# Portland City Council PM Session 10/01/26
# Meeting ID: 2026-10-01-1  Duration: 180 min

[00:01:25] Keelan McClymont: That's how she emails us.
[00:02:48] Jamie Dunphy: Good afternoon. I'm calling to order this meeting of the Portland City Council. It's 2:01 on Thursday, October 1st. Keelan, can you please call the roll?
[00:02:58] Loretta Smith: Yep.
[00:02:58] Keelan McClymont: Good afternoon. Just a quick note, we have updated the voting order just so everyone's aware. Clerk? New voting order, not me then.
[00:03:09] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: It's last quarter.
[00:03:10] Steve Novick: Go with Q4.
[00:03:11] Eric Zimmerman: Let's go D4.
[00:03:13] Dan Ryan: Clark, she called you.
[00:03:14] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: All right, Clark.
[00:03:16] Olivia Clark: Oh, we said—.
[00:03:18] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Yeah, I'm sorry, is that Clark?
[00:03:19] Keelan McClymont: Clark. All right, here. Thank you. Green.
[00:03:23] Mitch Green: Here.
[00:03:24] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[00:03:25] Eric Zimmerman: Here.
[00:03:25] Keelan McClymont: Avalos.
[00:03:26] Candace Avalos: Present.
[00:03:27] Keelan McClymont: Smith. Kanal.
[00:03:31] Sameer Kanal: Here.
[00:03:35] Loretta Smith: Here.
[00:03:37] Jamie Dunphy: Here.
[00:03:40] Keelan McClymont: Here.
[00:03:40] Jamie Dunphy: Good afternoon.
[00:03:44] Robert Taylor: 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 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in 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.
[00:04:39] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[00:04:40] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, colleagues. Before we get started, Councilor Ryan, I see your hand in the queue. Thank you.
[00:04:48] Dan Ryan: 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 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.
[00:05:28] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Okay, Keelan, we have 2 items on our agenda. Can we please call items 9 and 10?
[00:05:36] Keelan McClymont: Item 9, 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 10, 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.
[00:06:07] Jamie Dunphy: 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 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 and Sustainability. Come on up. Director Eric Engstrom, Supervising Planner Tom Armstrong, and Patricia Diffenderfer, Chief Planner from BPS.
[00:07:14] Dan Ryan: Thank you.
[00:07:19] Eric Kingstrom: Good afternoon. Um, for the record, Eric Kingstrom, Director of BPS, um, and I'll turn it over to staff.
[00:07:26] Patricia Diefendorfer: Good afternoon, Patricia Diefendorfer, Chief Planner, BPS.
[00:07:30] Tom Armstrong: Good afternoon, Tom Armstrong, Supervising Planner at BPS.
[00:07:35] Jamie Dunphy: 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.
[00:07:42] Tom Armstrong: Yeah, there we go. All right, there we go. Okay, I'm not sure how you want to run this meeting, but, um, so As was read out, there are 2 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, Guinea, Kanal, Clark, Koyama, Lane 2 amendments that were posted today. And we have slides that can go through each of these, however you like to handle the discussion on this portion of the Green 2 amendments.
[00:09:22] Jamie Dunphy: 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.
[00:09:29] Tom Armstrong: Yeah, so, The comprehensive plan policy amendments we make, the Planning Commission has recommended 2 changes to the existing policies and then a new policy, Policy 383, that is specific to the CI Hub. And that policy has a number of subpolicies that address the wide range of issues from seismic upgrades to economic significance to environmental protection. As a result of the public hearing and, and back and forth, um, there's been proposed, uh, changes to some of those policies, not all of those policies, wordsmithing of those policy, um, documents, and, and including one new sub-policy around risk reduction.
[00:10:22] Dan Ryan: Thank you.
[00:10:25] Jamie Dunphy: Is this a— do you go further into it past this point?
[00:10:30] Tom Armstrong: Yeah, so the first policy is to actually include some introductory language that really provides a little bit more context in where the policies appear in the comprehensive plan around the CI Hub. And we have, you know, this language really explains why the CI 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 importance of safety and resilience, that sort of, that what we're trying to do here, the balancing of the economic significance of the hub and the area, as well as the risks that it faces. Then in terms of the sub-policies, again, there's some wordsmithing here. Policy 383B has been expanded to acknowledge Other natural hazards that the hub faces, such as fires, landslides, and floods. The economic significant policy, again, 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 not really a safer location in Portland for these facilities.
[00:12:27] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[00:12:30] Tom Armstrong: Thank you. Policy 383D, 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 the prompting for coordinated planning. Similar, a change to the energy transition subpolicy, 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 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 for further risk mitigation of the dangers Imposed by the natural hazards in this area. And then, and along a similar line, there's a new policy around risk reduction and again, a prompt to identify more strategies to mitigate the risk to the community and the environment and the economic health that—.
[00:14:16] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[00:14:16] Tom Armstrong: That comes from concentrating all of these facilities at the CI Hub. That is the suite of policy changes in, um, what I'll call Green 2.
[00:14:29] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. I'd like to turn to, uh, 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.
[00:14:40] Mitch Green: I'll just jump right in. Um, thank you so much, Council President, and thank you, Tom, for, uh, summarizing. And again, I cannot For anyone watching this, I cannot stress enough how responsive BPS has been to us during this process. We've churned, I don't know how many, 3 iterations at least, and you all have other planned work. And it just, it's a testament to your commitment to this style of policymaking that is responsive to the community. And they hear it and they feel it. So thank you. Just broadly, you know, we've organized this as, It is one big amendment, and what we've seen on the screen so far, the 8 different amendments, sub-amendments that are, uh, speaking to the comprehensive plan. So I— 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?
[00:15:31] Jamie Dunphy: Go ahead and talk about the global suite of things.
[00:15:32] Steve Novick: That's fine.
[00:15:33] Mitch Green: Okay, so just, just to set the stage here, colleagues, um, you know, development happens I studied this in my dissertation, and then, 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 engenders creates jobs, it creates growth and all that, but it creates— also impacts the communities. And I think one of the takeaways from doing that work is Councilor Smith. I think the challenge is recognizing that while development is cumulative, 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 how you engage in politics. And so this is an area I've been watching from the outside looking in, not as a person who lived adjacent to the CEI hub, 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 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 at 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 policymaking. And so there might be some pieces that are missed, there might be some differences of opinion, but this is how legislative stuff works when you 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—.
[00:17:55] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Second.
[00:17:56] Mitch Green: Then jump into that, or do—.
[00:17:58] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay.
[00:17:58] Olivia Clark: I second.
[00:18:00] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Green moves, Council Vice President Clark seconds. Colleagues, we are now in discussion of the amendment. And Councilor Green, you still have the floor.
[00:18:07] Mitch Green: Yeah, um, do you have slides for the Title 33 stuff? Maybe that, that's the easiest way to do it so everyone can see visually. Um, Tom, do you mind doing the—.
[00:18:18] Tom Armstrong: Sure.
[00:18:19] Mitch Green: Okay, thanks.
[00:18:20] Tom Armstrong: So, um, Amendment 9 in the document, there's some changes to the neighborhood contact requirements. And, you know, this is designed to have advance notice to the surrounding neighborhoods of an incoming development application. And so these amendments expand the number of neighborhoods and, and Education institutions that will get those notices. It also requires an ad to be published in a newspaper that is broadly distributed in the neighborhoods that receive that notice. And generally, this requirement is just to create awareness of a development activity.
[00:19:12] Mitch Green: Thank you.
[00:19:15] Tom Armstrong: 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 10 or so years. And this—.
[00:19:40] Mitch Green: 20 Years.
[00:19:41] Robert Taylor: Councilmember Herbold.
[00:19:41] Tom Armstrong: Thank you, Mayor. This covers when they're building new structures or storage tanks 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 3 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—.
[00:20:33] Dan Ryan: Thank you.
[00:20:35] Tom Armstrong: 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 10, addresses those Type 3 reviews. And currently in the recommended code package, there are 3 different One for new transloading facilities, one for transferring capacity between terminals, and one for the aviation fuel storage expansion review. Under this amendment, those 3 reviews are deleted and replaced by 2 reviews. The first is a study of the Storage tank replacement review. And then the second one is a capacity and transloading expansion review. So the replacement review, again, sort of kicks in when a terminal is going through, 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 3 process. 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 Okay. That the replacement tank or tanks are built to risk category 4, 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 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.
[00:22:55] Mitch Green: Thank you.
[00:22:57] Tom Armstrong: To a place that in theory has lower liquefaction risks. And that 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, um, and remove it.
[00:23:41] Eric Zimmerman: Excuse me.
[00:23:44] Tom Armstrong: So that's Amendment 10. Or that's the replacement review process. The second review is for expansions. And this is for both tank capacity and transloading facilities and includes the aviation fuel. Again, it's a Type 3 review procedure. What we've done is taken essentially 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 there is no alternative location that can accommodate that expanded capacity.
[00:24:44] Mitch Green: Thank you.
[00:24:45] Tom Armstrong: There has to be net public benefits, including non-economic benefits. That's in criteria B. In 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, this operates as 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.
[00:25:34] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[00:25:36] Tom Armstrong: D, again, is, you know, show us that you are, you know, up to date and compliant with your RMIP from DEQ. Criteria E is, you know, again, that any new tank capacity is built to risk category 4. Criterion F is same for the transloading facilities are built to that higher seismic standard.
[00:26:04] Mitch Green: Thank you.
[00:26:05] Jamie Dunphy: Okay.
[00:26:07] Tom Armstrong: Criterion G is, again, any new tank, expanded tank has to be set back at least 250 feet 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.
[00:26:33] Sameer Kanal: I—.
[00:26:33] Tom Armstrong: 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.
[00:27:05] Mitch Green: I'm just going to pause there for a second and just put some 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 were talking about demonstrating the need, that there was language that says this is a current needs analysis that is documenting that need, that then 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, I think the City of Portland will will hold itself to, or I think that's what 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?
[00:28:00] Sameer Kanal: Yes.
[00:28:01] Tom Armstrong: Yeah.
[00:28:02] Mitch Green: Thank you.
[00:28:05] Tom Armstrong: 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— Asphalt.
[00:28:45] Mitch Green: Thank you. And I just want to hop in again to clarify on that, um, that there was a strong desire to define fuel or 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, you know, the council has the ability to We decided if we put a directive, which is, you know, which is stronger than a resolution, it's a council directive, the city must act. If we adopt this directive, then the city now has a mandate to go out and engage in that definition process. Then we avoid that delay and we come back and meet the goal of that expanded definition so we can adopt that at a later time.
[00:29:36] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[00:29:37] Mitch Green: And that's— 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 BPS to do the work that is needed to be responsive to community and maintain compliance?
[00:29:56] Unidentified speaker: 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.
[00:30:07] Mitch Green: Okay, thank you. Okay, I think that's it for the Title 33 amendment.
[00:30:15] Jamie Dunphy: So perfect.
[00:30:16] Mitch Green: That's— there's a lot here, guys, and, uh, thanks for the, the flyover. And I guess I would ask for your support. We can get into debate.
[00:30:23] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Thank you, Tom, for— and team for walking us through this. Um, as I had said at the very beginning, I wanted to extend a courtesy to all the co-sponsors of this to see if they have any additional comments before we enter full discussion.
[00:30:33] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. I want to reiterate a place where Councilor Green started, which is that we are not solving all of the challenges with the CEI Hub, but we are addressing safety. And this is a place where we know that safety bumps up against, um, the entire region's economic drivers. And we worked very hard in this proposal to figure out how we find that Thank you. We're trying to 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. Um, all within the, the bounds of our land use system. So I look forward to the discussion, the questions, the debate on this, um, and wanted to make sure we had that frame as we begin. Thank you, Council President.
[00:31:39] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Knoll.
[00:31:41] Sameer Kanal: I'll save my comments for the full discussion.
[00:31:43] Candace Avalos: Okay.
[00:31:44] Jamie Dunphy: Vice President Clark.
[00:31:46] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Council President. Um, I just first of all want to thank the Planning Commission, wherever you are, uh, 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. Thanks to advocates for always being at the table and pushing on this. I really appreciate it. It's very long awaited. I think we've 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 I would just say that we're really pushing the envelope here as far as the state goes. And 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.
[00:32:51] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[00:32:52] Olivia Clark: 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 transloading capacity expansion review under G, new storage tank capacity is set back at least 250 feet from the top bank of the Willamette River.
[00:33:18] Loretta Smith: Yes.
[00:33:19] Olivia Clark: Why do we not include on non-liquefaction soils in there? Was that discussed?
[00:33:31] Unidentified speaker: I will say the whole area has some— is in that high liquefaction risk. But when you look at 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 lower that risk, the lower the amount of displacement becomes. So think, you know, 10 to 12 feet of displacement close to the river, down to less than a foot away from the river. And so we were looking at those—.
[00:34:12] Robert Taylor: Thank you.
[00:34:12] Unidentified speaker: Sort of maps and just saying, okay, for new expanded tanks, move it away from the river to a safer location. But there is no sort of no liquefaction hazard areas on these terminals.
[00:34:29] Olivia Clark: No line of demarcation.
[00:34:31] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Yeah.
[00:34:31] Olivia Clark: Just this is your best guess, it's 250 feet.
[00:34:35] Unidentified speaker: It gets us— it's safer. It's not safest or safe. Okay, it's safer.
[00:34:41] Olivia Clark: Okay, I appreciate that. That— I think that answers my question. Thank you.
[00:34:45] Jamie Dunphy: 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, uh, amendment which was moved by Councilor Green and seconded by Vice President Clark. Councilor Novick.
[00:35:00] Steve Novick: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Um, so I have a question which maybe is partly guided by By not knowing exactly how arduous a Type 3 procedure is. On replacing tanks, it seems to me that if they're gonna replace a bad tank with a good tank, we want them to do that as quickly as possible. So if they're gonna replace an old tank with a risk category 4, it's like a resilient tank. So just wondering, is there any argument for authorizing a speeded-up procedure that's different from Title 3, or is Title 3 as speeded up as it's reasonable to go? Or a Type 3, sorry.
[00:35:38] Unidentified speaker: The Type 3 process is arduous, right? So they're going to go through the neighborhood contact, they're going to apply, there'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.
[00:36:04] Sameer Kanal: Right.
[00:36:05] Unidentified speaker: And, you know, I think we've heard from our colleagues at PP&D that you could actually have a lower type of review process for this, a Type 2, that still includes public notice and an opportunity to 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.
[00:36:36] Steve Novick: I mean, given that, do you— 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.
[00:36:58] Mitch Green: 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 processes possible. So that way, I get your point about, Why wouldn't we want to make it easier to trade from 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 and the ongoing existence of this, this was what they felt like was their compromise position. And I was willing to sort of fight for that. And I'll just note that I think it's probably in the best interest of the companies to get this Safer tank anyway. So they've got a strong balance sheet incentive anyway.
[00:38:01] Steve Novick: I just have to say, I, I don't quite get it, because if I were living near the CI Hub, I'd want them to replace the bad tanks with the good tanks as quickly as possible. So given that this requires that the total storage capacity is not more than this— 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 4 seismic resilience standards. I just don't see logically why we wouldn't have to want to have a speedier process for that.
[00:38:33] Mitch Green: 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 3 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 the threats that they face.
[00:39:12] Steve Novick: But did you ask the community members I think there's a general recognition that that's desirable, but there's a balance of risks here.
[00:39:26] Mitch Green: And so weighing those risks, they want the most robust processes possible. And there's no single one risk here.
[00:39:37] Steve Novick: But what's the risk of replacing a bad tank with a good tank?
[00:39:40] Mitch Green: Well, the risk is that you have a tank that's not The risk was that if it's not a Type 3 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. Thank you. So I can't offer you any more than that, but that's, that's, that was the discussion that we had.
[00:40:17] Steve Novick: Any other sponsors with any other comments?
[00:40:22] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Council President, if I may.
[00:40:23] Jamie Dunphy: Absolutely.
[00:40:23] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I'll note 2 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.
[00:41:01] Angelita Morillo: Okay.
[00:41:01] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Councilor Smith. I think there's a strong desire to have consistency in the process. And we sometimes as policymakers 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 DEQ 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 DEQ mandate helped, for me at least, to make me feel like the balance was captured appropriately.
[00:42:12] Steve Novick: 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 3 review first, so we're not going to get it done until 2041. I mean, it— how much time does a Type 3 versus a Type 3 review add?
[00:42:35] Unidentified speaker: Um, so the city is still under the, the state 120-day, um, requirement to issue a decision by then. So, um, In theory, it's a 4-month process. At maximum, it's a 4-month process unless the applicant waives 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.
[00:43:08] Steve Novick: So—.
[00:43:09] Patricia Diefendorfer: And I would also say, just the— sorry, for the record, Patricia Diefendorfer— just, you know, expense associated with that application, the fee. As well as the time. Just throw that in there.
[00:43:21] Steve Novick: So is, is 4 months the maximum, or is it a minimum?
[00:43:25] Unidentified speaker: It's the maximum unless, because of the back and forth, the terminals waive that 120-day requirement.
[00:43:33] Patricia Diefendorfer: And, and if there's an appeal, then that could extend that timeline, right?
[00:43:38] Unidentified speaker: No, the council— the appeal has to be resolved within the 120 days.
[00:43:44] Steve Novick: Okay, I mean, I just, um, 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, is my take.
[00:44:00] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Councilor Kanal.
[00:44:04] Sameer Kanal: Thank you. I'm not really sure what a good tank is.
[00:44:07] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[00:44:09] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knell. Councilor Koyama Lane.
[00:44:12] Keelan McClymont: I just want to underscore that, you know, the CEI hub is an issue that impacts all Portlanders in all 4 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 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 things that come up too.
[00:44:53] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. Vice President Clark.
[00:44:56] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Councilor President. I just wanted to make some general remarks about this, 'cause I think this is a really important moment in history. And the history of Linnton and the history of the tanks, the history of our state. I just read Sarah Taylor's book. I don't know if Sarah's here today, but she wrote a book that includes some of the history of the tanks and the history of Linnton. And it was really because a tank that was, I believe, in this— inside the city of Portland, closer to the downtown, that exploded.
[00:45:28] Loretta Smith: Yes.
[00:45:29] Olivia Clark: 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 Linton and really making Linton the sacrifice zone for the rest of the city and the rest of the state. I just thought that history was really compelling.
[00:45:55] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[00:45:56] Olivia Clark: Um, 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, uh, deal with the tanks and enhance the safety for everybody who lives in Linnton, who lives in the city, who lives in the state, uh, 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, uh, for all of us. So thank you for everyone who has worked on this.
[00:46:25] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Smith.
[00:46:29] Loretta Smith: Thank you. Thank you, Council President. Thank you all for coming. Um, just thinking about this, the building retrofits, um, they reduce physical vulnerability but do not fully eliminate the liquefaction risk. Is the city exploring local financial responsibility or bonding mechanisms to shield tax from cleanup costs if an earthquake strikes before the retrofit finishes?
[00:47:00] Unidentified speaker: The state is addressing that. There was legislation that passed last spring, and that DEQ is currently going through the rulemaking process, and that that added financial responsibility will be on the terminals Uh, in the spring of 2027.
[00:47:21] Loretta Smith: Okay, thank you.
[00:47:24] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Kanal.
[00:47:28] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, not trying to be glib about it earlier. I, 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. Uh, and that's the— I think the, the time spent, or that may be spent, has a trade-off, right? That, that time spent might be a negative, but the positive associated with that is, is a more public process. And I, 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, um, that we got to these amendments through by actually listening to advocates and And, and doing what they would like. I have a question for Tom. Um, 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?
[00:48:38] Candace Avalos: Correct.
[00:48:39] Sameer Kanal: Okay, great. Thanks.
[00:48:42] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Councilor Novick.
[00:48:44] Steve Novick: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. So there's an obvious question I'd like to ask, which my staffer Zach Ward pointed out I should ask, which is, uh, the DEQ rules allow for either replacing an old tank with a risk category 4 seismic standard tank or doing a containment pool around the tank. 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 3 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?
[00:49:34] Unidentified speaker: 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.
[00:49:47] Steve Novick: Thank you. But 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.
[00:50:07] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Councilor Smith.
[00:50:10] Angelita Morillo: Thank you.
[00:50:12] Loretta Smith: Um, 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 the Title 33 development review process, it won't.
[00:50:38] Unidentified speaker: Those, those application review fees are to support PP&D 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 30—.
[00:51:06] Loretta Smith: And to the adjacent communities as well?
[00:51:08] Angelita Morillo: Yeah.
[00:51:09] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[00:51:10] Unidentified speaker: But Title 33 itself, those fees are relatively small compared to what's involved with the Title 17 penalties. And mainly that's how we fund PP&D.
[00:51:23] Loretta Smith: Okay, okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
[00:51:27] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Colleagues, is there any further discussion of the Green-Pirtle-Guiney-Canal-Clark-Koyama Lane 2 amendment? Councilor Zimmerman.
[00:51:42] Eric Zimmerman: 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, um, but is also a little unusual from a perspective of where the Bureau is at on amendments. And 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 that.
[00:52:35] Unidentified speaker: I could maybe start, Tom. I think the— this round of amendments was the result of testimony that you all received, um, that was a reaction to our recommended draft. And so, um, it's been an iterative process that, um, you know, some of the testimony that came into you all we didn't have the benefit of. And so in, in a, 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 and 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, um, and has, um, in terms of the, the policy document, it's largely been a question of verb strength and wordsmithing to, to respond to community preferences. I might also just say that as it relates to the replacement, 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 3 review, is because of the need, you know, the desire to make sure that we don't create any barriers to improving the safety.
[00:54:01] Patricia Diefendorfer: Thank you.
[00:54:02] Unidentified speaker: Of those tanks and understanding that DEQ, you know, there's going to be 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 things that factored into why that was not considered a discretionary review. Thank you. Initially. I'll, 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, 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, a meeting that says this is what we're going to do. And then they can proceed, um, and, 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 a, a interim step there where, uh, through the review you see a little bit more around the design, um, and, and are able to, um, have more opportunity for comment. And as been said here, um, the opportunity to build trust with the community. 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 bureau 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? I, you know, there's different—.
[00:56:21] Eric Zimmerman: You say if it's feasible from a zoning and what perspective?
[00:56:25] Unidentified speaker: Administrative perspective. So we admit—.
[00:56:27] Eric Zimmerman: 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 what 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?
[00:56:53] Unidentified speaker: I mean, you've already hinted at this discussion about whether we would do a review for the replacement tanks. That's a pivot that—.
[00:57:00] Eric Zimmerman: That doesn't—.
[00:57:00] Eric Engstrom: Is a trade-off.
[00:57:01] Eric Zimmerman: 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 What we're talking largely, these amendments are how we want to go about a thing, not what the thing will be. And 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.
[00:57:32] Unidentified speaker: I think the one thing that has changed or is left behind is related to the transfer review, that the way the transfers were set up between under 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 goes away with the new capacity and transloading expansion review.
[00:58:05] Eric Zimmerman: Okay, and so what's the outcome of that?
[00:58:07] Unidentified speaker: That is one outcome, that there is not the immediate 20% reduction. If we still have Title 17, then we're waiting till 2036 to see that 20% reduction. Yeah. 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—. 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. And what did you—.
[00:58:50] Eric Zimmerman: 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?
[00:59:02] Tom Armstrong: Well, there's a—.
[00:59:02] Eric Zimmerman: Are we just doing the neighborhood boundary of Northwest or Linnton?
[00:59:08] Unidentified speaker: Yeah, there's an extensive list 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.
[00:59:28] Eric Zimmerman: So many neighborhoods, not just the?
[00:59:31] Mitch Green: Correct.
[00:59:32] Olivia Clark: Okay.
[00:59:39] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay.
[00:59:39] Eric Zimmerman: Um, and, and then I guess from BPS'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 put a lot of work, long time, long process. And while it sounds like the councilors, the 5 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 BPS and your original product and where you're at now.
[01:00:29] Olivia Clark: And I—.
[01:00:29] Robert Taylor: Councilor Smith.
[01:00:30] Eric Zimmerman: I just don't know.
[01:00:30] Unidentified speaker: 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.
[01:00:53] Olivia Clark: Um, do you think—.
[01:00:54] Unidentified speaker: Not a wholesale It's not a redirection of the general policy tilt, but it moves the firmness of the wording slightly further along the spectrum. The process improvements are, I think there are some improvements in this version that clean up some things that weren't clear in our version. So that's not a fundamental change, but it is, I think, helpful. I don't know if staff has anything else. I wouldn't say it's a wholesale pivot. It's strengthening some of the processes.
[01:01:26] Eric Zimmerman: Trying to get a little bit of a sense if— to the, to the, to the verbs and to the words and the descriptors that we 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, 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 'cause you chose not to do it originally.
[01:02:07] Unidentified speaker: I might just jump in to say that I think that 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 were fine. It was a good discussion. Us really kind of, you know, choose words very carefully. And I think it was a good process.
[01:02:31] Dan Ryan: Okay.
[01:02:31] Eric Zimmerman: And then lastly, I guess 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 BPS that you consider risky or that you would recommend not be adopted?
[01:02:54] Unidentified speaker: I think I would, I would just say that, um, the, the replacement review is something that obviously was not part of the original recommendation for the—.
[01:03:03] Eric Zimmerman: Is that number 10?
[01:03:04] Unidentified speaker: Um, yes, it's, uh, the 2— it's in, uh, Amendment 10. There are 2, um, the 2 review processes are in Amendment 10. We're talking about the the first one, the replacement review. Um, I think that the philosophy of, um, the staff going in was that we didn't want to create any additional— I mean, too much additional process, um, to get in the way of compliance with the DEQ seismic requirements. We, 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 moving that direction.
[01:03:50] Eric Zimmerman: 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 a non-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 10, That's the end of the sentence?
[01:04:13] Unidentified speaker: 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, um, we've, we've gotten there to a point. There was a lot of give and take and, and wordsmithing, um, to try and get this into the best position possible.
[01:04:48] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[01:04:49] Eric Zimmerman: Okay, thank you all.
[01:04:51] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Green.
[01:04:54] Mitch Green: Thank you, Council President. I, I just jumped back in the queue because I wanted to note through this discussion that, um, 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 strong about. And after the iteration with staff, determinations 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—.
[01:05:33] Steve Novick: I think it's a good thing.
[01:05:34] Mitch Green: Where we listen. So thanks.
[01:05:38] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Smith.
[01:05:40] Olivia Clark: Thank you.
[01:05:44] Loretta Smith: Um, want to make sure, because I've, I've been in conversations with community about the hub, the CIE hub, and— but I want to know from BDS, how do you all plan to make sure that there is a— an attempt to reach out to diverse underserved, uh, residents, uh, to let them know about the seismic and the environmental hazards that, um, 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 BDS will be giving a thorough public kind of conversation to concentrate on the hazards in those undisturbed, 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. Thank you.
[01:07:22] Eric Engstrom: Councilor, again, for the record, Eric Engstrom, Director of BPS. In tandem with this code work, we have been sitting at a table, a multi-agency table with PBEM and state agencies continuing to try to coordinate better on 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 that, the multi-agency effort to do better at the planning for emergency response, that's where that action is, I think. And so we're, regardless of what council does with these particular policy amendments, that dialogue is continuing.
[01:08:16] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Can you talk about those?
[01:08:19] Loretta Smith: When you're talking about those multi-agency, I, I, 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, I need you to, 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, it, it is an urgent matter, but they don't know in great detail what is going on. And so I think just talk— 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, um, 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.
[01:09:22] Eric Engstrom: Thank you.
[01:09:23] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:09:27] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. And, um, Councilor Novick, Councilor Zimmerman, I want to thank you guys for pushing on some of those questions. There, um, 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 policymaking. 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 2 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, um, 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 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.
[01:12:42] Angelita Morillo: Okay.
[01:12:43] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: 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.
[01:13:26] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Novick.
[01:13:29] Steve Novick: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say that I, if I thought we'd get support, I'd be inclined to offer an amendment on the replacement tank issue to go from Type 2 to— Type 3 to Type 2 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 waste time in an 11 to 1 or 10 to 2 vote. So I'll just say that if anybody other than Councilor Zimmerman or myself wants to offer that amendment, I'd second it.
[01:14:02] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we move towards a vote?
[01:14:13] Keelan McClymont: This is—.
[01:14:14] Unidentified speaker: Oh, all right.
[01:14:15] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, these are moved as a single amendment right now, currently, unless there's a motion to separate.
[01:14:21] Sameer Kanal: So, question for information, it's just the Title 33 amendments though?
[01:14:26] Unidentified speaker: Yes. No, it's the same as the plan comp plan policies and the Title 33 Council President, may I jump in here?
[01:14:37] Jamie Dunphy: Please.
[01:14:38] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: 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 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 9, which affects Title 33 in the comp plan, and one amendment for agenda item 10, or document 2026-312, which affects Title 17.
[01:15:26] Olivia Clark: So can we just clarify that The next vote is on Title 17 after this.
[01:15:33] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: The current vote is the amendment on comp plan and 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.
[01:15:45] Jamie Dunphy: It will be sequentially next, yes.
[01:15:47] Olivia Clark: Okay, thank you.
[01:15:49] Jamie Dunphy: But we haven't formally moved it, therefore we can't formally—.
[01:15:51] Olivia Clark: Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.
[01:15:52] Jamie Dunphy: Yes. Okay, and Vice President Clark, do you have any Further?
[01:15:55] Olivia Clark: Okay.
[01:15:56] Jamie Dunphy: Keelan, could we please call the roll?
[01:15:58] Keelan McClymont: Yep, this is the roll call vote on the amendment, uh, Green, Pirtle-Guiney, Kanal, Clark, Koyama Lane 2, moved by Green, seconded by Clark. Clark?
[01:16:12] Olivia Clark: Oh, I'm not used to this yet. Aye.
[01:16:16] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[01:16:17] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:16:18] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[01:16:30] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[01:16:32] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[01:16:35] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[01:16:37] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[01:16:40] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:16:40] Loretta Smith: Aye. Aye.
[01:16:47] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[01:16:48] Steve Novick: Subject to my foregoing reservations, aye.
[01:16:54] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[01:16:54] Keelan McClymont: The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
[01:16:57] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. I understand there are some additional amendments to this. Councilor Green.
[01:17:07] Mitch Green: Thank you, Council President. Um, I filed Green 1 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.
[01:17:37] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Yes.
[01:17:38] Mitch Green: I'm far more skeptical of the modeling that shows we have that need. And so I was willing to file something on this 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 1 is simply—.
[01:18:01] Keelan McClymont: Councilor Smith.
[01:18:03] Mitch Green: On the website, it's Green 1, Version 2, 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 limits us to the 20% expansion.
[01:18:29] Dan Ryan: Okay.
[01:18:29] Mitch Green: That we have been talking about. But I have been— I have had reservations on 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 gonna be as much growth in aviation fuel as we see in the record because that modeling depends upon a world where—.
[01:18:54] Loretta Smith: I'm sorry.
[01:18:55] Mitch Green: 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 short-haul flights, consumers are highly responsive to pricing.
[01:19:21] Patricia Diefendorfer: Thank you.
[01:19:23] Mitch Green: So 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 a hub. And I would, I would ask for a second.
[01:19:47] Sameer Kanal: Second.
[01:19:47] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[01:19:47] Sameer Kanal: Second.
[01:19:48] Unidentified speaker: Second.
[01:19:49] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, Councilor Green moves Green 1, and I believe I heard Councilor Kanal first as a second. Colleagues, we are now in discussion of Green 1. Councilor Clark— Vice President Clark.
[01:19:59] Olivia Clark: I'm sorry, I, um, 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 1.
[01:20:10] Jamie Dunphy: It's a refund.
[01:20:11] Olivia Clark: Okay, sorry.
[01:20:13] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Novick.
[01:20:20] Steve Novick: Sorry, thanks, Mr. President. Sorry, this is a further amendment to 33?
[01:20:25] Mitch Green: Yeah.
[01:20:25] Steve Novick: Okay, just to clarify that.
[01:20:27] Mitch Green: Section— it's 33, it's the approval criteria, it's 33.870.060, and it was sub-item C 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.
[01:20:47] Steve Novick: Okay. 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 aviation, it increases the risk that Alaska Airlines will run to the legislature and say, well, we were going to have direct flights to Seoul, but Portland's thing about fuel is 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 our being overridden on the whole thing.
[01:21:40] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Uh, colleagues, I put myself in the queue. Um, I'm not going to be able to be supportive of this amendment. Um, I am convinced by our friends at the port that, uh, aviation fuel is different. Um, first of all, uh, PDX is the largest single employer in District 1. Um, it is beautiful. I went through it twice in the last week. Um, they wouldn't have put the amount of money and time and energy into that Airport if it weren't expected to welcome millions of new additional guests to our city. And so for that reason, I am convinced that, or by the argument that aviation fuel should be treated differently. So I will be a no on this amendment.
[01:22:21] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: 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, um, as easy to navigate as possible, and keep a total cap on the amount of fuel in the, in the CEI 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.
[01:23:22] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[01:23:23] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Uh, 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 Thank you. We have 2.5 million 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, 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. 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.
[01:24:40] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Knoll.
[01:24:44] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. I'll just note that, um, 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. Um, so I think in terms of the demand growth, regardless of where one's at on the different modeling, um, increasing the allowable capacity as a separate category is, is different Structurally, but if we were to keep it together, meaning pass 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'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.
[01:25:43] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Uh, 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.
[01:25:57] Loretta Smith: Thank you. Um, I agree with Council President. Um, aviation fuel is different, and I will not be supporting this amendment.
[01:26:07] Robert Taylor: Thank you.
[01:26:08] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, I'm limiting debate to those who are in the queue right now. Councilor Ryan.
[01:26:18] Dan Ryan: There we go. Um, sorry for my delays. I really appreciate what Council President said. Thank you very much for that. And, um, I also want to just add that we also saw this week that Travel Portland's investing $4.5 million to get, uh, PDX Nonstop flights to Asia. We just can't afford to jeopardize jobs and 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.
[01:26:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Councilor Murillo.
[01:26:51] Angelita Morillo: 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 evasion that we actually want to happen. 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 US 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'll be voting no.
[01:27:56] Dan Ryan: Councilor Smith.
[01:27:56] Angelita Morillo: I will be supportive of it. I appreciate the attempts to do everything we can to draw down those fuels.
[01:28:03] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Councilor Avalos.
[01:28:06] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you.
[01:28:07] Candace Avalos: 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 1 councilor, I'm concerned about preserving jobs in our district and at the airport. I asked about, you know, I wanted to understand what it— 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, um, but I do think that there is a case for, um, making this amendment based on what Councilor Kanal just said, so I won't repeat that. Um, and so even though it looks like it probably won't pass, uh, I think I'm going to support it to just I think it does 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. Um, so my yes vote is to show that value, uh, and to encourage us as a council to keep discussing this because the broader issue needs to be addressed. Uh, even if this might not be the way that gets most councilors to yes on, I think that we can agree, um, we need to continue assessing the role of aviation fuel in, um, in our storage. And so, uh, I will support it today. Um, but I look forward to having more conversations with the port about how we can continue, uh, Addressing the, the same value that I think we all share, including the port, as, as per the conversations that I had, uh, and do it in a way that meets the community's needs as well. So I will support it today. Thanks.
[01:29:58] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Keelan, can we please call the roll on Green 1?
[01:30:05] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Green, seconded by Kanal. Clark?
[01:30:08] Olivia Clark: No.
[01:30:08] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[01:30:10] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:30:10] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[01:30:11] Eric Zimmerman: No.
[01:30:12] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[01:30:13] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:30:14] Loretta Smith: No.
[01:30:15] Keelan McClymont: Kanal.
[01:30:16] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[01:30:17] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:30:18] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: No.
[01:30:19] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[01:30:22] Dan Ryan: No.
[01:30:23] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane.
[01:30:24] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[01:30:24] Keelan McClymont: Murillo.
[01:30:25] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:30:26] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[01:30:27] Steve Novick: No.
[01:30:27] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[01:30:28] Jamie Dunphy: No.
[01:30:29] Keelan McClymont: The amendment fails with a vote of 5 ayes and 7 nays.
[01:30:33] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. Are there additional amendments on this item? Councilor Knoll, was your amendment to this item? No, it's the next item. 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.
[01:30:59] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Grand piece.
[01:30:59] Dan Ryan: I know.
[01:31:01] Jamie Dunphy: Honestly, we're doing better in time than I thought we would too, guys. Uh, 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 PM. 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 2026-312—.
[01:31:31] Candace Avalos: Oh wait.
[01:31:37] Jamie Dunphy: Sorry, I'm reading my notes. Okay, I was reading the wrong script.
[01:31:46] Angelita Morillo: Great.
[01:31:47] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, it looks like we actually do have time to move on to Title 17 elements today. Um, I'm going to give us a quick recess. Uh, it is 3:30, we're halfway through, so I'm going to give us a 15-minute recess. Back at 3:45, at that point we will continue to item 2026-312.
[01:32:02] Keelan McClymont: Thank you.
[01:46:53] Jamie Dunphy: 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 Clark, Koyama Lane 2 amendment. Councilor, let's rinse and repeat the process here with our BPS staff and to hand— to walk us through the details. After that, we will move on to Councilor Novick's amendments and then to Councilor Kanal's amendments. So Councilor Green, you want to cue us up and then we'll turn it over to our team?
[01:47:25] Mitch Green: Yeah, thanks so much. This is once again Green, Pirtle-Guiney, Kanal, Clark, and Koyama Lane 2 take up one amendment that moves Essentially 5 amendments that deal with fuel reduction program amendments. And we also have pulled in Novick 2 and 3 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 an easier path. So Councilor Novick didn't have an issue with that.
[01:48:02] Olivia Clark: No.
[01:48:02] Mitch Green: And so we did that, but not— we did not pull Novick 1 into it. So, Tom, if you want to give us the flyover, go ahead. Thanks.
[01:48:10] Candace Avalos: Sure.
[01:48:11] Unidentified speaker: 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 Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. So this is an amendment to the ordinance that addresses the issue of 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 regulatory pivot. And so what this is is a directive To get that data that is required to be reported to the city by March 31st, 2027. And then we would look at, process that data 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—.
[01:49:24] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you.
[01:49:26] Unidentified speaker: 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.
[01:49:51] Candace Avalos: Thank you.
[01:49:51] Unidentified speaker: The proposal is to remove that exemption, and then we have a little bit of cleanup to be consistent with the changes that were made in Title 33. That's Amendment 2. Amendment 3 is some changes to the reporting requirements. Again, sort of reflecting on what we heard in public testimony. It fills out 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 3— is to then— Report to the council. 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 the fuel demand forecasts and the actual consumption rate data so that council is informed and can make any adjustments.
[01:51:08] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[01:51:09] Unidentified speaker: That they see fit. The 4th one was just a small change to the penalty clause, just a truing up of the language in that code. Again, the 5th amendment is another directive. This again is sort of pulling in Novick 3. 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 looking at the risks in the hub and what we can do to reduce the risks out there.
[01:51:58] Mitch Green: Thank you so much, Tom. And colleagues, I would move I would formally move this amendment.
[01:52:06] Keelan McClymont: Second.
[01:52:07] Angelita Morillo: Second.
[01:52:08] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, 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, Clark, Koyama Lane 2 amendments. Councilor Novick.
[01:52:23] Steve Novick: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, 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.
[01:52:45] Unidentified speaker: 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 only do it every 2 years.
[01:52:58] Steve Novick: Okay.
[01:52:59] Unidentified speaker: The feds come out every year, so we just left it unspecified so we can pull from different data.
[01:53:06] Steve Novick: Okay, so you plan to look at all those sources?
[01:53:08] Angelita Morillo: Yeah.
[01:53:09] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[01:53:10] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Vice President Clark.
[01:53:13] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Council President. I would like to move to divide the question in Title 17 to separate the vote on Amendment 2.
[01:53:22] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, that is a motion by right. That is specifically to vote separately on Amendment 2. The section titled Amendment 2 around aviation fuel exemptions and remain— leave the remainder of the package, Amendments 1, 3, 4, and 5 as a whole.
[01:53:36] Olivia Clark: Yes, exactly. And I think I'm allowed to make comments.
[01:53:38] Jamie Dunphy: Absolutely.
[01:53:39] Olivia Clark: 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 questions so that we can vote on an amendment Uh, and Title 17. I would 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 1 as well, and receives, um, all of the aviation fuel from the CEI 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 Um, and with the major expansion that we've heard about, uh, and 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, uh, public hearing that the adoption of sustainable aviation fuels will require capacity 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, I would like to see the port Point of information.
[01:55:27] Candace Avalos: Oh, is it just— is it just removing 2 and then we would vote on 1 and 3 as one, or are we voting on 1, 2, and 3 separately?
[01:55:36] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, sorry, this— to the top part here, section— I, I Under the Green, Pirtle-Guiney, et al., it will pull out just Amendment 2. So we will have 2 separate votes. We'll vote on Amendment 2, code remove aviation fuel exemption, and then a separate vote, Amendments 1, 3, 4, and 5.
[01:55:53] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[01:55:54] Steve Novick: Okay.
[01:55:55] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, Councilor, uh, Green.
[01:55:58] Mitch Green: Uh, thank you, Council President. I think generally the carrier gets to choose the order in which—.
[01:56:03] Jamie Dunphy: Yes.
[01:56:04] Mitch Green: Mr. Chair, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and I have just sort of talked about— we would like to take up the vote on Amendment 2, that which is being pulled out, and just get that out of the way first, and then we would proceed to the rest, rest of the items.
[01:56:19] Jamie Dunphy: Sounds good to me. Uh, further discussion at this point? Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:56:25] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. Um, Councilor Clark, we tried to make this easy for folks to talk about with the different sections, but I'm noticing that in this -2, Amendment 2 also includes the cleanup language in the, the new C, or if, um, if this piece doesn't move forward, what would be D around transloading capacity and expansion? So I just have a question for staff, and well, let me start with a question for you, Councilor Clark. Is your intention to remove that also, or is that ancillary damage?
[01:56:59] Olivia Clark: My intention is to remove the entire piece.
[01:57:03] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay, including the changes on translating capacity and expansion reviews?
[01:57:06] Olivia Clark: Yes.
[01:57:06] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay, thank you.
[01:57:09] Jamie Dunphy: Was there a question for staff also?
[01:57:11] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: 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 moved.
[01:57:27] Jamie Dunphy: Perfect. Thank you very much, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Novick.
[01:57:30] Steve Novick: Clarifying question. Are we to speak now to what we think about this removal or just to what we think about dividing the question?
[01:57:39] Jamie Dunphy: We're discussing— we're in discussion of the overall amendment at this point.
[01:57:42] Steve Novick: 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 in this, they'll preempt us in other things too. But I also wanted to say flying is really bad for the environment. Um, you know, maybe we'll get to sustainable aviation fuel and 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, uh, 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.
[01:58:28] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Councilor Murillo.
[01:58:32] Angelita Morillo: Councilor Clark, could you just clarify for this part? So you wanted to remove all of Amendment 2, but could you clarify based on Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's question, why not just remove the aviation part and then keep the rest?
[01:58:47] Olivia Clark: D does. I think D does that. It removes aviation fuel storage.
[01:58:52] Angelita Morillo: But you want to remove all Amendment 2?
[01:58:56] Olivia Clark: I want it all to be gone.
[01:58:57] Angelita Morillo: Okay, I understand.
[01:59:00] Unidentified speaker: Tom, if I could, that last part, D, the reference to the aviation fuel storage expansion review is a conforming amendment to reflect the Title 33 changes. So I suggest that you either leave that there or we can address it within the technical conforming amendments that you'll see on November 5th.
[01:59:25] Olivia Clark: I would prefer that we just deal with it in the technical amendments and not do it now.
[01:59:30] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, thank you very much. Councilor Morillo— Councilor Knoll.
[01:59:37] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I, 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 2 right now, and then we will take a vote in which yes is to do Amendment 2 and no is not.
[01:59:49] Jamie Dunphy: We are still in discussion of the overall, uh, Green-Pirtle-Guiney-Kanal-Clark-Koyama Lane 2.
[01:59:55] Sameer Kanal: Thought it had been divided.
[01:59:57] Jamie Dunphy: The question has been divided for the purposes of voting, but we are still in the—.
[02:00:00] Sameer Kanal: Got it—.
[02:00:00] Dan Ryan: The discussion.
[02:00:01] Sameer Kanal: Okay, well then I'll do both parts together here. So with relation to part 2, first, the same question issue that was raised by Councilors Pirtle-Guiney and Murillo, the change in what that review does to include transloading 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 just mentioned by staff, is really important. So I'll be supporting that. I also think that the, the same arguments as 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 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 the idea that if there is this growth that is being modeled in aviation fuel need and demand, that there is 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.
[02:01:44] Dan Ryan: Thanks.
[02:01:45] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Green.
[02:01:48] Mitch Green: Thank you. Just speaking to the Amendment 2 part for a moment, 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 the short-term relief valve in Title 33 for the port's expansion 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— what's— so I will be voting yes on this. I always get confused. I get backwards on the division of the question.
[02:02:42] Dan Ryan: I'm sorry.
[02:02:42] Mitch Green: So 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 our starting position. It's a good thing to start with, but we do want to get a different methodology and we want to start that work next year. So that's what that directive does. And I hope that we can support all of the sub-amendments here, but at least 1, 3, 4, and 5.
[02:03:25] Dan Ryan: Thanks.
[02:03:26] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Zimmerman.
[02:03:28] Eric Zimmerman: Just a clarifying question from the many sponsors of— it's unusual to get something split 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?
[02:03:50] Mitch Green: I mean, my office, I think, took the lead on shepherding all this with all the advocates, pulling all together all the meetings, and Councilor Pirtle-Guiney also spent a lot of time I spent a lot of time just co-drafting with my team. And so the things that are there reflect this 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 organized it as like one unified document with a bunch of subpieces is there was always a world where maybe some comfort levels might depart.
[02:04:27] Angelita Morillo: Yeah.
[02:04:28] Mitch Green: And some people might decide, hey, I'm not good with this part, 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 suspect that that's what's happening here.
[02:04:41] Olivia Clark: 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 I would not be supporting, but the overall I am.
[02:04:54] Eric Zimmerman: Okay, yeah, it's just a little confusing when you all have your names on it. So going down to, uh, Amendment Number 4, 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.
[02:05:22] Unidentified speaker: I would defer to the city attorney. Um, we looked into this and the, and the guidance and the consistency was to use in this situation the word must.
[02:05:33] Keelan McClymont: From who?
[02:05:33] Eric Zimmerman: Guidance and consistency from attorneys? Okay.
[02:05:36] Unidentified speaker: As opposed to may or, uh, well, okay, so, so the, the, the request was to put shall, and our office has been advising to not use shall. If the intent is that it's a mandate. So if we're talking about must versus shall, 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 discretion and a mandate.
[02:06:11] Eric Zimmerman: I certainly don't— I agree with it. 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—.
[02:06:22] Nancy Thorington: Agreed.
[02:06:22] Eric Zimmerman: Do something.
[02:06:23] Unidentified speaker: 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. 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.
[02:06:53] Mitch Green: Right.
[02:06:54] Eric Zimmerman: So I'm glad we're getting into 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 your Requirements. Okay, we all, we all get that. I mean, may or must is different there. Or who has misrepresented 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 like there's an error in a document and now all of a sudden we must impose, or we—.
[02:07:34] Mitch Green: What are we talking about?
[02:07:37] Eric Zimmerman: And, 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.
[02:08:00] Loretta Smith: Bueller.
[02:08:02] Mitch Green: I mean, may I?
[02:08:03] Jamie Dunphy: Please.
[02:08:04] Mitch Green: 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. So misrepresentation is not a mistake. It isn't— 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 fined. 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 who do business in our city and that we will hold them accountable when they don't toe the line.
[02:09:05] Eric Zimmerman: 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'll 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 title 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 Council President, if I may.
[02:09:52] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: 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 4, 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.
[02:11:30] Loretta Smith: Thank you, Mayor.
[02:11:31] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: And you see through 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.
[02:12:11] Jamie Dunphy: And Councilor Knoll also wanted to respond.
[02:12:14] Sameer Kanal: 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, um, you know, the— what an applicant must submit. Um, but there are examples of what the word must is used to put an imposition upon the city. Um, and I'll also note that I didn't bother checking this for shall, but that the city attorneys— I think it's the shall versus must is an antiquated text provision. I'm seeing a nod there. So there may well also be, um, the word shall Additional times. But for example, in 1713.130, the city must undertake a review. 1713.140, The city must expend SDC 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, like, that's a part of our general code updates for a position that didn't exist when the overwhelming majority of code was written.
[02:13:15] Eric Engstrom: Thank you.
[02:13:15] Sameer Kanal: 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 the other piece that's more specific. But just in terms of a general sense, Something we've, we've done before.
[02:13:46] Eric Zimmerman: Uh, 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.
[02:13:55] Sameer Kanal: I'd be happy to go through them for you.
[02:13:57] Eric Zimmerman: The attorney has said no. So I, so I recognize that the word must is a common word in the United States and in the English.
[02:14:04] Dan Ryan: I get it.
[02:14:05] Eric Zimmerman: 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 was my question.
[02:14:27] Sameer Kanal: Okay, well then, to be more specific—.
[02:14:29] Eric Zimmerman: And if it's yes, I want to hear that.
[02:14:31] Sameer Kanal: 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. Uh, and then in the later section it says will be subject to the penalty. So it uses the word will twice.
[02:14:52] Eric Zimmerman: Okay, so I, I think that, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, your arguments about governing for the long, long haul are 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, um, 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, um, 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 our penalty structures, we set all that, and there's also usually a cure issue. But I do very much, Councilor Green, I do appreciate the misrepresented, meaning there was a deliberate aspect to that. And so that one, that holds water for me.
[02:16:28] Eric Engstrom: Thank you.
[02:16:29] Eric Zimmerman: I go back to who then determines what a material fact is in a situation.
[02:16:43] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor, is that an actual question you're looking for staff to answer?
[02:16:47] Eric Zimmerman: 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 number 4 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 3, but number 4 is some new language that's different.
[02:17:11] Unidentified speaker: Well, I would think that the city administrator would determine if it was a misrepresentation or an error. And 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—.
[02:17:45] Steve Novick: Yeah.
[02:17:46] Unidentified speaker: Yes, that is how I read it, is that the city administrator would determine whether or not the fact— and then, uh, as it's currently drafted, must impose. Um, will is typically used in a little bit, uh, something would happen in the future. It's not, um, mandatory in the moment. Um, and then may is the most permissive.
[02:18:11] Eric Zimmerman: Thank you for that. Okay, um, into number 3 in the, the inventory and reporting requirements. There's a significant amount of change in number 3 in the, in the language. Um, 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 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 1 through 5 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 DPS's position be passed and which— what you think should not be passed out of these 5.
[02:19:18] Unidentified speaker: 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 decisions or make adjustments in 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 3. Um, I think the, uh, the ordinance directives, you know, that's Council's, uh, prerogative to say what they want to see happen. The penalties, I, you know—.
[02:20:09] Eric Zimmerman: I'm not actually asking for council's directive. I'm asking because this product originally came from you. I'm actually asking for a professional opinion from BPS because I have a feeling— I know where at least 5 are, they sponsored it. But I would like to know from BPS 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—.
[02:20:34] Unidentified speaker: Councilor, one of the dialogues 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.
[02:20:55] Eric Zimmerman: All right, thank you, Mr. President.
[02:20:56] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Novick.
[02:21:00] Steve Novick: Yes, thanks, 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, the original document, that it says how the penalties will be calculated? You know, does it require the penalties be a certain amount?
[02:21:17] Unidentified speaker: Yes. 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 25 cents a gallon for every gallon that they failed to reduce.
[02:21:41] Steve Novick: 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 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. We wind up with with settling for something less than that. If this would require it to 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 and there's no room for negotiation. I guess this is really a question for the city attorney. How do you read it? Does it— we must impose a specific penalty, or would it give some flexibility to negotiate the penalty?
[02:22:57] Unidentified speaker: Um, as I— and I need— I also have multiple pieces. So 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.
[02:23:14] Steve Novick: Okay, then that does raise a sort of a, a capacity concern for me, um, 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.
[02:23:39] Unidentified speaker: If I may, the other piece of this is the process that we go through with the reporting 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 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 in the process and the iteration before we, you know, make that determination and start imposing penalties.
[02:24:34] Steve Novick: Right. But I mean, 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— I mean, just like, you know, prosecutors, you don't always go for the maximum. Um, you have some, uh, you know, thought about the likelihood of victory, and you adjust the penalty appropriately.
[02:25:00] Patricia Diefendorfer: Okay.
[02:25:01] Steve Novick: So actually, again, Lauren, I don't mean to put you on the spot, and, uh, you know, but I mean, I'm just— if you're comfortable saying, does that raise any concerns for you?
[02:25:16] Unidentified speaker: Are you asking about the language or whether I have legal concerns about the implementation?
[02:25:21] Steve Novick: Uh, concerns or sort of practical concerns about the implementation, that it's harder to work with a 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.
[02:25:37] Unidentified speaker: I think that that would have to be a question for Robert Taylor about how our office is run in the— I mean, that's sort of a policy business It's a 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.
[02:25:58] Steve Novick: Thank you. In that case, I actually would like to have Mr. Taylor here to answer the question.
[02:26:07] Jamie Dunphy: 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 Novick, while we wait for Robert? Steve, is that all right to move on for a second and come back? Yeah.
[02:26:21] Dan Ryan: Okay, great.
[02:26:21] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Councilor Knoll.
[02:26:23] Sameer Kanal: Thanks, Council President. Yeah, I mean, I, I imagine, um, and, 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, I, I think it's a question of where's that negotiation happening as well, in terms of City Administrator's Office, in terms of the Bureau, or in terms of the, um, the Attorney's Office. I, I wanted— I, 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, uh, comment on that part too. But the, the reason I got in the queue is I think there's been another conversation that's happened about preemption, and, um, there's a piece here that is Relevant to 15 other issues that we talk about. And I think it's a question of, uh, we're assuming based on some, uh, 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, 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. Um, and I think it— we, 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, um, and I think that's because, you know, we have a good Portland area delegation who knows that their voters elected us too, and we made this, this, uh, decision and, and imposed this particular, um, 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, 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 Thank you, Councilor Knoll.
[02:28:26] Jamie Dunphy: Our city attorney is getting briefed on the question at hand, and we will welcome him over. Welcome, Mr. Taylor.
[02:28:38] Robert Taylor: Hi, uh, Robert Taylor, city attorney. As I understand the question, uh, the— if, if you choose to use 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.
[02:29:08] Eric Zimmerman: They will—.
[02:29:08] Robert Taylor: They do not have discretion. Uh, once that penalty, if it's challenged, uh, 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?
[02:29:43] Mitch Green: I think the city administrator They don't have discretion.
[02:29:46] Robert Taylor: 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?
[02:30:08] Eric Zimmerman: I think that's a good question.
[02:30:09] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Novick. Yes.
[02:30:12] Steve Novick: So your interpretation based on this language is if the city administrator was mandated to impose a penalty of a specific amount, um, and then somebody did— the, the company challenged it in court, you would still think that you would have the ability to negotiate a smaller penalty?
[02:30:31] Robert Taylor: You wouldn't have to go to the wall and go, go to court and fight like hell for 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 not give the administrator discretion. They would have to impose it. I think the language is And then it would go through the process. So that's the real choice in front of you. Do you want to give the administrator 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?
[02:31:25] Steve Novick: 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.
[02:31:52] Dan Ryan: Yes.
[02:31:53] Angelita Morillo: Yes.
[02:31:53] Steve Novick: Yeah. Thank you.
[02:31:57] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Councilor Novick. Councilor Kanal, you also had a question for the city attorney, is that right?
[02:32:01] Steve Novick: I think you got covered.
[02:32:02] Jamie Dunphy: 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, uh, starting with the separate vote on Amendment 2 regarding aviation fuel exemption and then moving to a second vote on the remainder?
[02:32:24] Olivia Clark: Council President, can we clarify what the vote is, how that works?
[02:32:31] Mitch Green: No, it's a yes to amend.
[02:32:33] Olivia Clark: Yes to amend.
[02:32:33] Mitch Green: As the language is here. So if you don't like that, then you gotta vote no.
[02:32:38] Olivia Clark: Wait, say that again.
[02:32:41] Jamie Dunphy: Vote no.
[02:32:45] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[02:32:48] Olivia Clark: So, okay, let's just be clear that to amend this, to remove the amendment, you would have to vote no.
[02:32:54] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Council President, may I offer a different way of thinking about this?
[02:33:00] Loretta Smith: Okay, sorry.
[02:33:01] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: You have separated the amendment, so we are voting on Section 2 of the amendment. An affirmative vote passes Section 2 of the amendment, so you are voting to pass that.
[02:33:14] Patricia Diefendorfer: Got it.
[02:33:15] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: A no vote votes not to pass that change. So if you want Section 2 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.
[02:33:27] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Thank you. Keelan, can we please call the roll?
[02:33:32] Keelan McClymont: Clerk—.
[02:33:33] Olivia Clark: It's important because I'm the first vote— no.
[02:33:35] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[02:33:38] Mitch Green: Yes.
[02:33:39] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[02:33:39] Eric Zimmerman: No.
[02:33:40] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[02:33:42] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:33:43] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[02:33:44] Loretta Smith: No.
[02:33:46] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[02:33:48] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:33:50] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[02:33:53] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[02:33:58] Steve Novick: No.
[02:33:59] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[02:33:59] Jamie Dunphy: No.
[02:34:02] Keelan McClymont: The amendment, uh, part 2, amendment 2 fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
[02:34:08] Jamie Dunphy: Can we please call the Roll on the remainder of the Green-Pirtle-Guinea-Canal-Clark-Koyama Lane 2.
[02:34:15] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[02:34:16] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:34:18] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[02:34:19] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:34:20] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[02:34:20] Eric Zimmerman: No.
[02:34:22] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[02:34:23] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:34:23] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[02:34:25] Loretta Smith: Is this to take the aviation fuel out?
[02:34:27] Jamie Dunphy: This is everything else now. Everything but— yeah.
[02:34:31] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:34:33] Keelan McClymont: Canal?
[02:34:34] Sameer Kanal: Aye. Aye.
[02:34:39] Keelan McClymont: No.
[02:34:40] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:34:42] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:34:44] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:34:46] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:34:47] Keelan McClymont: Amendments 1, 3, 4, and 5 are approved with a vote of 10 ayes and 2 nays.
[02:34:52] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, colleagues. Councilor Novick.
[02:34:59] Steve Novick: Are you asking me to introduce my amendment?
[02:35:01] Jamie Dunphy: I am asking you to introduce your amendment now.
[02:35:03] Steve Novick: Um, okay, um, hang on, hang on just a second. Um, there's, uh, um, So, um, 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 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 PCEF 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&A on my proposal that I'm going to distribute for you to follow along. First question, why talk about PCF spending on transportation in the context of the CI Hub drawdown? Answer: The vast majority of the fuel in the CEI hub is used for transportation. If demand for transportation fuel 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 a drawdown 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.
[02:36:47] Olivia Clark: Thank you.
[02:36:48] Steve Novick: 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 PSF funds on transportation. The bulk of the money, more than half, goes to projects that involve reducing emissions from buildings. And at the beginning of the PSF program, hardly anything went to transportation. There's actually a strong argument we should be spending more than 40% of PSF on transportation. Transportation is a very tough nut to crack. In recent years, emissions from buildings have been going down at a much faster rate than from transportation. Since the legislature has ordered PG&E and PacificCorp to move to 100% renewable, we should expect that trend to continue because electrically powered, you know, 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, quote, community? That's something I heard from Sharice Bach 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 600,000 people, and the community of PSF priority populations 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 Canale and I polled 500 people from PSF priority populations, plus 300 random white people as a sort of control group, on how PSF money should be spent. Given 3 options of how to spend PSEF money— generating more renewable energy locally, weatherizing homes to make them more energy efficient, or making bus service more frequent and reliable— the PSEF priority populations prioritized improved bus service. By contrast, white people prioritized 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%.
[02:39:21] Eric Zimmerman: Thank you.
[02:39:22] Steve Novick: And we asked if PSF should spend more funds on buildings, more on transportation, or an equal amount on the two. Of PSF priority populations, 42% said equal, 17% said transportation, 17% said buildings. The rest had no opinion. The bottom line is PSF 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.
[02:39:47] Dan Ryan: Thank you.
[02:39:48] Steve Novick: Next question. Shouldn't the PSEF committee make this decision? Answer: The original concept of PSEF wasn't that the PSEF 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 all 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? 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 PSF 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.
[02:41:06] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[02:41:06] Steve Novick: But I haven't heard anybody on council say, let's cut out the part of the arts tax that goes to schools. In fact, the majority of the council voted to increase the arts tax.
[02:41:15] Loretta Smith: I did.
[02:41:15] Steve Novick: 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 money where our mouths are, to vote for some level of intellectual coherence.
[02:41:59] Dan Ryan: Thank you.
[02:41:59] Steve Novick: So I ask for a yes vote on my amendment.
[02:42:02] Jamie Dunphy: And Councilor, are you formally moving Novick?
[02:42:04] Steve Novick: Formally move my amendment. Sorry. Thank you.
[02:42:06] Jamie Dunphy: Is there a second?
[02:42:07] Olivia Clark: Second.
[02:42:08] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Novick moves Novick 1. 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 Murillo.
[02:42:27] Angelita Morillo: Okay, so I, 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. Um, I, I know that in your Q&A you say that, you know, people don't care about which government pays for which service, and I agree.
[02:42:51] Olivia Clark: Thank you.
[02:42:52] Angelita Morillo: 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.
[02:43:17] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: So—.
[02:43:19] Angelita Morillo: The reality is that, yes, for us as legislators and as policymakers and budget authority folks, yes, the legislature did fail 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 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 PSET 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 too, every single person up here hates 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.
[02:45:08] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[02:45:11] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: 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?
[02:45:24] Steve Novick: It's in the findings.
[02:45:26] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay.
[02:45:26] Steve Novick: It's an expression of a commitment.
[02:45:28] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: So we are not—.
[02:45:28] Steve Novick: It's kind of like a whereas clause.
[02:45:30] Angelita Morillo: Perfect.
[02:45:31] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: That's how I was reading this was like a whereas clause. I wanted to clarify that on the record.
[02:45:38] Steve Novick: Okay.
[02:45:38] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: So, colleagues, as you may have picked up on, Councilor Novick and I don't agree on everything around our priorities for PCF. And as it relates to our priorities for how funding on transportation might be spent, I think we'll be asking for the PCF 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, um, 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 As Councilor Novick said, it, it is directly related to our ability to actually decrease demand so that the drawdown 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.
[02:46:58] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[02:47:00] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Councilor Novick, I am uncomfortable going up to the 40% mark. I'm uncomfortable with that because, as you noted, the original direction on PSEF did include things that, um, that are in different categories than 100% what is reducing our— um, what is leading us to more renewable energy and energy efficiency. That job training, the 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—.
[02:47:50] Olivia Clark: Thank you.
[02:47:51] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Language like that and in noting in our ordinance the need to be doing this work on the front end as well.
[02:47:59] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Koyama Lane, but just a quick programming note, colleagues. It is 4:45. 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'll be continuing this item at 5 o'clock. Councilor Koyama Lane.
[02:48:17] Keelan McClymont: I want to thank Councilor Novick for bringing this up and for caring about drawdown, a real— having a real drawdown 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.
[02:49:11] Robert Taylor: Thank you.
[02:49:13] Keelan McClymont: Yeah, but I can't support it how it is right now. But thank you.
[02:49:17] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor Avalos.
[02:49:19] Candace Avalos: 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 PCF addresses 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 PSF, 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 Um, your efforts, and I agree with your intentions, and I look forward to working with you on accomplishing this, uh, in another way as we enter the CIP.
[02:50:12] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thanks.
[02:50:13] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Councilor Smith.
[02:50:16] Loretta Smith: Thank you, Council President. I too appreciate your interest in this, uh, 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, um, 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 PCF that would have an impact on PCF, um, that would be a different story. And I do want to wait, uh, for the timeframe in the fall, uh, 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, um, I, I hear you loud and clear. I won't be support— supporting this.
[02:51:10] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Novick.
[02:51:13] Steve Novick: Uh, first, uh, thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I do want to say that I did give the co-chairs of the PCF committee a heads up about this a few days ago. Didn't hear a response from them. Um, 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, the amount of fuel in the CI hub and we do, 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 5 years, we've been spending more than half of the money in PSF on buildings. So I'm not even talking about evening that out. I mean, if I wanted to even it out, I'd say let's spend 53% on transportation over the next 5 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.
[02:52:14] Angelita Morillo: Thank you.
[02:52:15] Steve Novick: 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 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 whenever we talk about the amount of money in PSAP going to Transportation, I will be jumping up and down saying CI Hub, CI Hub at the top of my lungs. Um, but then obviously I'm going to continue to do that regardless of the vote today. Um, 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 CI Hub.
[02:53:01] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Councilor Ryan.
[02:53:04] Dan Ryan: Yes, thank you, Council President. Perhaps, uh, Councilor Novick, because you socialized this a few times in the former Climate Committee. I'm not taken aback by this at all, and I think it gets to the heart of the matter, and it's the action that will actually have an impact on our climate. So I'm going to vote yes today on this amendment.
[02:53:22] Olivia Clark: Thank you.
[02:53:24] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Councilor Zimmerman.
[02:53:27] Eric Zimmerman: Steve, I love it. I think, I think you've got them on the ropes a little bit, right? Because there's this dogma around nobody can talk about PCEF unless you're on the PCEF committee. 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 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 outcomes and what might change in PCF. 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.
[02:54:46] Jamie Dunphy: 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 PCF 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 in conversations over. I think that this is a great place for this discussion. I 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 PCF and trying to really recenter 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.
[02:55:49] Candace Avalos: Thank you.
[02:55:49] Jamie Dunphy: And I also want to just mention that 215,000 people being exempted from paying the arts education tax is better than a marginal improvement.
[02:55:58] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I voted yes.
[02:56:00] Jamie Dunphy: You did vote yes, but yeah, I'm— anyway, thank you. Thank you very much, colleagues.
[02:56:06] Unidentified speaker: Councilor Green.
[02:56:08] Mitch Green: Thank you. Councilor Novick, I rode the bus in today. I signed up for the one week without driving. I try 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 blurted out necessarily because that has a negative connotation, but feeling the passion of knowing that our TriMet system is in a death spiral if we don't do something. I've talked about very candidly, very openly, that we need to use PSEF 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 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 adopt a resolution that says, here's what we want to see in the next CIP. I just had a meeting with the chairs and some of the committee members Commissioners on the Climate Sustainability Commission, who 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 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 again, I do appreciate your willingness to sort of scream from the mountaintops that we need some money for transit.
[02:57:56] Dan Ryan: Thanks.
[02:57:57] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Councilor Green. Colleagues, programming note, it is 4:56. There are still 3 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, uh, continued on the 7th. Vice President Clark.
[02:58:12] Olivia Clark: Uh, thank you, Council President. Uh, I really appreciate your intellectual integrity here, and, uh, 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 PCF and to increase the amount of money that PCF brings in. So thank you, you have my vote.
[02:58:39] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Kanal.
[02:58:42] Sameer Kanal: Council President, I'm probably going to take past 5 o'clock if I start on this, so I'm going to leave it to you how you want to handle it.
[02:58:49] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, how quick are you? Or do you want to wait till next week?
[02:58:54] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I'll wait until next week if you want to just gavel us out.
[02:58:56] Jamie Dunphy: All right, colleagues, uh, understanding we are at a limit on time, I'm going to read my little script for a second. Item 2026-312, the ordinance for the bulk fuel firm— uh, 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 2 ordinances was closed on September 24th, 2026. The record for written testimony on these 2 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. Well, we will vote on it next week.
[02:59:45] Unidentified speaker: No, that's correct. It's just continued and the record is closed.
[02:59:48] Jamie Dunphy: Great. Okay, with that, we are adjourned.
[02:59:51] Keelan McClymont: That's right.
[02:59:52] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.