 20% of storage that's out there.
46 Thank you. And I just want to hop in again to clarify on that, that there was a strong desire to define fuel more beyond fuel, inside of the language itself. And what we were advised on was that doing so would invite the potential to sort of slow the process down and need to add more evidence in the record. And we decided if we put a directive which is, you know, which is stronger than a resolution, it's it's a council directive, the city must act. If we adopt this directive, then the city now has a has a mandate to go out and engage in that definition process. Then we avoid that delay and we come back and meet the the goal of that expanded definition. So we can adopt that at a later time. And that's so so I think that there's probably some open questions about what's feasible from staff on a given timeline. But irrespective of timeline, do you think that this directive would provide enough room for bts to do the work that is needed to be responsive to community and maintain compliance?
47 I guess I can speak to that again. Director engstrom yeah, I think we can respond given the language changes you made, that that's a reasonable timeline for a work program proposal.
48 Okay. Thank you.
49 Okay.
50 That's it for the title 33 amendment. So perfect. There's a lot here, guys. And thanks for the the flyover. And I guess I would ask for your support. We can get into debate.
51 Thank you, councilor Green. Thank you, tom and team for walking us through this. As I said at the very beginning, I want to extend a courtesy to all the co-sponsors of this to see if they have any additional comments before we enter full discussion. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
52 Thank you, council president, I want to reiterate a place where council Green started, which is that we are not solving all of the challenges with the c, e I hub, but we are addressing safety. And this is a place where we know that safety bumps up against the entire region's economic drivers. And we worked very hard in this proposal to figure out how we find that place where we push on safety as much as we can without compromising our land use framework that we work within here and our economic needs. And what you have before you sets up, I believe, a number of next steps, while also trying to find that place where we can keep our communities as safe as possible and also keep our region humming all within the the bounds of our land use system. So I look forward to the discussion, the questions, the debate on this, and wanted to make sure we had that frame as we begin. Thank you, council president.
53 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Kanal.
54 I'll save my comments for the full discussion.
55 Okay. Vice president Clark.
56 Thank you, council president. I just first of all want to thank the planning commission, wherever you are, for all of their work. Thank our all my colleagues, thank the people from the bureau, especially tom, for all the work that you've put into this. I think it's a very reasonable package. I think I think the advocates for always being at the table and pushing on this. I really appreciate it. It's very long awaited. I think we waited years for this package. I am going to make one caveat. And then I do have a question, since I haven't been as intimately involved in all the negotiations, I have an easy question, but I also want to just say that we're we're really pushing the envelope here as far as the state goes. And I'm. I'm afraid that if we go much further, that the state will be tempted to preempt us, preempt these policies just as a caution, we should be aware of that, that there's a certain kind of fear around the state that we are somehow going to disadvantage the economy, disadvantage other communities around the state, and just be aware of that, that there will probably be an effort in Salem to preempt some of the things that we're doing here, but I think we're doing a really good job. I do have a question, though, on, let's see, how do I describe this under fuel storage tank and trans loading capacity expansion review under g, new storage tank capacity is set back at least 250ft from the top bank of the Willamette river. Why did we not include on non liquefaction soils in there? Is that was that discussed?
57 I will say the whole area has some is in that high liquefaction risk. But when you look at the. Some of the draft seismic vulnerability assessments that the terminals. You see a range of, I guess, risk of displacement. And the further you get away from the river, the. The lower that risk the the lower the amount of displacement becomes. So think, you know, 10 to 12ft of displacement close to the river, down to less than a foot away from the river. And so we were, we were looking at those sort of maps and just saying, okay, for, for new expanded tanks, move it away from the, the river to a safer location. But there is no sort of no liquefaction hazard areas in on these terminals.
58 No line of demarcation, just this is your best guess. It's 250ft is.
59 It gets us. It's safer. It's not for it's not safest or safe. Okay. It's safer.
60 Okay. I appreciate that that I think that answers my question. Thank you.
61 Okay. Thank you, vice president Clark councilor Koyama Lane, any opening remarks for you? Okay, great. So, colleagues, we are now in discussion of this amendment, which was moved by councilor Green and seconded by vice president Clark councilor Novick.
62 Thank you, mr. President. So I have a question which maybe is partly guided by my not knowing exactly how arduous a type three procedure is on replacing tanks. It seems to me that if they're going to replace a bad tank with a good tank, we want them to do that as quickly as possible. So if they're going to replace an old tank with a risk category for a resilient tank. So I'm just wondering, is there any argument for authorizing a speeded up procedure that's different from title three? Or is title three is speeded up as it's reasonable to go for a type three? Sorry.
63 The the type three process is is arduous, right? So they're going to go through the neighborhood contact. They're going to apply. They'll be public notice as part of the application an opportunity for comment. There'll be a hearing before a hearings. Officer. It's appealable to council. A lot of these criteria are, you know, either you meet it or not. Right. And, you know, I think we've heard from our colleagues at pad that that you could actually have a lower type of review process for this, a type two that still includes public notice and an opportunity for public comment, but it wouldn't go to the hearings. Officer. An appeal would not come to council. It would go to luba. But and that would be a slightly shorter process to go through to do these replacement tanks.
64 I mean, given that, I mean, it seems to me again, that if they really are going to replace an old tank that might explode with a new one, that won't, I don't know why we wouldn't want to speed up that process as much as possible. And I'm curious for the sponsors what their reaction is to that.
65 Yeah, this was a strong preference of the community advocates who in a world where there's uncertainty around demonstrating need, and there's a lot of sort of here's my forecast, here's my methodology, come with a better challenge. That's the sort of that's the baseline. I think what they wanted to see was the most robust process as possible. So that way I and I get your point about, you know, why wouldn't we want to make it easier to trade from a, a non-safe tank to a safer tank for these advocates to feel most comfortable with a world in which you can even have some expansion in the ongoing existence of this. This was what they felt like was their compromise position. And, and I, and I was willing to sort of fight for that. And, you know, I'll just note that I think it's probably in the best interest of the companies to, to get the safer tank anyway. So they've got a strong, you know, balance sheet incentive anyway.
66 And I just have to say, I, I don't quite get it because if I were living near the cia hub, I'd want them to replace the bad tanks with good tanks as quickly as possible. So given that this requires that the total storage capacity is not more than of the new tank is not more than the storage capacity of the tanks being replaced, it requires that it's built to risk category for seismic resilience standards. I just don't see logically why we wouldn't have to want to have a speedier process for that.
67 I mean, one very specific reason came up in the depths of the conversation where we were arguing about something else. It was about the drawdown criteria. It was about whether tank capacity or average levels was was the right approach. One of the advocates said, this is largely why we want the type three review, so we can have as much information as possible to learn as much as possible about these tanks, what is their volume and the like. And so this was just really important for these community members to know everything that they need to know about, about the threats that they face.
68 But did you ask the community members if they thought that it would, if they thought that it's a good idea to get the bad tanks replaced with tanks as quickly as possible?
69 I think there's a general recognition that that's desirable, but there's a balance of risks here. And so weighing those risks, they want the most robust processes possible. And and there's no single one one risk here.
70 But what's the risk of replacing a bad tank with a good tank.
71 The risk was that if it's not a type three process, then we would be potentially shortchanged on the ability to engage on the data discovery process and the review process. So, you know, there's trust issues here with these companies. And if you've been dealing with the trust issue for decades, then you're willing to sort of say, look, I'm going to take a little bit longer on this replacement if it means I've got the most protection I have from a community involvement standpoint. So I can't offer you any more than that. But that's, that's, that was the discussion that we had.
72 Any other sponsors? Any other comments?
73 Council president, if I may? Absolutely.
74 I'll note two things. The first is that when you talk about tank safety, whether that's replacing a bad tank with a good tank or a less risky tank, or. Surrounding the tank with a catchment area, whatever the upgrade is there, those things are going to be moving forward because of deq regulation at the state level regardless. So I think we are going to see the incentive there for companies to make those upgrades. No matter what our process is, whether it is more robust or less robust, there was a strong desire to have consistency in the process, and we sometimes, as policy makers, can further engineer things to create processes that allow for all of the nuance needed in each piece of it, and for community members who are trying to engage in that process. There are sometimes additional barriers when there's not consistency. So there was a move with the amendments generally, and I'm speaking generally not just to this piece, to try to have more consistency in the process so that portlanders could engage more readily. That, combined with the fact that because we are paralleling in timeline here, a process that is going to require some upgrades, felt to me like it mitigated the risk that you're talking about. I think it's a very reasonable concern to bring up. It is certainly part of what we need to weigh here, but that that deq mandate helped, for me at least, to to make me feel like the balance was captured appropriately.
75 But my worry is that this will slow down, complying with the deq mandate, that the deq will say, we expect you to get this done by 2038. And the companies say, well, we have to go through this type three review first. We're not going to get it until 2041. I mean, how much time does a type three versus a type three review add?
76 Yeah.
77 So the city is still under the state 120 day requirement to issue a decision by then. So in theory it's a four month process at maximum. It's a four month process. Unless the applicant waves that 120 day. And then it all depends on, you know, what happens, how much argument there is at the hearings officer and whether somebody appeals that to council.
78 So I'd also say just the sorry, for the record, patricia diefenderfer just, you know, expense associated with that application, the fee as well as the time. Just throw that in.
79 So is four months the maximum or is it a minimum?
80 It's the maximum unless because of the back and forth the terminals waive that 120 day requirement.
81 And and if there's an appeal then that could extend that timeline. Right.
82 No. The council the appeal has to be resolved within 120 days.
83 Okay. I mean, I just. It would be a pity if the earthquake hit within in the in the course of that 120 day period, and there was a bad tank instead of a good tank that spilled a bunch of oil as my take.
84 Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor Kanal.
85 Thank you. I'm not really sure what a good tank is. Thanks.
86 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Koyama Lane.
87 I just want to underscore that, you know, the cei hub is an issue that impacts all portlanders and all four districts, all of our districts, and that it's really important that we're showing that elected officials, that we're willing to govern in a way that's really going to protect portlanders and the environment, and just also want to underscore the importance of listening to the advocates and community members and scientists that have been focused on this and working on this for many, many years. And I am yeah, it's really important that we're weighing the safety, their safety and concerns as we're also weighing other other things that come up to.
88 Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane vice president Clark.
89 Thank you, council president, I just want to make some general remarks about this, because I think this is a really important moment in history and the history of lynton and the history of the tanks, the history of our state. I just read sarah taylor's book. I don't know if sarah is here today, but she wrote a book that includes some of the history of the tanks and the history of lynton. And it was really because of tank that was, I believe, in this inside the city of Portland, closer to the downtown that exploded, that actually killed our fire chief, dave campbell, which, you know, there's now a memorial to fallen firefighters on Burnside. That's the david campbell memorial. I thought that was fascinating. And that was what led to the issue of eminent domain in lynton and really making lynton the sacrifice zone for the rest of the city and the rest of the state. I just thought that history was really compelling. And here we are today. We can't reverse that history, but I think we're doing the best that we can. It's taken this long to get to this point of trying to deal with the tanks and enhance the safety for everybody who lives in lynton, who lives in the city, who lives in the state to mitigate the impacts. I just wanted to note that that history of how we got here and what this is really a turning point, I hope, for all of us. So thank you for everyone who has worked on this.
90 Thank you. Vice president Clark councilor Smith.
91 Thank you. Thank you, council president. Thank you all for coming. Just thinking about this, the building retrofits, they reduce physical vulnerability but do not fully eliminate the liquification risk. Is the city exploring local financial responsibility or bonding mechanisms to shield taxpayers from cleanup costs? If an earthquake strikes before the retrofit finishes?
92 The state is addressing that. There was legislation that passed last spring, and that dic is currently going through the rulemaking process, and that that added financial responsibility will be on the terminals in the spring of 2027.
93 Okay. Thank you.
94 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Kanal.
95 Yeah.
96 Not trying to be glib about it earlier. I think I really wanted to touch back on what councilor Green was talking about with trust. You know, I think there is a question about which type of public process is more of a public process. And that's the, I think the, the time spent or that may be spent has a trade off, right? The that time spent might be a negative, but the positive associated with that is, is a more public process. And I think one of the great things about our form of government is the ability to have that that trust be built through processes that that we got to these amendments through by actually listening to advocates and and doing what they would like. I have a question for tom. My understanding is that the up to 5% storage tank capacity expansion limit for aviation fuel would allow for expanded capacity exclusively for the storage of aviation fuel, so that that expanded storage capacity could not then be used for other types of fuel. Is that correct?
97 Correct.
98 Okay. Great. Thanks.
99 Thank you, councilor Kanal councilor Novick.
100 Thank you, mr. President. So there's a obvious question I'd like to ask, which my staff read. Zach ward pointed out. I should ask, which is the deq rules allow for either replacing a old tank with a risk category for seismically standard tank, or doing a containment pool around the tank. And it was my understanding that the advocates would much rather have the new tanks than the containment pool. And I'm wondering, is it possible that the requirement of a type three review, as opposed to something quicker, might push the companies to decide to go with the containment pool, as opposed to building a new tank, which puts them into this, you know, this review process.
101 We don't have any testimony in the record that speaks to that concern by the terminals. So I would just be speculating as to how they would interpret that.
102 Thank you. I do think that that's worth us thinking about just logically, if you have to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to do a replacement tank, but you don't in order to do the containment pool, I would think that that might tend to weight the scales towards doing the containment pool.
103 Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor Smith.
104 Thank you. Just in terms of emergency preparedness and community mitigation, how will revenue or administrative fees generated by the title 33 land use review process directly support immediate disaster preparedness and emergency response resources for adjacent communities.
105 For the title 33 development review process. It won't. Those. Those application review fees are to support pad and their staff. That goes into reviewing the development application itself. I think there is more of a discussion and opportunity as part of the title 17, that if there are any penalties that come from enforcement, where those are designed to be dedicated towards risk mitigation, but in title.
106 33 communities as well.
107 Yeah, okay. But title 33 itself, those fees are relatively small compared to what's involved with the title 17 penalties. And mainly that that's how we fund p and d.
108 Okay. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
109 Thank you, councilor Smith. Colleagues, is there any further discussion of the Green pirtle-guiney Kanal clerk. Koyama Lane two amendment. Councilor Zimmerman.
110 Thanks. I guess I'm I'm just curious from a staff perspective. Why I'm trying to get a sense of, of what these amendments are introducing compared to and maybe why it wasn't included in the original work from the original package that you all brought forward. And this has been both an interesting and a helpful way to convey some of these amendments, but is also a little unusual from a perspective of where the bureau is at on amendments. I'm trying to get that sense, because you didn't include it in the original documentation. So I would love an assessment for that and some reasoning why and those thoughts, because I would imagine there are things that we get and maybe some things we give up, given these various amendments. And I can't I'm not hearing a lot of.
111 That maybe start. Tom, I think this round of amendments was the result of. Testimony that you all received. That was a reaction to our recommended draft. And so. It's been an iterative process that, you know, some of the testimony that came in to you all we didn't have the benefit of. And so in in at least a few cases, we looked at that and said, oh, yeah, there's that makes sense. Like the, this move to consolidate the different reviews into a fewer number of reviews. It's not something we thought of, but it came in as testimony. It got traction with you all and it made sense. So I think that's the broader reaction is that this has been an iterative process and and has in terms of the policy document, it's largely been a question of verb strength and wordsmithing to to respond to community preferences.
112 I might also just say that as it relates to the replacement, the the storage tank replacement review, the reason that was not included as one of the kinds of activities that would require a discretionary review, a type three review is because of the need, you know, the desire to make sure that we don't create any barriers to improving the safety of those tanks, and understanding that deq has, you know, there's going to be the the mitigation plans and the requirements to comply with those mitigation plans from deq. And so we didn't want to create any more process associated with just replacing the tank. So that was one of the one of the things that factored into why that was not considered a discretionary review initially.
113 I'll just add in the proposal, the recommendation from the planning commission. That's before you. There is the neighborhood contact for any of the replacement tanks before they go in for their building permit. They have to go through that neighborhood contact process. So they have to send the notice to the neighborhoods. They have to hold a meeting. It says, this is what we're going to do. And then they can proceed. And that that was the the public contact awareness step. And then from there, the the public can track the progress of the building permit, but they do not get an opportunity to comment on the building permit. This introduces an interim step there where through the review, you see a little bit more around the design and and and are able to have more opportunity for comment and has been said here. The opportunity to build trust with the community.
114 Councilor. I'd also maybe just add that the hat we're wearing as staff changes, as we go through the different steps of this process, the the initial step of us coming up with a recommendation, that's when we're in the driver's seat and making recommendations. When we go to planning commission, our role shifts a little bit to being advisors about whether it's technically feasible. And we still will express our opinion about whether we think that's a good idea or not. But it's it's the planning commission making that recommendation. And then, of course, when we're here, we're still in that technical advisory role where you all are deciding and we're just telling you whether that's workable from a zoning administration perspective. And if you ask us, you know, would we do it that way? You know, there's different answers.
115 You say if it's feasible from a zoning and what perspective.
116 Administrative perspective can we.
117 But when crafting the original, you were crafting it from more than just a zoning and feasibility perspective. There was all sorts of perspectives taken in. So I guess I'm asking a little bit is, do you anticipate that there are factors, things that would be given up if these were adopted compared to the original that you all proposed, and that made it to our desk before the amendments?
118 I mean, you've already hinted at this discussion about whether we would do a review for the replacement tanks. That's, you know, that's a pivot that that.
119 That doesn't.
120 Is a trade off.
121 What do we do, a review, I guess that's not what I'm getting at is you're talking about process process of a land use decision. But I'm talking about like, what is the outcome when the process is over? And that's what I'm trying to get a sense for in terms of what does some of these what we're talking largely these amendments are how we want to go about a thing, not what the thing will be. And that that's what I'd like to get a little bit of a better sense of these amendments and what they change from the document.
122 I think the one thing that has changed or is left behind is, is related to the transfer review that that the way the transfers were set up between under the the transfer review, that if you were transferring capacity from one terminal to the other as part of that transfer, there was a 20% reduction. And that that goes away with, with the, the, the new capacity and transloading expansion review.
123 Okay. And so what's the outcome of that?
124 That that is one outcome that there is not the immediate 20% reduction where if, if we're if we still have title 17, then we're waiting till 2036 to see that 20% reduction.
125 Yeah.
126 Instead, what you have is the criterion that forces the examination of data and the latest forecasts. And so it's yeah, it's not an automatic reduction, but it's a.
127 Well the transfer review still had that need that capacity need criterion in it. But again, the as part of the transfer there was a tax on the capacity that is no longer part of this process.
128 And what you were mentioning earlier that the neighborhood would have some input. So what do we consider the neighborhood in this conversation? Who are we actually talking about?
129 Well, there's.
130 A are we just doing the neighborhood boundary of northwest linton?
131 Yeah. There's an extensive list of, of neighborhood associations that receive notice and prior notice of this, you know, these pending applications. And that really kicks off the public process. And for individuals to be aware of.
132 So many neighborhoods, not just the. Correct. Okay. And then I guess from bp's perspective, do you consider this set of amendments that have been proposed to be. Large and significantly changing of the document? Do you consider them stylistic process or minor across the board? I'm trying to get a sense of you all to put a lot of work, a long time, long process. And while it sounds like the councilors, the five who sponsored this, did some late night work with you all. We're still talking about within the last couple of weeks versus the last couple of years. And so I'm just trying to get a sense for the magnitude, if you will, of the amendments and how that lands upon bts and your original product and where you're at now. And I, I just don't know.
133 There are a couple different flavors of amendments here. There's the policy amendments, the code content, and then some of the process changes. And I think the policy amendments, largely from a community perspective, I think, are aimed at strengthening the wording to be firmer. And I would agree that that's what they've done. Do you think not a wholesale redirection of the general policy tilt, but it moves the the firmness of the wording slightly further along the spectrum, the the process improvements are. I think there are some improvements in this version that that that clean up some some things that, that weren't clear in our version. So that's, that's not a fundamental change, but it is, I think, helpful. I don't know if, if staff has anything else. I wouldn't say it's a wholesale pivot. It's, it's strengthening some of the processes.
134 Trying to get a little bit of a sense if to, to the, to the verbs and to the words. And the descriptors that are kind of talking about is. How. So you all made a choice not to use those words originally, and now they are there. I guess I'm trying to get a sense of, is that something that you think in a, in this type of document should be avoided or actually it's good to include them. And I'm, I'm trying to understand the impact of these words because it sounds funny to argue over document, but a single word like shall does make differences. I'm just trying to get a sense here because you chose not to do it originally.
135 I may just jump in to say that I think that where the where the language landed on the policies, the verbs, and the additional kind of color that was added to some of the policies, I don't think that we have any particular concerns about that. I think that they they were they were fine. It was a good discussion. It helped us really kind of, you know, choose words very carefully. And I think it was it was a good process.
136 Okay. And then lastly, I guess there's a lot there's a lot here that the colleagues put forward. So. Maybe I've missed it. But are any of these from the city administration or bts that you consider risky or that you would recommend not be adopted?
137 I think I would, I would just say that the replacement review is something that obviously was not part of the original recommendation for that. Number ten. Yes, it's the two it's in amendment ten. There are two. The two review processes are an amendment ten. We're talking about the the first one, the replacement review. I think that the philosophy of the staff going in was that we didn't want to create any additional. I mean, too much additional process to get in the way of compliance with the deq seismic requirements.
138 We do understand the objective of that review, which was, I think, described by the sponsors, which is that it is giving the community more say in that replacement and and it is giving more transparency to that replacement. So if that's the policy objective, it's it's moving that direction.
139 I understand the policy objective from the people who wrote it. I'm looking to you as a person and a group of people. I'm trying to understand, like from an advocacy perspective, I am trying to get a sense for, are there red flags in here that I can't understand unless you flag them for me? Right. And so what I'm hearing is that there is some concern around ten, but that's the end of the sentence.
140 Yeah. I think as was described earlier, there has been an iterative process to hone this amendment, to try and eliminate as many of those red flags as possible. And I think, you know, especially working with the city attorney's office, we've we've gotten there to a point. There was a lot of give and take and, and wordsmithing to try and get this into the best position possible.
141 Okay. Okay. Thank you all.
142 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Green.
143 Thank you, council president. I just jumped back in the queue because I wanted to note through this discussion that what you're seeing that has been moved is certainly not everything that the advocates wanted. They put forward some stuff that I think they felt really strongly about. And after the iteration, with staff determined terminations were made to sort of say, we need to move forward with this. Let's take a second best, less perfect approach. We iterated with staff to get there. So this is just, I think, the outcome of a, you know, a land use process where we where we listen. So thanks.
144 Thank you, councilor Green, councilor Smith.
145 Thank you. I want to make sure because I've I've been in conversations with community about the hub, the hub and. But I want to know from bts. How do you all plan to make sure that there is a, an attempt to reach out to diverse, underserved residents, to let them know about the seismic and the environmental hazards that are going to happen when this change comes. Because as I've been looking around in the room and I know who's come to talk to me, and I haven't had a diverse group of folks come and talk to me about this. And so I want to make sure that bts will be giving a thorough public kind of conversation to concentrate on the hazards in those underserved and particularly those historically burdened neighborhoods. And councilor Zimmerman talked about who are we talking about? And no one talked about those folks. So I want to have at least some sort of commitment that this is going to be something that you, you bring up. I, you know, I know you can't control who comes here, but you can certainly control who you reach out to.
146 In councilor. And again, for the record, Eric engstrom, director of the. In tandem with this code work, we have been sitting at a table multiagency table with pbem and state agencies continuing to try to coordinate better on the the emergency response and hazard mitigation side of this. This is the zoning is in particular about like how people build things on the ground. And so it doesn't get so much into the, the on the ground mitigation or public information about the hazards. But the table where we're talking with those agencies across the multi agency effort to, to do better at the, at the planning for emergency response. That's where that action is, I think. And so we, we're regardless of what council does with these particular policy amendments, that dialog is continuing.
147 Can you talk about those.
148 When you're talking about those multi agency. I need you to talk to community based organizations, not just state and federal tables where you can talk to people who, who understand, I need you to, to reach out to folks who, who are from those historically underserved communities who have no idea, even though they, they may know that it is an urgent matter, but they don't know in great detail what is going on. And so I think just keep talking to ourselves. That's not going to do it. And depending on these multi agencies to go out into community, I think that we can do better, we know better, and we should be doing that. Because we're talking to the same people who are here. Look around the room to see who's here and then look to see who's not here. That's what I always do to look to see who is not here. Thank you.
149 Thank you.
150 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
151 Thank you, council.
152 President and councilor Novick. Councilor Zimmerman. I want to thank you guys for pushing on some of those questions. There. When we have a process like this, I think it's really important to air the specific changes and to make sure we have as much clarity as possible about the trade offs that were considered and that are being considered between the underlying and the amendment. I just want to speak to the process on this a little bit. There's a lot of different ways to go about thinking about what our roles are when it comes to policy making. But one of the things that I think is an important tool that we have and that we certainly used here, was being able to take two pieces of information that are both raising really important concerns and sit folks down together to figure out how to crosswalk them. And in this case, we saw feedback from a number of different stakeholder groups who were who felt like the underlying was missing some pieces. And as much as. Those folks have been working on this for years, and there are many experts in that community, I wanted to know what the impact would be on implementation from our bureau. I wanted to know what our attorneys who work with our land use laws every day thought about some of those changes. And so there was a whole process of walking back and forth to say, okay, here's what folks who would like to see a higher bar for safety are asking about does it work? If it doesn't work, why not? How could we make it work? If there are fundamental underlying concerns with the approach, is there another approach that could reach those same goals? And there were multiple rounds of us, your colleagues, walking these pieces back and forth to try to get to something that could withstand, frankly, the questioning up here, the really important questioning up here. So I just want to note that that was part of this process, that this was not taking one person's suggestion and saying, we're going to run with it. But it was a very iterative process. And I want to thank the bureau for being honest about the places where you still have some concerns, but also clear about the places where we were able to figure out how to meet some additional safety goals without raising red flags. From your perspective, I think that's where good policy is made. I also, councilor Smith, want to thank you for bringing up the concerns you did. And at one point when we were looking at notification, we were looking at a longer list. But to name each organization doesn't withstand the test of time and to name wholesale categories that could have 100 organizations within them doesn't withstand the test of practicality. And so we we narrowed to the list that you see, which is the neighborhood associations and a few educational institutions, as well as broadly distributed newspapers. But that doesn't have to be the only places notice are received, and I think it is incumbent upon all of us who represent these districts to make sure that we are flagging this for other organizations as well, so that they know to be on the lookout for it. So I just want to say, I am happy to work with you and with others to figure out who needs to be on our team's list and hopefully sit down with the bureau after this is passed and think about who else might be able to be on voluntary notification lists, even if they are not spelled out in the language here, because those those individual organizations may ebb and flow in terms of who the right people are to reach out to over time.
153 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. Councilor Novick.
154 Thank you, mr. President. I just want to say that I if I thought it would get support, I'd be inclined to offer an amendment on the replacement tank issue to go from type two to type three to type two, because of the concern about slowing down compliance with the deq requirements and pushing potentially pushing the companies to go with containment rather than new tanks. But I'm not going to offer that amendment to to waste time on an 11 to 1 or 10 to 2 vote. So I'll just say that if anybody other than councilor Zimmerman myself wants to offer that amendment, I'd seconded.
155 Thank you, councilor Novick. Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan can we move towards a.
156 This is.
157 These are moved as a single amendment right now. Currently, unless there's a motion to separate.
158 So request.
159 For information. Just the title 33 amendments though.
160 Yes.
161 No, it's.
162 It's the.
163 Comp plan policies and the title 33 amendment.
164 Can jump in here please.
165 Colleagues, the way that this is written lists different. They're listed as amendments but different sections so that it was easier for us to
166 Follow during debate and discussion. So it was easier for our staff to walk through everything that's in there. But what we've done is presented a, I hate to use the word comprehensive because we have the comp plan also, but I will a comprehensive, singular amendment that is filed together with those different subsections for each of the items on the agenda. So one amendment for agenda item nine, which affects title 33 in the comp plan, and one amendment for agenda item ten or document 2026 312, which affects title 17.
167 So can we just clarify that the next vote is on title 17? After this.
168 The current vote is the amendment on comp plan in title 33. I will defer to the council president on what he plans to do with title 17, depending on how we do with the underlying today.
169 It will be sequentially. Next.
170 Okay.
171 Thank you. We haven't formally moved it. Therefore we can't formally. Gotcha, gotcha. Yes. Okay. And vice president Clark, do you have any further? Okay. Keelan, please call the roll.
172 Yeah, this is the roll call. Vote on the amendment. Green pirtle-guiney Kanal Clark. Koyama Lane two. Moved by Green. Seconded by Clark. Clark.
173 Sorry.
174 I'm not used to this yet.
175 I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Smith. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick.
176 Subject to the foregoing reservations I.
177 Dunphy I.
178 The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
179 Thank you colleagues. I understand there are some additional amendments to this councilor Green.
180 Thank you, council president. I filed Green one because. You know, when you work together on an amendment, I think it's important to keep fidelity to the things that you all agree with and the things that you work together on. I think there's a little bit of difference between my risk. I think my risk appetite on the fuel aviation exemption piece, that's the 5% in the title 33 that we just amended. I'm far more skeptical of the modeling that shows we have that need. And so I was willing to file something on a separate piece not to sort of intermingle that with the rest of what we worked on. And that's what I would like to move now. And I won't drag us through the mud for a long debate if there's not support for this. But I would like to just talk about why why I'm doing this. So Green one is simply. On the website. It's Green one version two, which depended upon the order in which we took this up. But all it does is strike the. Unless the expansion is for the storage of aviation fuel, if the expansion is for the storage of aviation fuel, the total demand of expanded storage tank capacity cannot exceed 5% more than the storage tank capacity that existed before. And so I think what we just passed was great. And it was I think it, it, it limits us to the 20% expansion that we have been talking about. But I have been I have had reservations on the the evidence in the record on the fuel demand since the beginning of this process. I don't think it's credible to say that there's going to be as much growth in aviation fuel as we see in the record, because that modeling depends upon a world where aviation fuel prices are much less expensive, I think more than half as expensive as they are today. And demand for flights is a function of the price of a ticket. And airlines are low margin operations. And so when the cost of fuel goes up, the cost of airline tickets go up. And the economic research shows that for short haul air flying for for for short haul flights, consumers are highly responsive to price impacts. And they will switch their trips. So they will they will drive to seattle instead of flying to seattle, they will drive to northern california instead of flying to northern california. And so I don't think there is the need to sustain this exemption, carve out. And so because of that, I'm moving this amendment to bring it, I think, a little closer in line with. The desire to kind of limit the expansion overall there as the hub. And I would I would ask for a second.
181 Second, second.
182 Okay, councilor Green moves, Green one. And I believe I heard councilor Kanal first as a second. Colleagues, we are now in discussion of Green one. Councilor vice president clerk.
183 I'm sorry, I was not going to speak to this. I don't think I'm on something else on the overall. 17, but I am waiting to see the amendment. I haven't seen Green one. It's okay. Sorry.
184 Okay.
185 Thank you. Thank you, councilor Novick.
186 Sorry. Thanks, mr. President. Sorry. This is a further amendment to 33. Yeah. Okay. Just to clarify that.
187 Section. It's 33. It's the approval criteria. It's 33.870.060. And it was it was sub item c that that sort of created a 5% expansion allowance for aviation fuel. And so now I'm trying to sort of remove a little bit of that. Okay.
188 I just I'm going to make a comment I'll probably make again with regard to title 17, but I just want to note that we've already heard that industry folks are writing to legislators now saying that Portland is going to take away our fuel. And I am worried about legislative preemption of what we do. And I think that if we do anything further with the with with aviation, it increases the risk that alaska airlines will run to the legislature and said, well, we were going to have direct flights to seoul, but Portland portland's think about fuel as preventing us from doing that. And I'm afraid that if the legislature is goaded to doing something to override us on that, then they might override us on everything else, too. So I just think that doing messing with aviation fuel, whether there are these projections of increased demand, increases the risk of being overridden on the whole thing.
189 Thank you. Councilor Novick colleagues, I put myself in the queue. I'm not going to be able to be supportive of this amendment. I am convinced by our friends at the port that aviation fuel is different. First of all, pdx is the largest single employer in district one. It is beautiful. I went through it twice in the last week. They wouldn't have put the amount of money and time and energy into that airport if it weren't expected to, to welcome millions of new additional guests to our city. And so for that reason, I do. I am convinced that or buy the argument that aviation fuel should be treated differently. So I will be a no on this amendment. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
190 Thank you, council president. You know, as we were working through this amendment process, I was looking for ways that we could keep things consistent, keep things as easy to navigate as possible, and keep a total cap on the amount of fuel in the in the city hub that lowers over time to reduce risk. And one of the conversations that I had with our staff, because those conversations with our experts at the city are really important, was about the timing for the reduction in the use of other fuel types and the increase in the use of aviation fuel. And I became convinced in those conversations that we have a short term problem where over the long term, we may see the amount of reduction we're betting on seeing the amount of reduction in our other fuels that will create space for the expansion we know is going to occur in aviation fuel needs, storage needs in our region, but that in the short term, that increase in aviation fuel might outpace the reduction in other fuel types. And this 5% language was meant to allow for that short term capacity need. I think it's important that we keep it in there. A few of my colleagues have spoken to the people, but I want to note that in 2025, 200,000 metric tons of goods moved through our airport. And when we're talking about our economy and when we're talking about having an economy where we make things that we're able to trade with other places so that we can bring more money into our economy and grow wages, build wealth for people who live here. We have to be able to get those things we make to other places. And the airport is one of the ways we do that, and a way we do that without relying solely on trucks on our roads. So I think it's important that we take seriously that short term rub for aviation fuel. I appreciate, councilor Green, that you did this separately from the amendment, so we could all be on the same page in that broader amendment. But that's the reason that I couldn't support it there and can't support it separately either.
191 Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney councilor Kanal.
192 Thank you, council president. I'll just note that in the event that this amendment were to pass, there'd still be the possibility of increasing aviation fuel, just require more aggressive drawdown in other types of fuel. So I think in terms of the demand growth, regardless of where one's at on the different modeling, increasing the allowable capacity as a separate category is, is different structurally. But if we were to keep it together, meaning passed this amendment, one could still increase the amount of aviation fuel. It would just require more of the other types being reduced. And I think that's kind of a good thing for everyone. So that's the reason I I'm supportive of this. Among the many others that councilor Green already laid out. But given that it appeared that there's not really a path here, I'd request that the council president close the queue on this one.
193 Thank you. Councilor Kanal after councilor Smith goes, I will limit debate in the queue to on the discussion on this. So councilor Smith oh yeah. I mean, after I will limit the debate to those who are in the queue after councilor Smith ends.
194 Thank you. I agree with council president. Aviation fuel is different and I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you.
195 Okay, colleagues, I'm limiting debate to those who are in the queue right now, councilor Ryan.
196 There we go. Sorry for my delays. I really appreciate what council president said. Thank you very much for that. And I also want to just add that we also saw this week that travel portland's investing 4.5 million to get pdx nonstop flights to asia. We just can't afford to jeopardize jobs in tourism to our city and state when we are struggling right now. So it's imperative that we continue to provide an exception, an exemption for aviation fuel. Thank you.
197 Thank you, councilor Ryan councilor Morillo.
198 Thank you. I'll be quick because it's clear that this amendment is going to fail. But thank you, councilor Green, for bringing this forward. And thank you to the advocates for asking for it as well. Back when we were when we had a climate committee, something that we discussed was that these renewable fuels that are painted to be better are not necessarily better because of how they're produced and the carbon offsets that happen in that entire cycle. So I think that sustainable aviation is not necessarily going to create the carbon aviation that we actually want to happen. I, I also think that, yes, I appreciate all the beautiful changes that were made to our airport, the attempts to uplift our economy. And also all of that happened before the president of the united states entered us into a very long losing war. And so there have just been a lot of changes that have happened economically. Our visits internationally are greatly reduced. People are not coming to the u.s. The way they used to in general. And so I think that we should account for that. The new things that have happened in this time for this amendment. So I will be supportive of it. I appreciate the attempts to do everything we can to to draw down those fuels.
199 Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Avalos.
200 Thank you. Yeah, I really struggled with this. I have been struggling with this because I genuinely do see the argument on each side of it. Obviously, as a district one councilor, I'm concerned about, you know, preserving jobs in our district and at the airport. I asked about, you know, I wanted to understand what the actual impact would be on jobs. And I got the answer. And I don't know how I feel about the answer, I think, sure, maybe. But I do think that there is a case for making this amendment based on what councilor Kanal just said. So I won't repeat that. And so even though it looks like it probably won't pass, I think I'm going to support it to just show the value that I'm trying to support here. And I do think it is a continued conversation we need to have. I'm grateful to all the folks that I was able to talk to on both sides of this issue, to just understand their positions, and I think the position I'm landing is I'm going to vote yes to support the effort. I know that we have work to do. I know that not everybody on the council is convinced, and I think there could be another way in the future to address this. So my yes vote is to show that value and to encourage us as a council to keep discussing this, because the broader issue needs to be addressed, even if this might not be the way that gets most councilors to yes on. I think that we can agree. We need to continue assessing the role of aviation fuel in in our storage. And so I will support it today. But I look forward to having more conversations with the port about how we can continue addressing the same value that I think we all share, including the port, as per the conversations that I had, and do it in a way that meets the community's needs as well. So I will support it today. Thanks.
201 Thank you, councilor Avalos. Keelan, can we please call the roll on Green?
202 One move by Green. Seconded by Kanal clerk. No Green. Aye, Morillo Zimmerman.
203 No.
204 Avalos. Aye, Morillo Smith.
205 No.
206 Kanal I.
207 Pirtle-guiney. No.
208 Ryan.
209 No. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.
210 Novick.
211 No.
212 Dunfee.
213 No.
214 The amendment fails with a vote of five eyes and seven nays.
215 Thank you. Colleagues. Are there additional amendments on this item? Councilor Kanal was there amendment to this? Okay, I think we have made our way through all of the amendments at this point. Okay, here we go. I have a script. Sorry. I know, honestly, we're doing better in time than I thought we would. Two guys, item 2026-311. The ordinance for the recommended draft of the cei hub policy project is continued to an additional meeting before the city council on November 5th, 2026 at 2:00 p m. At that time, council will consider the revised ordinance with revised supporting documents, including findings and technical conforming amendments, to implement the amendments that were adopted today. Item 2026-31208. Sorry, I'm reading my notes. Okay, I was reading the wrong script. Great. It looks like we actually do have time to move on to title 17 elements today. I'm going to give us a quick recess. It is 330. We're halfway through. So I'm going to give us a 15 minute recess back at 345. At that point, we will continue to item 2026-312.
216 So sometimes I hear about.
217 All right. Welcome back everybody. Thank you for your patience. Colleagues. We are now in consideration of document 2026 312. I'd like to recognize councilor Green to introduce the Green pirtle-guiney Kanal clerk Koyama Lane two amendment councilor. Let's rinse and repeat the process here with our staff and to hand to walk us through the details. After that, we will move on to councilor Novick amendments and then to councilor Kanal amendments. So, councilor Green, you want to cue us up and then we'll turn it over to our team.
218 Yeah. Thanks so much. This is once again Green pirtle-guiney Kanal clerk and Koyama Lane to take up one amendment that moves essentially five amendments that deal with fuel reduction program amendments. And we also have have pulled in Novick two and three into sort of the body of those amendments to kind of because I think we, you know, we agree with those and sort of wanted it to be a an easier path. So. Councilor Novick didn't have an issue with that. And so we did that, but not we did not pull Novick one into it. So, tom, if you want to give us the the flyover, go ahead. Thanks.
219 Sure. So the first amendment of this package is a directive in the ordinance for additional work. And this really speaks to what we heard in the public testimony about what's before you in the title 17 regulates storage tank capacity. Physical capacity and the desire to move towards a regulatory program that is more about fill levels and fuel volumes, and that it acknowledges what we really need is the data reported from the terminals that is required by this ordinance to be able to really fine tune and adjust that sort of process, and to make that a regulatory pivot. And so what this is, is a directive to get that data that is that is required to be reported to the city by March 31st of 2027. And then we would look at process that data and, and work with the community to try and come up with a proposal to council by September 1st, to look at alternatives to regulating storage tank capacity. So that's the first amendment, the second amendment, you know, within that reduction regulations that kick in in 2036, we have a couple of exemptions. And one of those exemptions applies to aviation existing as of January 1st, 2027, aviation fuel storage capacity. The proposal is to remove that exemption. And then we have a little bit of, of, of cleanup to be consistent with the changes that were made in title 33. That's amendment two, amendment three is some changes to the the reporting requirements. Again, sort of reflecting on what we heard in public testimony that it fills out some some of the different reporting requirements. It also shifts from what we had as a sort of every 2 or 3 year reporting requirement to an annual reporting requirement, both for the terminals and then in turn for and this is where we pulled in Novick three is to then turn around that data and report to council each year as to what we're seeing, both in terms of what we're seeing from the terminals themselves, but also what we're seeing in terms of, of the the fuel demand forecasts and the actual consumption rate data. So that council is informed and, and can make any adjustments that they see fit. The fourth one was just a small change to the penalty. Clause, just a a chewing up of the language in that in that code, again, the fifth amendment is a another directive. This again is sort of pulling in Novick three, but just sort of reaffirming council's commitment to continue and engage the community and all of the partners, the operators, the state agencies on, on looking at the risks in the hub and what we can do to reduce the risks out there.
220 Thank you so much, tom and colleagues. I would move I would formally move this amendment.
221 Second. Second.
222 Councilor Green moves. I'm going to say councilor Koyama Lane seconds that one. Colleagues, we are now in discussion of the Green. Pirtle-guiney. Kanal clerk Koyama Lane two amendments. Councilor. Novick.
223 Thank you, mr. President. I apologize for not looking closely at this. The language about latest fuel projections for the next decade. I think, actually, I'd suggested the Oregon department of energy's projections of fuel demand for the next decade, but maybe we don't need to specify that. Maybe that's something that you would automatically give to us if we pass this language.
224 The we relied on multiple forecasts and projections, and so we just rather than be specific and who knows where department of energy will be. They. They only do it every two years. Okay. The feds come out every year. So we just left it unspecified. So we can pull from different, different data.
225 Okay. So you would plan to look at all those sources. Thank you.
226 Thank you. Councilor Novick vice president clerk.
227 Thank you, council president. I would like to move to divide the question in title 17 to separate the vote on amendment two.
228 Okay. That is a motion by right that is specifically to vote separately on amendment. The section titled amendment two around aviation fuel exemptions and remain. Leave the remainder of the package amendments one, three, four and five as a whole.
229 Yes, exactly. And I think I'm allowed to make comments. Absolutely. I'm obviously very supportive of the whole package, but I do have reservations on the impact that this is going to place on the port of Portland. So I'm asking to divide the question so that we can vote on an amendment in title 17. I just want to say that the Portland airport, I think we've already heard some about that. This is a major economic engine for our region, and particularly in district one as well, and receives all of the aviation fuel fuel from the sea hub. I also want to say that the port of Portland is a sister government to us. I believe the port of Portland is a good actor and with a major expansion that we've heard about an increased flight activity, it's clear that there is and there will continue to be an increased demand for jet fuel. There's also the need to support the airlines as they expand the use of sustainable aviation fuel, which is important to advancing climate goals and decarbonization. And I think we learned in an earlier public hearing that the adoption of sustainable aviation fuels will require capacity to allow for blending. I believe that we can also continue to work with the port to increase their storage capacity at the port. I know they're replacing tanks right now, and I would like to believe that they can actually increase and have more storage at the port. That's a conversation that we should continue to have. So to ensure the ability of the port to support increased demand and economic activity for our region, as well as critical carbon reductions, we need to allow for the exemption of aviation fuel.
230 Thank you, vice president Clark. Okay.
231 Point of information.
232 Oh.
233 Is it just is it just removing two. And then we would vote on one and three as one. Or are we voting on one, two and three separately.
234 Sorry to the top part here. Section under the Green pirtle-guiney et al. It will pull out just amendment two. So we will have two separate votes. Will vote on amendment two code, remove aviation fuel exemption and then a separate vote. Amendments one, three, four and five.
235 Okay.
236 Okay. Councilor Green.
237 Thank you, council president. I think generally the carrier gets to choose the order in which the pieces are taken. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. And I have just sort of talked about we would like to take up the vote on amendment two, that which is being pulled out. Just get that out of the way first, and then we would proceed to the rest. The rest of the items.
238 Sounds good to me. Further discussion at this point. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
239 Thank you, council.
240 President councilor Clark. We tried to make this easy for folks to talk about with the different sections, but I'm noticing that in this dash two amendment to also includes the clean up language in the the new sea. Or if. If this piece doesn't move forward, what would be de around trans loading capacity and expansion. So I just have a question for staff. And. Well, let me start with the question for you, councilor Clark, is your intention to remove that also or is that ancillary damage?
241 My intention is to remove the entire piece.
242 Okay. Including the changes on trans loading capacity and expansion. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
243 Is there a question for staff? Also.
244 My question for staff would have been if that was not the policy intention, whether we would be able to put that back in in conforming amendments, because I worry about conforming with title 33 there. But if the intention is to remove that, then my question for staff is moot.
245 Perfect. Thank you very much. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Councilor. Novick.
246 Clarifying question. Are we to speak now to what we think about this removal, or just what we think about dividing the question.
247 We're discussing? We're in discussion of the overall amendment.
248 Okay. I just wanted to say that, as I said previously, I think that messing with the port invites legislative preemption. And I'm afraid if they preempt us on this, they'll preempt us on other things too. But I also wanted to say flying is really bad for the environment. And, you know, maybe we'll get to sustainable aviation fuel. That'll be better. But right now you can be really good about the environment, a lot of things. But you take a transcontinental flight and you're emitting a hell of a lot of pollution. So I don't want anybody to interpret my saying that. I think that we need to treat aviation fuel differently because of what I think the legislature might do to us. I don't want people to interpret that as my saying flying is good because it's bad.
249 Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor. Morillo.
250 Councilor Clark, could you just clarify for this part? So you wanted to remove all of amendment two, but could you clarify based on councilor Pirtle-guiney question? Why not just remove the aviation part and then keep the rest?
251 He does. I think he does that. It removes aviation fuel storage.
252 But you want to.
253 Remove.
254 All amendment.
255 I would I want it all to be gone.
256 Okay, I understand.
257 Tom.
258 If I could that last part d the reference to the aviation fuel storage expansion review is a is a conforming amendment to reflect the title 33 changes. So I suggest that you either leave that there or we can address it with in the technical conforming amendments that you'll see on November 5th.
259 I would prefer that we just deal with it in the technical amendments and not do it now.
260 Okay. Thank you very much. Councilor. Morillo. Councilor Kanal.
261 Yeah, I appreciate this conversation. I will be voting yes on this amendment. So just to clarify, we're debating whether or not to approve amendment two right now. And then we will take a vote in which, yes is to do amendment two. And no is not.
262 We are still in discussion of the overall Green pirtle-guiney Kanal Clark Koyama Lane two.
263 Thought it had been divided.
264 But the question has been divided for the purposes of voting. But we are still in the discussion.
265 Okay, well then I'll do both parts together here. So with relation to part two, first, the same question issue that was raised by councilors pirtle-guiney and Morillo. The the change in what that review does to include trans loading capacity. And that's really significant in other parts of it. And so keeping that text in, as was just mentioned by staff, excuse me, as was mentioned by staff, is really important. So I'll be supporting that. I also think that the the same arguments is applied in the previous ordinance around the idea that, you know, we can still increase. I think there's a there's a it's being characterized as doing. This means the port can't expand what it does. I don't think that's what's happening here. Port can expand what it does. It's just that for the folks who are operating tanks at the cei hub, they would have to reduce other fuels proportionate to the increase in capacity for for aviation fuel. This is what other businesses do. This is pretty normal. You know, you create more shelf space for the stuff that's selling. And I think it's, it's the idea that if there is this growth that is being modeled in aviation fuel need and demand that there is a, a, a singular assessment that's being done here of everything together. So that's, that's the underlying argument here. So I'll be supporting that. I don't necessarily think we need we haven't heard any argument against the the rest of it. So I'll just simply state I support it and I appreciate all the folks who are involved in it, in particular the advocates and the teams of staff from my colleagues up here. Thanks.
266 Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Green.
267 Thank you. Just speaking to the amendment two part for a moment, just to just for folks to understand the reason why that was striking that exemption is because the sort of compromise piece was we're going to put we're putting we're creating this short term relief valve. In title 33 for the port's expansion of of aviation fuel. And so ultimately, this is all governed by the title 33. Capacity review. And so take it or leave it. That was the motivation why this part was struck on the exemption, while the other part lived on. I will be so I will be voting yes on this. I always get confused. I get backwards on the division of the question piece. So. So I'll be I'll be supporting too. And then I also just want to draw your attention to the first part of this amendment, which is the directive. That's a really important piece that provides that council prerogative to bring forward a replacement drawdown program, not necessarily sort of an alternative, but really trying to say the 20% by 2036 was, was our starting position. It's a good thing to start with, but we do want to get a different methodology and we want we want to start that work next year. So that's what that directive does. And I, I hope that we can support all of the sub amendments here. But but, you know, at least one, three, four and five. Thanks.
268 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Zimmerman.
269 Just a clarifying question from this. Many sponsors of. It's unusual to get something split by one of the sponsors. I'm a little bit confused, like where and how this was written. And then who actually dictates what gets called first since you're all sponsors. So where did this all come from?
270 I mean, my office, I think, took the lead on shepherding all this with all the advocates pulling together all the meetings and councilor Pirtle-guiney also spent a lot of time just drafting with my team. And so the things that are there, right, reflect the sort of back and forth, day by day work with these advocates. Not every office was able to do that. And I think we understood that the reason why we organize it as like one unified document with a bunch of sub pieces is there was always a world where maybe some comfort levels might depart and some people might decide, hey, I'm not, I'm not good with this part, but but I'm good with the rest. So I think that's why you're seeing I mean, councilor Clark can speak for herself, but I. But I suspect that that's what's what's happening here, there.
271 Thank you, mr. President. There was always the understanding that there was a caveat here, and I think I made that really clear to my co-sponsors that this piece would I would not be supporting. But the overall, I am.
272 Okay. Yeah, it's just a little confusing when you all have your names on it. So going down to amendment number four, the city administrator must impose. Most of the time when we do things we say may impose. Is this a significant change to other code within the city of portland's penalty structure? I'm actually not familiar with any must imposes.
273 I would defer to the city attorney. We looked into this and the. And the guidance and the consistency was to use. In this situation, the word must.
274 From who guidance and consistent from attorneys. Okay.
275 As opposed to may or well. Okay. So so the the the request was to put shell and our office has been advising to not use shell. If the intent is that it's a mandate. So if we're talking about versus shell, that's separate. But if it's must versus may, yes, most of the code right now says that the city administrator may and gives that discretion to the city administrator. We felt that the charter and the code does not limit the council's authority to change that from a discretion and a mandate.
276 I certainly don't I agree with it. It doesn't. I'm just asking about practice. This seems like a shift from practice, which is we generally write code to say the city administrator may.
277 Agree to.
278 Do something.
279 And it is a term that I was unable to find other penalties where the city administrator was required to impose them as opposed to. It is, but it is something within council's authority to require.
280 Councilor in practice. The way I've seen this play out is when it says may. Often the bureaus will not immediately impose a penalty if there is motion towards compliance quickly, and we use that as a carrot to move people towards compliance.
281 Right. So I'm glad we're getting in on this. I guess words matter when you have this much coming out of amendments. So must impose penalties and fines on a bulk fuel terminal owner or responsible party who fails to comply with the requirements. Okay, we all we all get that. I mean, may or must is different there or who has misrepresented represented any material fact. What constitutes a material fact? I'm just trying to get a sense of like, what are we talking about? Are we talking about if there's an error in a document and now all of a sudden we must impose or what are we talking about? And here's the thing. I wouldn't have to ask that question. If the answer, if the if the word was may, because may would mean that I've got professionals who can use discretion about situations. But now we're going to use the word must. So now I have to know what we mean by material fact. And so these have cascading effects. And I have heard no one speak to that. Bueller.
282 I mean, may I please. Yeah. I mean, I think this is a situation where the carriers thought it appropriate to put more definitive declarative language there, because the operative part of this is that the penalty is when the operator fails to comply with the requirements of the chapter and has misrepresented some misrepresentation is not a mistake. It is. It is a willful obfuscation of the fact. And so the idea here is we wanted to make sure that it's crystal clear that if you willfully misrepresent the facts and you fail to comply, you will be fine. And it's not up to some future city administrator whether they choose to let this operator slide or not. So I think that does represent, again, this idea that it's our prerogative to to regulate, you know, fossil fuel companies to do business in our in our city and that we will hold them accountable when they don't tell the line.
283 And is this a concern that the sponsors have now? Is that the city administrator hasn't got good judgment to impose in a may type of situation? You've chosen very deliberately, and that all it on its surface. Right. It sounds good. But then to know that we have literally. I can't think of a single area in city code where we use this word. This seems like a tidal shift. And, and we kind of glancing over it and I'd like to understand. So thank you, councilor Green. I do appreciate your argument. There are many other members who their names are on this. And now I'm at the point where I'm not sure how many read it because we got people pulling names from it. So I'd like to understand what what four is really about.
284 Council president.
285 If I may, councilor, I want to address your first question to the sponsors first, and then I have a note on this as well. And that is that you will note that there is one area, one topic area where one of the joint co-sponsors of the amendment submitted a separate amendment pushing us further in one direction, and another co-sponsor is dividing the question to push us a little further the other way. And I think what you see is that there is a whole lot that we all agreed on, and one topic area around aviation fuel where there just wasn't as much agreement. And so we figured out a way to be able to come together because we agreed on the bulk of what is here, and to also allow co-sponsors who wanted to propose doing a little differently one way or the other, to do that respectfully of each other, with full communication with each other. So I just want to note that on amendment four. To answer your question plainly, I have no reason not to trust our current city administrator to move forward with penalties and fines when they may be necessary. We govern not just for today, but for the long haul. And there is a long history. Not in Portland specifically, though I wouldn't say it hasn't happened here, but broadly, with cities struggling to hold large fossil fuel companies accountable, when we are talking about the potential for environmental hazard and health hazard, and you see through the the lawsuits that have moved through courts work to make sure that that accountability is there. And because we are dealing with that part of the law, because we are dealing with land use, because we are dealing with environmental health and human health, and the potential for risk that we have at a facility like this. We strengthen the word not to create a landslide shift in everything we do at the city, but to recognize the importance of this piece and this space, and the fact that we are legislating for the long haul.
286 And councilor Kanal also wanted to respond.
287 Thank you.
288 Yeah, thanks. I'll just note the word must appears 706 times in title 17 of the code, which is what we're working on here. They're all a little different. Most of them are about how, you know the what an applicant must submit. But there are examples of what the word must is used to put imposition upon the city. And I'll also note that I didn't bother checking this for shell, but that the city attorneys. I think it's the shell versus must is a antiquated text provision. I'm seeing a nod there. So there may well also be the word shell additional times. But for example, in 1713 130, the city must undertake a review. 1713 140 the city must expend stc revenues. There's a lot of those sorts of things. Much of our code has not yet been updated to specifically mention the city administrator. That's why that that's a part of our general code updates for a position that exist when the overwhelming majority of code was written. But there are, I would say it is a minority of that 706 times. But there are a lot of places where must is imposed upon us for the specific usage. I agree with everything that councilor Pirtle-guiney said, and I also think that councilor Green kind of touched on a point about, you know, people are going to see this and understand that that means it's happening. If there is a willful I think the word is misrepresentation. They used. So that I would say is, is the the other piece that that's more specific, but just in terms of a general sense, this is something we've we've done before.
289 Are there any of those penalties because you mentioned 706? Are any of them in a penalty section? Because my question was specifically about penalty and not the word must. I'd be.
290 Happy to.
291 Go through.
292 Them for you. The attorney has said no, so I. So I recognize that the word must is a common word in the united states and in english, I get it, but that wasn't really the question. So I kind of find your argument a little silly that I was specifically talking about. In the penalty section. We have generally set up a system that looks for mitigation. And so I'm asking if there are other musts in our penalty sections that the city must impose a penalty or if they're discretionary. That
293 Was my question.
294 Okay. Well, then to be more.
295 Specific and if it's. Yes, I want to hear that.
296 So if you'll accept will as a synonym. 1726 170 penalty for violation. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter will, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $500. And then in the later section, it says will be subject to the penalty. So uses the word will twice.
297 Okay. So I, I think that councilor Pirtle-guiney your arguments about governing for the long, long haul, or actually the reasons why I think may is the important word here, because I think that that enables good decision making outside of 2026. And. I think it's two sides of a similar argument here. I think I hear what you're saying and. It's not that there would be a reason not to impose penalties, but I but to be you know, I'm writing other code right now that has to do with penalties. And so this is I'm zeroing in on this because we were clear about and trying to be descriptive in terms of the words we use. And so. This is this is giving me some pause. I appreciate both yours and councilor Green's explanation of those. Those are both important. And for me, very big shifts in how we do it. If I'm a person who doesn't believe in. Mandatory sentences, so to speak, right. I believe in. We've set. We set our. We set our penalty structures, we set all that. And there's also usually a. There's usually a cure issue, but I do very much councilor Green. I do appreciate the misrepresented meaning. There was a a deliberate aspect to that. And so that one that holds water for me, I go back to who then determines what a material fact is in a situation.
298 Councilor is that an actual question you're looking for? Staff answer.
299 Anybody who feels they are equipped to answer would be fine. I'm getting a lot of bueller moments, so it's okay. I think that I think number four was kind of seen as the one that nobody wanted to talk about, but this is the one that I feel like actually has a big difference here. I know you wrote novels for number three, but but number four is some new language that's different.
300 Well, I would think that the city administrator would determine if it was a misrepresentation or a, an error and that that that misrepresentation rose to the level of a material fact. And I would guess that the party on the other side would then have if they disagreed, right, they would have their day in court to argue the opposite. Is that right? I look for legal counsel on that interpretation, but.
301 Yes, that is how I read it, is that the city administrator would determine whether or not the fact, and then, as it's currently drafted, must impose. Will is typically used in a little bit. Something would happen in the future. It's not mandatory in the moment. And then may is the most permissive.
302 Thank you for that. Okay. Into number three in the the inventory and reporting requirements, there's a significant amount of change in number three in the in the language. I am curious, again, with these amendments similar to the last set about. I have a sense of where they've come from, from the from the advocates and from the sponsors, but I'm curious in particular here, or frankly, I'll open it. Are there concerns amongst any of these one through five from staff, given that you didn't include them, or that a lot of what you wrote has now been redlined out? So usually if I write a document and a lot of things get redlined out, I would probably have some concerns about it. So I'm very curious of where your red flags are, what ones that you would like to advocate from the position be passed, and which what you think should not be passed out of these five.
303 I think specifically to the reporting requirements. I think, again, you know, the iterative process and working with the community and understanding and what we've heard even from industry, about the need for good data to make a decisions or make adjustments in the future. That's why you see a lot of changes here and especially, you know, more enhanced reporting. And then the annual reporting of that data to the city and then in turn to city council. So that's why you see a lot of the changes in amendment three. I think the the ordinance directives, you know, that's council's prerogative to say what they want to see happen. The penalties. I you know.
304 I'm not actually asking for council's directive. I'm asking because this project originally came from you. I'm actually asking for a professional opinion from bts because I have a feeling I know at least five are. They sponsored it? But I would like to know from bts if the things that you think that this document should achieve, if this helps it or hinders it, those are the types of things that would help me in evaluating such councilor.
305 One of the dialogs we had with the sponsors was just about workload implications, and that's not a pro or con argument about the language. It's really just like, what would this take? And it's true that more frequent reporting and analysis is going to cost us a little more staff time.
306 Okay. Thank you, mr. President.
307 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Novick.
308 Yes, thank you, mr. President. I apologize. I think that I'm looking at the amendment out of context. I'm just curious, is there somewhere in the document that the original document that it says how the penalties will be calculated? You know, does it require the penalties be a certain amount?
309 Yes, it that was the for the reporting requirements. It was the $12,000 a day for the first 30 days and then $24,000 a day thereafter. And then the reduction requirement, failure to comply with the reduction requirement was $0.25 a gallon for every gallon that they failed to reduce.
310 So what I'm wondering is, would this provision require us to get penalties of precisely those amounts? And here's my concern. I used to enforce the clean air act and the clean water act. And back at that time, the penalty was up up to $25,000 per day per violation. So we would sometimes come in saying, okay, here's a penalty of $14 million. Based on that, the company would say, that's insane. And then we'd argue about it, and we wind up with settling for something less than that. If if this would require, say, here is the amount of the penalty period, there's no negotiation, then I think we need to take into account the likelihood that that would drive more cases to court rather than enable us to settle them. So I just want to know if the language we have would be interpreted as we will. I mean, I'm okay with must impose some penalty. I have some concerns about the operability of saying must impose a penalty of a specific amount or there's no room for negotiation. I guess this is really a question for the city attorney. How do you read it? Is it we must impose a specific penalty, or would it give some flexibility to negotiate the penalty?
311 As I and I need? I also have multiple pieces, is what I read it and understood. The intent was that the city administrator must impose the penalty as outlined in the code, and that the code outlines the set amounts, that there's not an opportunity to negotiate it.
312 Okay, then that does raise a sort of a a capacity concern for me, because it means I mean, I think it increases the odds that our city attorney will be litigating every penalty in court rather than having a back and forth and being able to negotiate something, which is normally what happens when you're assessing penalties.
313 If I may. The other piece of this is the process that we go through with the reporting and and that the failure to comply, determination and the code outlines a process of submittal verification by staff, a feedback loop first with the terminals to get more information or incomplete information, then a public comment period. And and so there's a number of back and forth steps that we would go through with a terminal before we would make a determination that they have failed to comply. And I think that's where sort of the flexibility and the process and the and the iteration before we, you know, make that determination and start imposing penalties.
314 Right. But I mean, this, this means it's sort of all or nothing. I mean, normally you sort of like make a risk assessment of if this goes to court, what are the odds we'll win? And you don't always go for that. I mean, just like, you know, prosecutors, you don't always go for the maximum. You have some, you know, thought about the likelihood of victory and you adjust the penalty appropriately. So actually, again, lauren, I don't mean to put you on the spot and you know that, but I mean, I'm just if you're comfortable saying does that raise any concerns for you?
315 Are you asking about the language or whether I have legal concerns about the implementation.
316 Concerns or sort of practical concerns about the implementation, that it's harder to work with the mandate that you recover a specific penalty than with a mandate that you recover some penalty and you have some flexibility to negotiate what it is.
317 I think that that would have to be a question for robert taylor about how our office is run. And I mean, that's sort of a policy business decision about the office and the resources for the city attorneys. But I think your assessment is correct. It would avoid the ability for there any sort of negotiation of the penalties that we have in other code sections.
318 Thank you. And that case, I actually would like to have mr. Taylor here to answer the question.
319 Let's see if he can make his way down here. To answer your question, in the interim, I will move to councilor. Is that okay? Councilor we wait for robert. Steve, is that right to move on for a second? Come back. Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you.
320 Councilor Kanal thanks, council president. Yeah, I mean, I imagine and different parts of the city attorney's office are involved in different things, but we do often end up having negotiations in court. Well, in parallel to a court process is how we get settlements. So I think it's a question of where is that negotiation happening as well in terms of city administrator's office, in terms of the bureau or in terms of the the attorney's office, I wanted I didn't get in the queue for this. I just wanted to flag that. And I think it may be helpful to have robert comment on that part, too. But the reason I got in the queue is I think there's been another conversation that's happened about preemption. And there's a piece here that is relevant to 15 other issues that we talk about. And I think it's a question of we're assuming, based on some knowledge of some legislators or the governor or whatever, that the state has a particular interest and is considering putting something forward that might tie our hands. I think it's the same conversation that we have to have with the federal government of, are we going to comply in advance, or are we going to try to do the things that we believe we should do as a city? While we are currently not preempted on many of these issues, and I think we should be doing that. And I'll also note there's a lot of analysis not specific to this issue, but to other issues that that when cities act first, that that that actually lowers the chance of being preempted. And, and I think that's because, you know, we have a good Portland area delegation who knows that their voters elected us to and we made this, this decision and impose this particular policy choice. And then based on that, they're going to say, well, we're going to invalidate the people you also voted for. It becomes a little harder. So I think we should be assessing this from the perspective of what do we believe our voters want? And then letting our voters know to tell their state representatives not to mess with, with our ability to to exert local control. Thanks.
321 Thank you. Councilor Kanal, our city attorney is getting briefed on the question at hand, and we will welcome him over. Welcome, mr. Taylor.
322 Hi. Hi. Robert taylor, city attorney.
323 As I understand the question, the.
324 If you choose to use.
325 The word must in the code, that is a mandatory. If you choose to use may in the code, that gives some discretion. So if you use must. And that says the city administrator must impose a penalty, then the city administrator will do that. They will. They do not have discretion. Once that penalty. If it's challenged and we're in a litigation posture, I think it's it is possible at that point to negotiate some sort of resolution once we're in the litigation. But in terms of at the front end, does the city administrator have any discretion or does the. Or do the folks that work for the administrator have any discretion to work with the party to decide whether or not to impose it in the first place? They don't have discretion, and I think that's the real choice that the council has in front of them right now. Do they want to give the staff some discretion to work with the party before the penalty is imposed, or would they like to limit that discretion, have the penalty imposed? And then if there is a challenge in litigation, leave it to that to be worked out?
326 Councilor yes. So your interpretation based on this language is if the city administrator was mandated to impose a penalty of a specific amount, and then somebody, the the company challenged it in court, you would still think that you would have the ability to negotiate a smaller penalty. You wouldn't have to go to the wall and go to court and fight like hell for the amount that's specified, specified amount.
327 I think if we were in the litigation posture, like any other litigation that we have, we would have the opportunity to try to work that out at that stage. This language is directed at the city administrator's authority to impose it as an initial matter. And this would this would not give the administrator discretion. They would have to impose it, and then it would go through the process. So so that's the real choice in front of you. Do you do you want to give the administrator any, any discretion on the front end to try to, as was described before, they impose it, perhaps give somebody an opportunity to come into compliance.
328 Thank you, mr. Taylor. So I'm a lawyer, so I care about imposing things on lawyers, not on city administrators. So my concern was, you know, handcuffing our lawyers. But I would like to hear from the sponsors if they were okay with the idea that after the city administrator imposed the mandatory penalty, if we're in litigation, the city attorney would have the ability to do some negotiation.
329 Yes, yes. Yeah.
330 Thank you.
331 Thank you very much. Councilor. Novick councilor Kanal, you also had a question for the city attorney. Is that right?
332 I think you.
333 Got covered.
334 Okay, great. Pausing for dramatic effect to see if anyone else wants to talk. Okay, colleagues. Keelan, can we please move towards a vote, a divided vote on the question, starting with the separate vote on amendment two regarding aviation fuel exemption and then moving to a second vote on the remainder.
335 Council president, can we clarify what the vote is, how that works exactly? It's a yes to remove no.
336 No, it's a yes to amend.
337 Yes to amend.
338 The language is here. So if you don't like that, then you got to vote. No.
339 Wait, say that again. Vote no. Okay.
340 So yes.
341 Because.
342 You're going to vote yes. So okay, let's just be clear that to amend this to remove the amendment, we've separated it, to remove it.
343 Council president, may I offer a different way of thinking. About this. Sorry, you have separated the amendment. So we are voting on section two of the amendment. An affirmative vote passes section two of the amendment. So you are voting to pass that a no vote votes not to pass that change. So if you want section two to go into effect now, separate from the rest of it, you vote yes. If you do not want it to go into effect, you vote no.
344 Thank you.
345 Thank you. Keelan, please call the roll clerk.
346 It's important because I'm the first vote no.
347 Green.
348 Yes.
349 Zimmerman.
350 No. I. Smith no. Kanal I.
351 Pirtle-guiney. Yes.
352 Ryan.
353 No.
354 Koyama Lane.
355 Aye, Morillo.
356 Aye, Morillo. Morillo. I Novick no. Dunphy.
357 No.
358 The amendment part two amendment two fails with a vote of six eyes and six nays.
359 Please call the roll on the remainder of the Green pirtle-guiney Kanal clerk Koyama Lane two.
360 Clerk. Hi Green.
361 Hi, Zimmerman.
362 No Avalos. I Smith.
363 Is this to take the aviation fuel out?
364 This is everything else now. Everything. But yeah.
365 I.
366 Kanal I. Pirtle-guiney I.
367 Ryan.
368 No. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I. Novick I. Dunphy I.
369 Amendments one, three four and five are approved with a vote of ten ayes and two nays.
370 Okay. Thank you very much, colleagues. Councilor. Novick.
371 Are you asking me to introduce my amendment?
372 I am asking you to introduce your amendment now.
373 Okay. Hang on, hang on just a second. There's. So as I stated last week, my amendment would add this language to title 17. It would be a new paragraph 20. 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 before that 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 on transportation measures to promote transit, biking, walking, transition to electric cars, and the reduction of diesel emissions. And here I've prepared a sort of q and a on my proposal that I'm going to distribute for you to follow along. First question why talk about PCEF spending on transportation in the context of the sci hub drawdown discussion? Answer. The vast majority of the fuel in the sci hub is used for transportation. If demand for transportation fuels does not go down, then the drawdown requirement would likely cause a fuel crisis and spike gas prices. The legislature would not let that happen. They just override the drawdown requirement instead. So if you really want to draw down requirement to stand, we should be doing everything we can to reduce demand. We are just one part of the regional market. We are a significant part. In addition, even if the legislature would allow that to happen, would we really want to cause a huge increase in gas prices if we haven't made the investments to ensure portlanders have alternatives to driving fossil fuel cars, transit, electric car infrastructure, measures to promote biking and walking. If alternatives are insufficient, portlanders would just be stuck paying higher gas prices, which would, of course, disproportionately affect low income people. Why 40%? Currently, 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in Portland come from transportation. But in the current cip, we only spend about 22% of the funds in transportation. The bulk of the money, more than half goes to projects that involve reducing emissions from buildings. And at the beginning of the cep program, hardly anything went to transportation. There's actually a strong argument we should be spending more than 40% of transportation. Transportation is a very tough nut to crack. In recent years, emissions from buildings have been going down in a much faster rate than from transportation. Since the legislature has ordered pji and pacific core to move to 100% renewable, we should expect that trend to continue, because a electrically powered heating and cooling will have lower emissions, but we really can't expect transportation emissions to decline as quickly as we want without major investments in transit, biking, walking and electric car infrastructure. Next question before committing to 40%, don't we need to hear from community? That's something I heard from cherise bark last week. I put community in quotes here because that term gets used a lot in city hall. I don't think there's agreement on what it means. Often it seems to refer to people who can be activated by politically engaged nonprofits. If a nonprofit sends out an apb and we get 200 emails and 20 people show up to a council meeting, by god, we've heard from community, but the actual community of Portland is over 100 000 people, and the community of sff priority population is over 200,000 people. We can't assume that any nonprofit speaks for that big a community on every issue. The only reliable way to get a real sense of how a community that large thinks about that issue is through scientific polling, councilor Kanal and I polled 500 people from priority populations, plus 300 random white people, as a sort of control group on how sff money should be spent. Given three options of how to spend pcf money, generating more renewable energy locally, weatherizing homes to make them more energy efficient, or making bus service more frequent and reliable. The PCEF priority populations prioritized improved bus service. By contrast, white people prioritize generating more renewable energy locally. In addition, we told people that buildings and transportation emit about an equal amount of pollution. Right now, buildings are at 42%, transportation is at 40%, and we asked if staff should spend more funds on buildings, more transportation or an equal amount on the two of priority populations, 42% said equal 17% said transportation, 17% said buildings. The rest had no opinion. The bottom line is priority. Populations think transportation is important, continuing the current policy of spending more than twice as much money on buildings as on transportation is not consistent with the community's wishes. Next question shouldn't the pcf committee make this decision? Answer the original concept of pcf wasn't that the pcf committee would be given a lump sum and decide how to spend it? The ballot measure established percentage parameters 40 to 60% to quote renewable energy and energy efficiency. And by the way, alternative transportation methods are more energy efficient than gas cars, 20 to 25% in job training and 10 to 15% in regenerative agriculture. The council subsequently eliminated those percentage requirements. I think it is appropriate for the council, as the elected representatives of the people of Portland, to start restoring some broad parameters. I would expect the committee to be involved in how to spend 40% on transportation. Next question. You're talking about investing in transit, isn't it? The legislature's responsibility to fund TriMet? Answer. First of all, even if you didn't spend anything on transit, you could easily spend $80 million a year on bike, which is 40% of pcf now on biking, walking, and electric car infrastructure. Second, people don't care which government pays for a service, they just want the service. Demand for fuel in the ci hub will respond to how many people are using transit, not who's paying for transit. And third, the city has a whole separate tax. The arts tax, most of the money from which goes to the schools. Theoretically, the legislature is responsible for paying for the schools, but I haven't heard anybody in council say, let's cut out the part of the arts tax that goes to schools. In fact, a majority of the council voted to increase the arts tax. What I'm asking you to do, colleagues, is to commit to putting our money where our mouth is. If we really want a reduction in fuel in the ci hub, we should be doing everything we can to reduce the demand for liquid fuel. If we want a reduction of fuel in the ci hub, which doesn't have the unintended effect of simply raising gas prices on portlanders, we should be giving portlanders transportation alternatives, and we're not doing enough of that now. So I am asking you to vote for, you know, vote for the climate, to vote for actual reduction, to vote to commit that we actually are putting our money with our mouths are to vote for some level of intellectual coherence. So I asked for a yes vote on my amendment.
374 And councilor You formally moving Novick.
375 Formally formally move my.
376 Thank you.
377 Is there a second?
378 Second.
379 Councilor Novick moves Novick one vice president Clark seconds. Colleagues, we are in discussion of the amendment. Councilor Zimmerman, is that a legacy hand. Thank you, councilor Novick also. There we go. Thank you, councilor Morillo.
380 Okay, so I do appreciate the intention of this amendment. As someone who doesn't have a car and needs to take public transit and ride my bike to get around places. I know that in your q and a, you say that, you know, people don't care about which government pays for which service. And I agree, and that's because it's not their responsibility to care about that. But it is our responsibility as the budget authority to care about that, because the city of Portland, I'm really worried about the financial stakes that are coming before us, and that is partially why I've been against some of the major investment projects that people are proposing, because I just don't think the money is there. So the reality is that, yes, for us as legislators and as policy makers and budget authority folks, yes, the legislature did fail to fund the to fund public transit. And that does matter because we have very limited dollars here at the local level to work with. So I like the idea of this. I guess I'm not. I just don't understand why we would pass this here and put it in stone rather than wait for the, the process to actually have this discussion with stakeholders before making this unilateral decision from the council. I think that there are opportunities to make this change. And I think that in the next climate investment plan, it's very likely that this will happen, because from what I've heard, a lot of people are interested in using PCEF for transit. But I don't think that we have enough information, any of us, on what the quote unquote, community wants, because we haven't even given the time for that process in the first place. So I think for that reason, even though, frankly, this would benefit me the most, I don't think I can support this today. And I think for the record, to every single person up here hates the the original arts tax and didn't even like the update that much, but we had to do something to make it a little bit better, given the fact that it was a voter approved ballot measure that now everyone complains about. So there are lots of things like, I love what the arts tax funds. I don't really like how it's structured. And I think we made a marginal attempt to make it better. But I think that when we have the choice before us to not repeat the mistakes of the past, then we should probably take that choice. So for those reasons, I'm going to be voting no on this.
381 Thank you, councilor Morillo councilor Pirtle-guiney.
382 Thank you, council president councilor Novick, just to clarify, the way that you have this added to the ordinance, does it put this language in code or does it just put it in the ordinance as a directive?
383 It's a it's in the findings, okay. It's an expression of a commitment.
384 So we.
385 Are kind of like a whereas clause.
386 Perfect. That's how I was reading this was like a. Whereas clause. I wanted to clarify that on the record. So colleagues, as you may have picked up on councilor. Novick. And I don't agree on everything around our priorities for cf and as it relates to our priorities for how funding on transportation might be spent, I think will be asking for the PCEF committee to look at different things within the transportation bucket. But I agree with councilor Novick that we need to do more on transportation in general, where we know that we will get the most reduction in in emissions for the dollars that we put in. We had a presentation in the city life committee recently about how woefully far off we are right now from meeting our climate goals. And this is the area where we can catch up the most on our climate goals, and it is directly related to what we are doing in the rest of this ordinance. As councilor Novick said it, it is directly related to our ability to actually decrease demand so that the draw down of fuels is working with our economy, so that increasing safety in our communities is working with our economy, instead of reaching that point where our economic needs and our safety needs are at odds with each other. Councilor Novick. I am uncomfortable going up to the 40% mark. I'm uncomfortable with that because, as you noted, the original direction on PCEF did include things that that are in different categories than 100%. What is reducing our what is leading us to more renewable energy and energy efficiency? That job training, regenerative agriculture. There are other products that may not fit within that primary category. But if, as you hear the debate, you find that there is an interest around this dais in talking about making progress, increasing the percentage, maybe a 30% percentage or language like moving closer to the proportional 40% of our emissions that are tied to transportation. I would be very interested in language like that. And in noting in our our ordinance, the need to be doing this work on the front end as well. Thank you.
387 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. Councilor. Koyama Lane. But just a quick programing note, colleagues, it is 445. We are we have additional amendments after this. And so we will not be finishing this item today. We'll get through some debate and we will be continuing this item at 5:00. Councilor Koyama Lane.
388 I want to thank councilor Novick for bringing this up and for caring about. Draw down a real having a real draw down of our need for transportation fuel. I see your commitment and I hear you continuing to talk about it. You're not surprised because we had talked about that. I'm not quite comfortable with the specific language of the 40%. I would feel more comfortable with. A council expresses commitment to incorporate strategies to reduce the demand for fossil fuels and transportation across its planning and operations. I'm not convinced that this is the exact place to do this, and I also know that we're going to have a chance to be engaging in planning for the next cip this fall, which I believe stakeholders are really excited to have councilors be more part of that conversation. I agree that we need to do more to make sure that we are reducing the demand for fossil fuels and transportation. Yeah, but it can't support it how it is right now. But thank you.
389 Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane councilor Avalos.
390 I'll just echo what my colleague said and appreciate your diligence. I understand where you're coming from, and I do think that we need to have a more serious discussion about the way that sff addresses these these needs, but this is not the right place for it. I don't know that that percentage is correct. And I want to when I say community, I mean the people that we put in charge of making decisions for sff. And I want to know what their take is on this. And we're about to embark on a whole new cip. And that is where we can have a more diligent process that is holistic and does actually include the entire city as we're developing that. And so I won't be supporting this today, but I appreciate your efforts, and I agree with your intentions, and I look forward to working with you on accomplishing this in another way as we enter the cip. Thanks.
391 Thank you, councilor Avalos. Councilor Smith.
392 Thank you, council president. I, too, appreciate your interest in this councilor Novick. I will not be supporting it because I think it's not in the right place. I think this is a standalone resolution, and it should have been brought as a standalone because, as you see. No one in the community knew you were bringing this forward. So to have this conversation right now, and if they had known that you were going to be adding an amendment to PCEF, that would have an impact on PCEF, that would be a different story. And I do want to wait for the time frame in the fall to see what's what's happening. And I'd like to hear this as a standalone, not as an amendment. It's a, you know, it's a very aggressive way to, to, to make your point. But I hear you loud and clear. I won't be support supporting this.
393 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Novick.
394 Thank you, mr. President. First of all, I do want to say that I did give the co-chairs of the subcommittee a heads up about this a few days ago. Didn't hear her response from them. I want to say that an argument for doing this now is to improve the credibility of this body. I think that if we say we want to reduce the amount of fuel in the sci hub, and we and we don't at the same time commit to doing what we can to reduce demand. I think there's an argument that we look silly. I think it's important to say right now, today, that we are prepared to put our money where our mouths are. I also want to note that for the past five years, we've been spending more than half of the money in sff on buildings. So I'm not even talking about evening that evening that out. I mean, if I wanted even it out, I'd say let's spend 53% on transportation over the next five years. I'm just talking about getting to 40%, which is the percentage of emissions coming from transportation to get us a little closer towards parity. So I don't think I'm being extreme. I also want to say that I really appreciate my colleagues kind words, and I know that you understand that if this amendment fails, you can look forward. When we talk about the cip, the cip, new cip next year, which, you know, if all of us are reelected, we'll start discussing, according to sam barrasso in March, part of this was to serve. You notice that whatever we talk about the amount of money in PCEF going into transportation, I will be jumping up and down saying, sci hub, sci hub at the top of my lungs. But then obviously I'm going to continue to do that regardless of the vote today, but I really would appreciate it if we got a yes vote to show that we are serious, that we come to play when it comes to the sci hub.
395 Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor.
396 Ryan yes, thank you, council president perhaps. Councilor. Novick. Because you socialize this a few times in the former climate committee. I'm not taken back by this at all. And I think it gets to the heart of the matter. And it's the action that will actually have impact on our climate. So I'm going to vote yesterday on this amendment. Thank you.
397 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Councilor Zimmerman.
398 Steve, I love it. I think I think you've got him on the ropes a little bit, right? Because there's this dogma around. Nobody can talk about sff unless you're on the subcommittee. And I think you've just nailed it in terms of there's some more direction giving that has to happen from this council. And I think that you are striking a heart at why I'd like to see more aggressive transportation improvements on the carbon emissions and transportation emissions. So I, I have felt the pushback from the kind of insular. And I at times, I think staff has largely built up that insular nature around around this issue. But I think you're striking right at what it needs to be. There are a lot of question marks that I have on this, and I'd like to kind of understand some of the some of the, you know, the outcomes and what might might change in PCEF. But largely, I seem very supportive of this because I do believe, like you have been the one person, the one voice on this who is talking about real impact instead of making sure that various community groups and nonprofits get their piece to start their, their, you know, part of the business, if you will, but you're the one talking about changing climate impacts. And I really appreciate that. So thank you, councilor.
399 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Colleagues, I put myself in the queue next. I actually very much agree with what, what, where councilor Zimmerman was starting to say that I think there really is a very serious need for this body to review and put some guidelines around the sff allocations. I think that there's a narrative in the broader community that we are going a mile wide and an inch deep, that we are rudderless, and we're not accomplishing the big goals that we actually are accomplishing. And I think that that has been articulated here. And I keep hearing that over in conversations over. I think that this is a great place for this discussion. I think that this ordinance is not the right place to make those kinds of prescriptive goals. I think it needs to be, as part of the more holistic discussion on the topic of PCEF and trying to really recenter the the community conversation, but also the actual work of it. So I will be a no on this amendment today, but do appreciate and support the more directive conversation coming forward. And I also want to just mention that 250 000 people being exempted from paying the arts education tax is better than a marginal improvement.
400 I voted yes, you. Did vote yes, but I'm.
401 Anyway, thank you. Thank you very much, colleagues. Councilor Green.
402 Thank you, councilor Novick I, I rode the bus in today. I signed up for the one week without driving. I tried to not drive as much as I can. It is difficult where I live to not drive, and it is now even more difficult to take the bus after trimet's cuts. Like you, I have also at times sort of. I'm not going to say blurred it out necessarily because it has a negative connotation, but feeling the passion of the knowing that our TriMet system is, is, is in a death spiral if we don't do something I've talked about very candidly, very openly, that we need to use PCEF in a more intentional way to backstop TriMet. And I've gotten kind of a bit of a whiplash on that myself. So I appreciate the need to, to, to put some council intent here. I think in terms of like credibility of the body, I think there's a lot of different ways we can do that. We could we could adopt a resolution that says, here's what we want to see in the next cip. I just had a meeting with the chairs or and some of the some of the commissioners on the the climate sustainability commission, they were giving us an overview of the climate action plan. One of the things that I said is I want to make sure that the climate action plan is in sync with the cip and and vice versa. And so I think that's like committing to. That is what gives credibility to the body. Ultimately, we are the decision makers, but I believe very strongly in empowering our communities to help us make those decisions. And so the cip is important, and I think that's where we need to take this up. I don't think it's 40%. So I can't support this today. But but again, I do appreciate your willingness to sort of scream from the mountaintops that we need some money for transit. Thanks.
403 Thank you very much. Councilor Green colleagues programing note it is 456. There are still three other councilors in queue. I am gaveling us out at 5:00, but we will keep the order of folks who are in queue to continue this when we are continued on the seventh. Vice president.
404 Clerk thank you, council president, I really appreciate your intellectual integrity here, and I think we're sending an important message. It may be a symbolic vote on our part or my part, but as the person at the dais who raised billions of dollars for transit, I appreciate this. And this could force us to change pisf and to increase the amount of money that sff brings in. So thank you. You have my vote.
405 Thank you, vice president, clerk councilor Kanal.
406 Council president. I'm probably going to take past 5:00 if I start on this, so I'm going to leave it to you how you want to handle it.
407 Councilor how quick.
408 Do you want me? Until next week.
409 I'll wait until next.
410 Week if you want.
411 To just gavel.
412 Us out. All right.
413 Colleagues, understanding we are at a limit of time. I'm going to read my little script for a second. Item 2026-312. The ordinance for the bulk fuel for bulk. Bulk fuel terminal capacity reduction regulation is continued to an additional meeting before the city council on October 7th, 2026 at 10:00 am. The record for oral testimony on these two ordinances was closed on September 24th, 2026. The record for written testimony on these two ordinances was closed as of 12:00 noon today, October 1st, 2026, based on council deliberations on possible amendments, council may decide to reopen the record for oral and written testimony at a future meeting. Lauren, I'm looking to you to see if I need to say anything else. We will vote on next week.
414 No, that's correct, mr. Continued.
415 And the record is closed.
416 Great. Okay.
417 With that, we are adjourned.
418 Thank you.
419 A cliffhanger.