City Council · afternoon

1:25That's how she emails us.

2:48Good afternoon.

2:49I'm calling to order this meeting of the Portland City Council.

2:52It's 2:01 on Thursday, October 1st.

2:56Keelan, can you please call the roll?

2:58Yep.

2:58Good afternoon.

2:58Just a quick note, we have updated the voting order just so everyone's aware.

3:03Clerk?

3:04New voting order, not me then.

3:09It's last quarter.

3:10Go with Q4.

3:11Let's go D4.

3:13Clark, she called you.

3:14All right, Clark.

3:16Oh, we said—.

3:18Yeah, I'm sorry, is that Clark?

3:19Clark.

3:21All right, here.

3:22Thank you.

3:22Green.

3:23Here.

3:24Zimmerman.

3:25Here.

3:25Avalos.

3:26Present.

3:27Smith.

3:30Kanal.

3:31Here.

3:35Here.

3:37Here.

3:40Here.

3:40Good afternoon.

3:44Welcome to the Portland City Council.

3:50To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.

3:58Information on engaging with the council can be found on the council clerk's webpage.

4:01Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.

4:05Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.

4:07The presiding officer preserves order.

4:09Disruptive 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.

4:17If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.

4:19Further disruption will result in an ejection from the meeting.

4:22Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.

4:25Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.

4:29Your testimony should address the matter being considered.

4:31When testifying, state your name for the record.

4:33Your address is not necessary.

4:34If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.

4:36Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.

4:39Thank you.

4:40Thank you very much, colleagues.

4:41Before we get started, Councilor Ryan, I see your hand in the queue.

4:44Thank you.

4:48Hey, colleagues, I just want to say that That's an interesting background.

4:52I just want to say that I'm on family bereavement leave, and I'll be limiting my public schedule this week.

5:00This 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.

5:10I might jump on when we're on discussing amendments, especially on aviation fuel.

5:15And 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.

5:27Thank you.

5:28Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

5:31Okay, Keelan, we have 2 items on our agenda.

5:33Can we please call items 9 and 10?

5:36Item 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.

5:50Item 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.

6:07Thank you very much, colleagues.

6:08This 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.

6:23The legislative record for these ordinances is now closed.

6:28Based on council deliberations on possible amendments, council may decide to reopen the record for oral or written testimony at a future meeting.

6:35The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss proposed amendments to both ordinances.

6:39For 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.

6:52We will only consider this item today and return next week for the other.

6:56To 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.

7:04We have with us staff from Planning and Sustainability.

7:07Come on up.

7:08Director Eric Engstrom, Supervising Planner Tom Armstrong, and Patricia Diffenderfer, Chief Planner from BPS.

7:14Thank you.

7:19Good afternoon.

7:20Um, for the record, Eric Kingstrom, Director of BPS, um, and I'll turn it over to staff.

7:26Good afternoon, Patricia Diefendorfer, Chief Planner, BPS.

7:30Good afternoon, Tom Armstrong, Supervising Planner at BPS.

7:35Thank you.

7:36I 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.

7:42Yeah, there we go.

8:24All right, there we go.

8:28Okay, I'm not sure how you want to run this meeting, but, um, so As was read out, there are 2 ordinances before you.

8:39We have the legislative record for both ordinances, and as the council president said, the record is now closed for the time being.

8:51Starting 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.

9:09And 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.

9:22Awesome, thanks, Tom.

9:23I 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.

9:29Yeah, 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.

9:49And that policy has a number of subpolicies that address the wide range of issues from seismic upgrades to economic significance to environmental protection.

10:00As 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.

10:22Thank you.

10:25Is this a— do you go further into it past this point?

10:30Yeah, 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.

10:49And 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.

11:14Then again, for Policy 372, this is one of the existing policies.

11:22You 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.

11:49Then in terms of the sub-policies, again, there's some wordsmithing here.

11:53Policy 383B has been expanded to acknowledge Other natural hazards that the hub faces, such as fires, landslides, and floods.

12:05The economic significant policy, again, has sort of brought in the importance of finding alternative locations for these facilities.

12:17Again, that's, you know, alternative locations outside of the City of Portland.

12:24There's not really a safer location in Portland for these facilities.

12:27Thank you.

12:30Thank you.

12:30Policy 383D, again, sort of strengthens the verb, you know, a more active verb around protect air and water quality.

12:42And 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.

13:00Similar, 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.

13:19Again, sort of reflecting the larger climate goals When it comes to the energy transition.

13:31Community resilience.

13:33Again, 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.

13:57And 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—.

14:16Thank you.

14:16That comes from concentrating all of these facilities at the CI Hub.

14:22That is the suite of policy changes in, um, what I'll call Green 2.

14:29Thank you very much.

14:29I'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.

14:40Yeah, Councilor Green.

14:40I'll just jump right in.

14:41Um, thank you so much, Council President, and thank you, Tom, for, uh, summarizing.

14:45And again, I cannot For anyone watching this, I cannot stress enough how responsive BPS has been to us during this process.

14:53We've churned, I don't know how many, 3 iterations at least, and you all have other planned work.

15:00And it just, it's a testament to your commitment to this style of policymaking that is responsive to the community.

15:08And they hear it and they feel it.

15:10So thank you.

15:12Just 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.

15:25So 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?

15:31Go ahead and talk about the global suite of things.

15:32That's fine.

15:33Okay, 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.

15:54It 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.

16:05And I think one of the takeaways from doing that work is Councilor Smith.

16:09I think the challenge is recognizing that while development is cumulative, it's not inevitable where it goes.

16:13And 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.

16:25And 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.

16:50And 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.

17:00And 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.

17:30And 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.

17:40And so I'm proud of the work.

17:42But 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.

17:54And so do we want to—.

17:55Second.

17:56Then jump into that, or do—.

17:58Okay.

17:58I second.

18:00Councilor Green moves, Council Vice President Clark seconds.

18:03Colleagues, we are now in discussion of the amendment.

18:05And Councilor Green, you still have the floor.

18:07Yeah, um, do you have slides for the Title 33 stuff?

18:11Maybe that, that's the easiest way to do it so everyone can see visually.

18:15Um, Tom, do you mind doing the—.

18:18Sure.

18:19Okay, thanks.

18:20So, um, Amendment 9 in the document, there's some changes to the neighborhood contact requirements.

18:29And, you know, this is designed to have advance notice to the surrounding neighborhoods of an incoming development application.

18:41And so these amendments expand the number of neighborhoods and, and Education institutions that will get those notices.

18:54It also requires an ad to be published in a newspaper that is broadly distributed in the neighborhoods that receive that notice.

19:06And generally, this requirement is just to create awareness of a development activity.

19:12Thank you.

19:15And 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.

19:40And this—.

19:4020 Years.

19:41Councilmember Herbold.

19:41Thank you, Mayor.

19:41This 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.

19:56In 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.

20:15And 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.

20:32And then when that—.

20:33Thank you.

20:35When 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.

20:51The second amendment, Amendment 10, addresses those Type 3 reviews.

20:58And 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.

21:18Under this amendment, those 3 reviews are deleted and replaced by 2 reviews.

21:26The first is a study of the Storage tank replacement review.

21:31And then the second one is a capacity and transloading expansion review.

21:38So the replacement review, again, sort of kicks in when a terminal is going through, is implementing their state-required RMIP process.

21:50So they're making seismic upgrades and they decide that they're going to replace a tank.

21:57Before they can get a building permit for that tank replacement, they need to go through this Type 3 process.

22:06And 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.

22:22The replacement tank is Okay.

22:24That 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.

22:46So sometimes they're replacing it in the same place.

22:50Sometimes they're moving it.

22:52We want them to move it essentially away from the river.

22:55Thank you.

22:57To a place that in theory has lower liquefaction risks.

23:04And that they post a performance bond, again, that once they're done with the replacement, that we ensure that the old tank is demolished.

23:18So in some cases, They're going to build a new tank in a new location.

23:24They're going to keep the old tank online and serving fuel that we need.

23:30And then when that new tank is ready to come online, they'll take the old tank off.

23:36This performance bond ensures that they take that old tank off and they, um, and remove it.

23:41Excuse me.

23:44So that's Amendment 10.

23:46Or that's the replacement review process.

23:52The second review is for expansions.

23:55And this is for both tank capacity and transloading facilities and includes the aviation fuel.

24:05Again, it's a Type 3 review procedure.

24:10What 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.

24:27To 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.

24:44Thank you.

24:45There has to be net public benefits, including non-economic benefits.

24:50That's in criteria B.

24:52In 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.

25:10And so essentially, this operates as the transfer between terminals.

25:18So 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.

25:34Thank you.

25:36D, again, is, you know, show us that you are, you know, up to date and compliant with your RMIP from DEQ.

25:50Criteria E is, you know, again, that any new tank capacity is built to risk category 4.

25:58Criterion F is same for the transloading facilities are built to that higher seismic standard.

26:04Thank you.

26:05Okay.

26:07Criterion G is, again, any new tank, expanded tank has to be set back at least 250 feet from the river.

26:19And then H is, again, that we're addressing public health and environmental risks and minimizing any increase to the extent practicable.

26:33I—.

26:33I, again, similarly addresses public health and safety, especially from a wildfire associated with that new tank.

26:45And 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.

27:05I'm just going to pause there for a second and just put some emphasis on Approval Criteria A here.

27:12And 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.

27:42And 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.

27:57And that's— would you agree with that characterization, Tom?

28:00Yes.

28:01Yeah.

28:02Thank you.

28:05Then just 11.

28:09You know, this really speaks again to some of the public testimony that we heard.

28:13This goes into the ordinance itself.

28:17And 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.

28:30So 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.

28:45Thank you.

28:47And 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.

28:59And 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.

29:10And, 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.

29:20If we adopt this directive, then the city now has a mandate to go out and engage in that definition process.

29:27Then 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.

29:36Thank you.

29:37And that's— so I think that there's probably some open questions about what's feasible from staff on a given timeline.

29:45But 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?

29:56I guess I can speak to that.

29:58Again, Director Engstrom.

30:00Yeah, I think we can respond given the language changes you made that that's a reasonable timeline for a work program proposal.

30:07Okay, thank you.

30:12Okay, I think that's it for the Title 33 amendment.

30:15So perfect.

30:16That's— there's a lot here, guys, and, uh, thanks for the, the flyover.

30:19And I guess I would ask for your support.

30:22We can get into debate.

30:23Thank you, Councilor Green.

30:24Thank you, Tom, for— and team for walking us through this.

30:26Um, 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.

30:33Thank you, Council President.

30:36I 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.

30:46And this is a place where we know that safety bumps up against, um, the entire region's economic drivers.

30:54And we worked very hard in this proposal to figure out how we find that Thank you.

31:00We'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.

31:12And 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.

31:26Um, all within the, the bounds of our land use system.

31:30So 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.

31:38Thank you, Council President.

31:39Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

31:40Councilor Knoll.

31:41I'll save my comments for the full discussion.

31:43Okay.

31:44Vice President Clark.

31:46Thank you, Council President.

31:47Um, I just first of all want to thank the Planning Commission, wherever you are, uh, for all of their work.

31:53Thank our— all my colleagues.

31:55Thank the people from the Bureau, especially Tom, for all the work that you've put into this.

31:59I think it's a very reasonable package.

32:02Thanks to advocates for always being at the table and pushing on this.

32:05I really appreciate it.

32:06It's very long awaited.

32:08I think we've waited years for this package.

32:12I am going to make one caveat, and then I do have a question.

32:15Since 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.

32:28And I'm afraid that if we go much further, that the state will be tempted to preempt us, preempt these policies.

32:38Just 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.

32:50And just be aware of that.

32:51Thank you.

32:52That there will probably be an effort in Salem to preempt some of the things that we're doing here.

32:57But I think we're doing a really good job.

33:00I 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.

33:18Yes.

33:19Why do we not include on non-liquefaction soils in there?

33:25Was that discussed?

33:31I will say the whole area has some— is in that high liquefaction risk.

33:37But when you look at some of the draft seismic vulnerability assessments that the terminals You see a range of, I guess, risk of displacement.

33:52And the further you get away from the river, the lower that risk, the lower the amount of displacement becomes.

34:01So think, you know, 10 to 12 feet of displacement close to the river, down to less than a foot away from the river.

34:08And so we were looking at those—.

34:12Thank you.

34:12Sort of maps and just saying, okay, for new expanded tanks, move it away from the river to a safer location.

34:23But there is no sort of no liquefaction hazard areas on these terminals.

34:29No line of demarcation.

34:31Yeah.

34:31Just this is your best guess, it's 250 feet.

34:35It gets us— it's safer.

34:37It's not safest or safe.

34:40Okay, it's safer.

34:41Okay, I appreciate that.

34:42That— I think that answers my question.

34:44Thank you.

34:45Okay, thank you, Vice President Clark.

34:47Councilor Koyama Lane, any opening remarks for you?

34:50Okay, great.

34:52So colleagues, we are now in discussion of this, uh, amendment which was moved by Councilor Green and seconded by Vice President Clark.

34:58Councilor Novick.

35:00Uh, thank you, Mr. President.

35:02Um, so I have a question which maybe is partly guided by By not knowing exactly how arduous a Type 3 procedure is.

35:12On 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.

35:20So if they're gonna replace an old tank with a risk category 4, it's like a resilient tank.

35:25So 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?

35:35Or a Type 3, sorry.

35:38The Type 3 process is arduous, right?

35:44So 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.

35:54There'll be a hearing before a hearings officer.

35:57It's appealable to council.

36:00A lot of these criteria are, you know, either you meet it or not.

36:04Right.

36:05And, 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.

36:24An appeal would not come to council, it would go to LUBA.

36:29But, and that would be a, slightly shorter process to go through to do these replacement tanks.

36:36I 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.

36:49And I'm curious for the sponsors what their reaction is to that.

36:58Yeah, 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.

37:15That's the sort of— that's the baseline.

37:19I think what they wanted to see was the most robust processes possible.

37:24So 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?

37:35For 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.

37:46And I was willing to sort of fight for that.

37:50And I'll just note that I think it's probably in the best interest of the companies to get this Safer tank anyway.

37:55So they've got a strong balance sheet incentive anyway.

38:01I 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.

38:13So 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.

38:26I just don't see logically why we wouldn't have to want to have a speedier process for that.

38:33I mean, one very specific reason came up in the depths of the conversation where we were arguing about something else.

38:41It was about the drawdown criteria.

38:43It was about whether tank capacity or average levels was, was the right approach.

38:49One 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.

38:57What is their volume and the like?

38:59And so this was just really important for these community members to know everything that they need to know about the threats that they face.

39:12But 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.

39:26And so weighing those risks, they want the most robust processes possible.

39:33And there's no single one risk here.

39:37But what's the risk of replacing a bad tank with a good tank?

39:40Well, 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.

39:52So, you know, there's trust issues here with these companies.

39:57And 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.

40:09Thank you.

40:10So I can't offer you any more than that, but that's, that's, that was the discussion that we had.

40:17Any other sponsors with any other comments?

40:22Council President, if I may.

40:23Absolutely.

40:23I'll note 2 things.

40:25The 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.

40:49So 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.

41:01Okay.

41:01Councilor Smith.

41:02I think there's a strong desire to have consistency in the process.

41:05And we sometimes as policymakers can further engineer things to create processes that allow for all of the nuance needed in each piece of it.

41:18And for community members who are trying to engage in that process, there are sometimes additional barriers when there's not consistency.

41:29So 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.

41:43That 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.

41:57I think it's a very reasonable concern to bring up.

42:00It is certainly part of what we need to weigh here.

42:03But that DEQ mandate helped, for me at least, to make me feel like the balance was captured appropriately.

42:12But 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.

42:20And 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.

42:26I mean, it— how much time does a Type 3 versus a Type 3 review add?

42:35Um, so the city is still under the, the state 120-day, um, requirement to issue a decision by then.

42:46So, um, In theory, it's a 4-month process.

42:51At maximum, it's a 4-month process unless the applicant waives that 120-day.

42:58And 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.

43:08So—.

43:09And I would also say, just the— sorry, for the record, Patricia Diefendorfer— just, you know, expense associated with that application, the fee.

43:17As well as the time.

43:19Just throw that in there.

43:21So is, is 4 months the maximum, or is it a minimum?

43:25It's the maximum unless, because of the back and forth, the terminals waive that 120-day requirement.

43:33And, and if there's an appeal, then that could extend that timeline, right?

43:38No, the council— the appeal has to be resolved within the 120 days.

43:44Okay, 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.

44:00Thank you, Councilor Novick.

44:01Councilor Kanal.

44:04Thank you.

44:04I'm not really sure what a good tank is.

44:07Thanks.

44:09Thank you, Councilor Knell.

44:10Councilor Koyama Lane.

44:12I 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.

44:30And 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.

44:42And 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.

44:53Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.

44:55Vice President Clark.

44:56Thank you, Councilor President.

44:57I just wanted to make some general remarks about this, 'cause I think this is a really important moment in history.

45:04And the history of Linnton and the history of the tanks, the history of our state.

45:09I just read Sarah Taylor's book.

45:11I 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.

45:20And it was really because a tank that was, I believe, in this— inside the city of Portland, closer to the downtown, that exploded.

45:28Yes.

45:29That actually killed our fire chief, Dave Campbell, which, you know, there's now a memorial to fallen firefighters on Burnside.

45:37That's the David Campbell Memorial.

45:39I 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.

45:52I just thought that history was really compelling.

45:55Thank you.

45:56Um, and here we are today.

45:57We can't reverse that history, but I think we're doing the best that we can.

46:01It'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.

46:14I 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.

46:21So thank you for everyone who has worked on this.

46:25Thank you, Vice President Clark.

46:26Councilor Smith.

46:29Thank you.

46:31Thank you, Council President.

46:33Thank you all for coming.

46:34Um, just thinking about this, the building retrofits, um, they reduce physical vulnerability but do not fully eliminate the liquefaction risk.

46:46Is the city exploring local financial responsibility or bonding mechanisms to shield tax from cleanup costs if an earthquake strikes before the retrofit finishes?

47:00The state is addressing that.

47:03There 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.

47:21Okay, thank you.

47:24Thank you, Councilor Smith.

47:26Thank you, Councilor Smith.

47:27Councilor Kanal.

47:28Yeah, not trying to be glib about it earlier.

47:30I, I think I really wanted to touch back on what Councilor Green was talking about with trust.

47:37You know, I think there is a question about which type of public process is more of a public process.

47:46Uh, and that's the— I think the, the time spent, or that may be spent, has a trade-off, right?

47:54That, that time spent might be a negative, but the positive associated with that is, is a more public process.

47:59And 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.

48:15I have a question for Tom.

48:17Um, 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.

48:37Is that correct?

48:38Correct.

48:39Okay, great.

48:41Thanks.

48:42Thank you, Councilor Knoll.

48:43Councilor Novick.

48:44Uh, thank you, Mr. President.

48:45So 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.

49:06It was my understanding that The advocates would much rather have the new tanks than the containment pool.

49:13And 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?

49:34We 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.

49:47Thank you.

49:50But I do think that that's worth us thinking about just logically.

49:54If 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.

50:07Thank you, Councilor Novick.

50:09Councilor Smith.

50:10Thank you.

50:12Um, 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.

50:38Those, those application review fees are to support PP&D and their staff that goes into reviewing the development application itself.

50:49I 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.

51:05But in Title 30—.

51:06And to the adjacent communities as well?

51:08Yeah.

51:09Okay.

51:10But Title 33 itself, those fees are relatively small compared to what's involved with the Title 17 penalties.

51:19And mainly that's how we fund PP&D.

51:23Okay, okay.

51:24Thank you for clarifying that.

51:27Thank you, Councilor Smith.

51:30Colleagues, is there any further discussion of the Green-Pirtle-Guiney-Canal-Clark-Koyama Lane 2 amendment?

51:40Councilor Zimmerman.

51:42Thanks.

51:43I guess I'm, I'm just curious from a staff perspective, Why?

51:51I'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.

52:03And 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.

52:18And I'm trying to get that sense because you didn't include it in the original documentation.

52:22So 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.

52:34And I can't— I'm not hearing a lot of that.

52:35I could maybe start, Tom.

52:37I think the— this round of amendments was the result of testimony that you all received, um, that was a reaction to our recommended draft.

52:50And 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.

52:59And so in, in a, in at least a few cases, we looked at that and said, oh yeah, there's— that makes sense.

53:04Like the, this move to consolidate the different reviews into a fewer number of reviews.

53:10It's not something we thought of, but it came in as testimony and it got traction with you all and it made sense.

53:15So 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.

53:35I 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.

54:01Thank you.

54:02Of 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.

54:14And so we didn't want to create any more process associated with just replacing the tank.

54:20So that was one of the things that factored into why that was not considered a discretionary review.

54:28Thank you.

54:30Initially.

54:30I'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.

54:44Before they go in for their building permit, they have to go through that neighborhood contact process.

54:50So 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.

54:57And then they can proceed, um, and, and that, that was the, the public contact awareness step.

55:05And 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.

55:16This 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.

55:31And as been said here, um, the opportunity to build trust with the community.

55:37Councilor, 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.

55:43The, the initial step of us coming up with a bureau recommendation, that's when we're in the driver's seat and making recommendations.

55:51When we go to Planning Commission, our role shifts a little bit to being advisors about whether it's technically feasible.

55:59And 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.

56:06And 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.

56:16And if you ask us You know, would we do it that way?

56:19I, you know, there's different—.

56:21You say if it's feasible from a zoning and what perspective?

56:25Administrative perspective.

56:26So we admit—.

56:27But when crafting the original, you were crafting it from more than just a zoning and feasibility perspective.

56:33There was all sorts of perspectives taken in.

56:37So 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?

56:53I mean, you've already hinted at this discussion about whether we would do a review for the replacement tanks.

56:58That's a pivot that—.

57:00That doesn't—.

57:00Is a trade-off.

57:01What do we do a review?

57:02I 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?

57:12And 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.

57:24And 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.

57:32I 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.

57:58And that goes away with the new capacity and transloading expansion review.

58:05Okay, and so what's the outcome of that?

58:07That is one outcome, that there is not the immediate 20% reduction.

58:16If we still have Title 17, then we're waiting till 2036 to see that 20% reduction.

58:24Yeah.

58:24Instead, what you have is the criterion that forces the examination of data and the latest forecasts.

58:31And so it's, yeah, it's not an automatic reduction, but it's a—.

58:35Well, the transfer review still had that need, that capacity need criterion in it.

58:42But again, the— as part of the transfer, there was a tax on the capacity that is no longer part of this process.

58:50And what did you—.

58:50Were mentioning earlier that the neighborhood would have some input.

58:54So what do we consider the neighborhood in this conversation?

58:58Who are we actually talking about?

59:02Well, there's a—.

59:02Are we just doing the neighborhood boundary of Northwest or Linnton?

59:08Yeah, there's an extensive list of neighborhood associations that receive notice and prior notice of this, you know, these pending applications.

59:20And that really kicks off the public process and for individuals to be aware of.

59:28So many neighborhoods, not just the?

59:31Correct.

59:32Okay.

59:39Okay.

59:39Um, 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?

59:55Do you consider them stylistic Process or minor across the board?

1:00:02I'm trying to get a sense of— you all put a lot of work, long time, long process.

1:00:08And 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.

1:00:18And 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.

1:00:29And I—.

1:00:29Councilor Smith.

1:00:30I just don't know.

1:00:30There are a couple different flavors of amendments here.

1:00:33There's the policy amendments, the code content, and then some of the process changes.

1:00:39And I think the policy amendments, largely from a community perspective, I think are aimed at strengthening the wording to be firmer.

1:00:49And I would agree that that's what they've done.

1:00:53Um, do you think—.

1:00:54Not 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.

1:01:04The process improvements are, I think there are some improvements in this version that clean up some things that weren't clear in our version.

1:01:13So that's not a fundamental change, but it is, I think, helpful.

1:01:18I don't know if staff has anything else.

1:01:22I wouldn't say it's a wholesale pivot.

1:01:24It's strengthening some of the processes.

1:01:26Trying 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.

1:01:44I 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?

1:01:53And, 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.

1:02:02I'm just trying to get a sense here 'cause you chose not to do it originally.

1:02:07I 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.

1:02:21I think that they were fine.

1:02:23It was a good discussion.

1:02:25Us really kind of, you know, choose words very carefully.

1:02:28And I think it was a good process.

1:02:31Okay.

1:02:31And then lastly, I guess there's a lot here that the colleagues put forward.

1:02:39So 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?

1:02:54I 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—.

1:03:03Is that number 10?

1:03:04Um, yes, it's, uh, the 2— it's in, uh, Amendment 10.

1:03:10There are 2, um, the 2 review processes are in Amendment 10.

1:03:14We're talking about the the first one, the replacement review.

1:03:18Um, 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.

1:03:33We, 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.

1:03:45So if that's the policy objective, it's moving that direction.

1:03:50I understand the policy objective from the people who wrote it.

1:03:52I'm looking to you as a person and a group of people.

1:03:55I'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?

1:04:07And so what I'm hearing is that there is some concern around 10, That's the end of the sentence?

1:04:13Yeah, 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.

1:04:26And I think, you know, especially working with the City Attorney's Office, um, we've, we've gotten there to a point.

1:04:34There was a lot of give and take and, and wordsmithing, um, to try and get this into the best position possible.

1:04:48Okay.

1:04:49Okay, thank you all.

1:04:51Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

1:04:52Councilor Green.

1:04:54Thank you, Council President.

1:04:55I, 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.

1:05:07They put forward some stuff that I think they felt really strong about.

1:05:12And after the iteration with staff, determinations were made to sort of say, we need to move forward with this.

1:05:21Let's take a second best, less perfect approach.

1:05:26We iterated with staff to get there.

1:05:27So this is just, I think, the outcome of a, you know, a land use process where we—.

1:05:33I think it's a good thing.

1:05:34Where we listen.

1:05:36So thanks.

1:05:38Thank you, Councilor Green.

1:05:39Councilor Smith.

1:05:40Thank you.

1:05:44Um, 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?

1:06:25Because 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.

1:06:36And 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.

1:06:56And Councilor Zimmerman talked about who are we talking about, and no one talked about those folks.

1:07:04So I want to have at least some sort of commitment that this is going to be something that you, you bring up.

1:07:13I, you know, I know you can't control who comes here, but you can certainly control who you reach out to.

1:07:20Thank you.

1:07:22Councilor, again, for the record, Eric Engstrom, Director of BPS.

1:07:27In 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.

1:07:44This is— the zoning is in particular about like how people build things on the ground.

1:07:50And 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.

1:08:08And so we're, regardless of what council does with these particular policy amendments, that dialogue is continuing.

1:08:16Can you talk about those?

1:08:19When 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.

1:08:31I, 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.

1:08:49And so I think just talk— keep talking to ourselves, that's not going to do it.

1:08:53And depending on these multi-agencies to go out into community, I think that we can do better.

1:09:01We know better, and we should be doing that, um, because we're talking to the same people who are here.

1:09:12Look around the room to see who's here and then look to see who's not here.

1:09:17That's what I always do, to look to see who is not here.

1:09:21Thank you.

1:09:22Thank you.

1:09:23Thank you, Councilor Smith.

1:09:24Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:09:27Thank you, Council President.

1:09:28And, um, Councilor Novick, Councilor Zimmerman, I want to thank you guys for pushing on some of those questions.

1:09:36There, 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.

1:09:53I just want to speak to the process on this a little bit.

1:09:57There's a lot of different ways to go about thinking about what our roles are when it comes to policymaking.

1:10:03But 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.

1:10:24And in this case, we saw feedback from a number of different stakeholder groups who were, who felt like the underlying was missing some pieces.

1:10:37And 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.

1:10:52I wanted to know what our attorneys who work with our land use laws every day thought about some of those changes.

1:11:00And 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.

1:11:09Does it work?

1:11:11If it doesn't work, why not?

1:11:13How could we make it work?

1:11:15If there are fundamental underlying concerns with the approach, is there another approach that could reach those same goals?

1:11:22And 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.

1:11:35So, 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.

1:11:49And 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.

1:12:03I think that's where good policy is made.

1:12:07I also, Councilor Smith, want to thank you for bringing up the concerns you did.

1:12:11And at one point when we were looking at notification, we were looking at a longer list.

1:12:17But to name each organization doesn't withstand the test of time.

1:12:21And to name wholesale categories that could have 100 organizations within them doesn't withstand the test of practicality.

1:12:28And 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.

1:12:39But that doesn't have to be the only places notice are received.

1:12:42Okay.

1:12:43And 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.

1:12:55So 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.

1:13:26Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:13:27Councilor Novick.

1:13:29Thank you, Mr. President.

1:13:30I 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.

1:13:50But I'm not going to offer that amendment to waste time in an 11 to 1 or 10 to 2 vote.

1:13:56So I'll just say that if anybody other than Councilor Zimmerman or myself wants to offer that amendment, I'd second it.

1:14:02Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:14:06Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we move towards a vote?

1:14:13This is—.

1:14:14Oh, all right.

1:14:15Oh, these are moved as a single amendment right now, currently, unless there's a motion to separate.

1:14:21So, question for information, it's just the Title 33 amendments though?

1:14:26Yes.

1:14:27No, it's the same as the plan comp plan policies and the Title 33 Council President, may I jump in here?

1:14:37Please.

1:14:38Colleagues, 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.

1:14:54But 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.

1:15:09So 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.

1:15:26So can we just clarify that The next vote is on Title 17 after this.

1:15:33The current vote is the amendment on comp plan and Title 33.

1:15:38I will defer to the council president on what he plans to do with Title 17 depending on how we do with the underlying today.

1:15:45It will be sequentially next, yes.

1:15:47Okay, thank you.

1:15:49But we haven't formally moved it, therefore we can't formally—.

1:15:51Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.

1:15:52Yes.

1:15:52Okay, and Vice President Clark, do you have any Further?

1:15:55Okay.

1:15:56Keelan, could we please call the roll?

1:15:58Yep, this is the roll call vote on the amendment, uh, Green, Pirtle-Guiney, Kanal, Clark, Koyama Lane 2, moved by Green, seconded by Clark.

1:16:07Clark?

1:16:12Oh, I'm not used to this yet.

1:16:15Aye.

1:16:16Green?

1:16:17Aye.

1:16:18Zimmerman?

1:16:30Aye.

1:16:32Aye.

1:16:35Aye.

1:16:37Aye.

1:16:40Aye.

1:16:40Aye.

1:16:42Aye.

1:16:47Aye.

1:16:48Subject to my foregoing reservations, aye.

1:16:54Aye.

1:16:54The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.

1:16:57Thank you, colleagues.

1:16:59I understand there are some additional amendments to this.

1:17:02Councilor Green.

1:17:07Thank you, Council President.

1:17:08Um, 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.

1:17:22I 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.

1:17:37Yes.

1:17:38I'm far more skeptical of the modeling that shows we have that need.

1:17:42And 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.

1:17:49And that's what I would like to move now.

1:17:52And 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.

1:18:00So Green 1 is simply—.

1:18:01Councilor Smith.

1:18:03On the website, it's Green 1, Version 2, which depended upon the order in which we took this up.

1:18:08But all it does is strike the unless the expansion is for the storage of aviation fuel.

1:18:13If 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.

1:18:22And so I think what we just passed was great, and it was— I think it limits us to the 20% expansion.

1:18:29Okay.

1:18:29That we have been talking about.

1:18:32But I have been— I have had reservations on the evidence in the record on the fuel demand since the beginning of this process.

1:18:41I 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—.

1:18:54I'm sorry.

1:18:55Aviation fuel prices are much less expensive.

1:18:57I think more than half as expensive as they are today.

1:19:00And demand for flights is a function of the price of a ticket.

1:19:05And airlines are low-margin operations.

1:19:09And so when the cost of fuel goes up, the cost of airline tickets go up.

1:19:13And the economic research shows that for short-haul air flying, for short-haul flights, consumers are highly responsive to pricing.

1:19:21Thank you.

1:19:23So they will drive to Seattle instead of flying to Seattle.

1:19:27They will drive to Northern California instead of flying to Northern California.

1:19:30And so I don't think there is the need to sustain this exemption carve-out.

1:19:35And 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.

1:19:46And I would, I would ask for a second.

1:19:47Second.

1:19:47Thank you.

1:19:47Second.

1:19:48Second.

1:19:49Okay, Councilor Green moves Green 1, and I believe I heard Councilor Kanal first as a second.

1:19:54Colleagues, we are now in discussion of Green 1.

1:19:57Councilor Clark— Vice President Clark.

1:19:59I'm sorry, I, um, was not going to speak to this.

1:20:02I don't think I'm on something else on the overall 17, but I am waiting to see the amendment.

1:20:08I haven't seen Green 1.

1:20:10It's a refund.

1:20:11Okay, sorry.

1:20:13Okay, thank you.

1:20:17Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:20:20Sorry, thanks, Mr. President.

1:20:22Sorry, this is a further amendment to 33?

1:20:25Yeah.

1:20:25Okay, just to clarify that.

1:20:27Section— 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.

1:20:43And so now I'm trying to sort of remove a little bit of that.

1:20:47Okay.

1:20:47I'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.

1:21:00And I am worried about legislative preemption of what we do.

1:21:05And 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.

1:21:22And 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.

1:21:29So 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.

1:21:40Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:21:41Uh, colleagues, I put myself in the queue.

1:21:43Um, I'm not going to be able to be supportive of this amendment.

1:21:46Um, I am convinced by our friends at the port that, uh, aviation fuel is different.

1:21:50Um, first of all, uh, PDX is the largest single employer in District 1.

1:21:55Um, it is beautiful.

1:21:56I went through it twice in the last week.

1:21:58Um, 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.

1:22:09And so for that reason, I am convinced that, or by the argument that aviation fuel should be treated differently.

1:22:16So I will be a no on this amendment.

1:22:21Thank you, Council President.

1:22:22You 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.

1:22:47And 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.

1:23:05And 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.

1:23:22Thank you.

1:23:23Uh, 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.

1:23:33And this 5% language was meant to allow for that short-term capacity need.

1:23:41I think it's important that we keep it in there.

1:23:44A few of my colleagues have spoken to the people, but I want to note that in 2025, 200,000 metric Thank you.

1:23:50We have 2.5 million tons of goods moved through our airport.

1:23:53And 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.

1:24:13And the airport is one of the ways we do that.

1:24:17A way we do that without relying solely on trucks on our roads.

1:24:20So I think it's important that we take seriously that short-term rub for aviation fuel.

1:24:29I appreciate, Councilor Green, that you did this separately from the amendment so we could all be on the same page in that broader amendment.

1:24:36But that's the reason that I couldn't support it there and can't support it separately either.

1:24:40Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:24:42Councilor Knoll.

1:24:44Thank you, Council President.

1:24:45I'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.

1:24:58Um, 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.

1:25:17It would just require more of the other types being reduced.

1:25:22And I think that's kind of a good thing for everyone.

1:25:26So that's the reason I'm supportive of this, among the many others that Councilor Green already laid out.

1:25:33But 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.

1:25:43Thank you, Councilor Knoll.

1:25:44Uh, after Councilor Smith goes, I will limit debate in the queue to— on the discussion on this.

1:25:50So, Councilor Smith.

1:25:52Oh yeah, I mean, after— I will limit the debate to those who are in the queue after Councilor Smith ends.

1:25:57Thank you.

1:25:58Um, I agree with Council President.

1:26:00Um, aviation fuel is different, and I will not be supporting this amendment.

1:26:07Thank you.

1:26:08Okay, colleagues, I'm limiting debate to those who are in the queue right now.

1:26:11Councilor Ryan.

1:26:18There we go.

1:26:19Um, sorry for my delays.

1:26:21I really appreciate what Council President said.

1:26:24Thank you very much for that.

1:26:26And, 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.

1:26:36We just can't afford to jeopardize jobs and tourism to our city and state when we are struggling right now.

1:26:41So it's imperative that we continue to provide an exception, an exemption for aviation fuel.

1:26:47Thank you.

1:26:48Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

1:26:49Councilor Murillo.

1:26:51Thank you.

1:26:51I'll be quick because it's clear that this amendment is going to fail.

1:26:54But thank you, Councilor Green, for bringing this forward.

1:26:56And thank you to the advocates for asking for it as well.

1:26:59Back 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.

1:27:13So I think that sustainable aviation is not necessarily going to create the carbon evasion that we actually want to happen.

1:27:23I also think that, yes, I appreciate all the beautiful changes that were made to our airport, the attempts to uplift our economy.

1:27:30And also, all of that happened before the President of the United States entered us into a very long losing war.

1:27:38And so there have just been a lot of changes that have happened economically.

1:27:42Our visits internationally are greatly reduced.

1:27:47People are not coming to the US the way they used to in general.

1:27:50And so I think that we should account for that, the new things that have happened in this time for this amendment.

1:27:56So I'll be voting no.

1:27:56Councilor Smith.

1:27:56I will be supportive of it.

1:27:57I appreciate the attempts to do everything we can to draw down those fuels.

1:28:03Thank you, Councilor Morillo.

1:28:04Councilor Avalos.

1:28:06Thank you.

1:28:07Yeah, I really struggled with this.

1:28:10I have been struggling with this because I genuinely do see the argument on each side of it.

1:28:18Obviously, as a District 1 councilor, I'm concerned about preserving jobs in our district and at the airport.

1:28:25I 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.

1:28:35I 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.

1:28:45Um, 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.

1:28:55And I do think it is a continued conversation we need to have.

1:29:00I'm grateful to all the folks that I was able to talk to on both sides of this issue to just understand their positions.

1:29:08And I think the position I'm landing is I'm going to vote yes to support the effort.

1:29:13I know that we have work to do.

1:29:14I know that not everybody on the council is convinced, and I think there could be another way in the future to address this.

1:29:19Um, 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.

1:29:29Uh, 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.

1:29:40And so, uh, I will support it today.

1:29:42Um, 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.

1:29:57So I will support it today.

1:29:58Thanks.

1:29:58Thank you, Councilor Avalos.

1:30:01Keelan, can we please call the roll on Green 1?

1:30:05Moved by Green, seconded by Kanal.

1:30:07Clark?

1:30:08No.

1:30:08Green?

1:30:10Aye.

1:30:10Zimmerman?

1:30:11No.

1:30:12Avalos?

1:30:13Aye.

1:30:14No.

1:30:15Kanal.

1:30:16Aye.

1:30:17Pirtle-Guiney.

1:30:18No.

1:30:19Ryan.

1:30:22No.

1:30:23Koyama Lane.

1:30:24Aye.

1:30:24Murillo.

1:30:25Aye.

1:30:26Novick.

1:30:27No.

1:30:27Dunphy.

1:30:28No.

1:30:29The amendment fails with a vote of 5 ayes and 7 nays.

1:30:33Thank you, colleagues.

1:30:35Are there additional amendments on this item?

1:30:42Councilor Knoll, was your amendment to this item?

1:30:44No, it's the next item.

1:30:46Okay, I think we have made our way through all of the amendments at this point.

1:30:53Okay, here we go.

1:30:55I have a script, sorry.

1:30:59Grand piece.

1:30:59I know.

1:31:01Honestly, we're doing better in time than I thought we would too, guys.

1:31:04Uh, 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.

1:31:18At 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.

1:31:28Item 2026-312—.

1:31:31Oh wait.

1:31:37Sorry, I'm reading my notes.

1:31:45Okay, I was reading the wrong script.

1:31:46Great.

1:31:47Uh, it looks like we actually do have time to move on to Title 17 elements today.

1:31:51Um, I'm going to give us a quick recess.

1:31:53Uh, it is 3:30, we're halfway through, so I'm going to give us a 15-minute recess.

1:31:56Back at 3:45, at that point we will continue to item 2026-312.

1:32:02Thank you.

1:46:53All right, welcome back everybody.

1:46:56Thank you for your patience.

1:46:59Colleagues, we are now in consideration of document 2026-312.

1:47:05I'd like to recognize Councilor Green to introduce the Green-Pirtle-Guiney-Kanal Clark, Koyama Lane 2 amendment.

1:47:11Councilor, let's rinse and repeat the process here with our BPS staff and to hand— to walk us through the details.

1:47:18After that, we will move on to Councilor Novick's amendments and then to Councilor Kanal's amendments.

1:47:22So Councilor Green, you want to cue us up and then we'll turn it over to our team?

1:47:25Yeah, thanks so much.

1:47:26This 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.

1:47:43And 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.

1:47:59So Councilor Novick didn't have an issue with that.

1:48:02No.

1:48:02And so we did that, but not— we did not pull Novick 1 into it.

1:48:06So, Tom, if you want to give us the flyover, go ahead.

1:48:10Thanks.

1:48:10Sure.

1:48:11So the first amendment of this package is a directive in the ordinance for additional work.

1:48:20And this really speaks to what we heard in the public testimony about what's before you in the Title 17 regulates storage Thank you.

1:48:29Thank you, Mayor.

1:48:29So 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.

1:48:56And so what this is is a directive To get that data that is required to be reported to the city by March 31st, 2027.

1:49:07And 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.

1:49:23So that's the first—.

1:49:24Thank you.

1:49:26The second amendment, you know, within that reduction regulations that kick in in 2036, we have a couple of exemptions.

1:49:38And one of those exemptions applies to aviation existing as of January 1st, 2027, aviation fuel storage capacity.

1:49:51Thank you.

1:49:51The 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.

1:50:05That's Amendment 2.

1:50:07Amendment 3 is some changes to the reporting requirements.

1:50:13Again, sort of reflecting on what we heard in public testimony.

1:50:18It fills out some of the different reporting requirements.

1:50:24It 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.

1:50:43Turn 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.

1:51:08Thank you.

1:51:09That they see fit.

1:51:12The 4th one was just a small change to the penalty clause, just a truing up of the language in that code.

1:51:25Again, the 5th amendment is another directive.

1:51:32This again is sort of pulling in Novick 3.

1:51:36But 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.

1:51:58Thank you so much, Tom.

1:52:00And colleagues, I would move I would formally move this amendment.

1:52:06Second.

1:52:07Second.

1:52:08Uh, Councilor Green moves.

1:52:10I'm going to say Councilor Koyama Lane seconds that one.

1:52:13Colleagues, we are now in discussion of the Green, Pirtle-Guiney, Kanal, Clark, Koyama Lane 2 amendments.

1:52:21Councilor Novick.

1:52:23Thank you, Mr. President.

1:52:24Um, I apologize for not looking closely at this.

1:52:26The 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.

1:52:37Maybe that's something that you would automatically give to us if we pass this language.

1:52:45We 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.

1:52:58Okay.

1:52:59The feds come out every year, so we just left it unspecified so we can pull from different data.

1:53:06Okay, so you plan to look at all those sources?

1:53:08Yeah.

1:53:09Thank you.

1:53:10Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:53:11Vice President Clark.

1:53:13Thank you, Council President.

1:53:15I would like to move to divide the question in Title 17 to separate the vote on Amendment 2.

1:53:22Okay, that is a motion by right.

1:53:24That is specifically to vote separately on Amendment 2.

1:53:28The 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.

1:53:36Yes, exactly.

1:53:37And I think I'm allowed to make comments.

1:53:38Absolutely.

1:53:39I'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.

1:53:49So I'm asking to divide the questions so that we can vote on an amendment Uh, and Title 17.

1:53:56I 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.

1:54:12I also want to say that the Port of Portland is a sister government to us.

1:54:17I 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.

1:54:31There'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.

1:54:40And 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.

1:54:58I 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.

1:55:05That's a conversation that we should continue to have.

1:55:09So to ensure the ability of the port to support increased demand and economic activity, I would like to see the port Point of information.

1:55:27Oh, 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?

1:55:36Uh, sorry, this— to the top part here, section— I, I Under the Green, Pirtle-Guiney, et al., it will pull out just Amendment 2.

1:55:44So we will have 2 separate votes.

1:55:45We'll vote on Amendment 2, code remove aviation fuel exemption, and then a separate vote, Amendments 1, 3, 4, and 5.

1:55:53Okay.

1:55:54Okay.

1:55:55Uh, Councilor, uh, Green.

1:55:58Uh, thank you, Council President.

1:55:59I think generally the carrier gets to choose the order in which—.

1:56:03Yes.

1:56:04Mr.

1:56:05Chair, 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.

1:56:19Sounds good to me.

1:56:21Uh, further discussion at this point?

1:56:23Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:56:25Thank you, Council President.

1:56:27Um, 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?

1:56:49So I just have a question for staff, and well, let me start with a question for you, Councilor Clark.

1:56:54Is your intention to remove that also, or is that ancillary damage?

1:56:59My intention is to remove the entire piece.

1:57:03Okay, including the changes on translating capacity and expansion reviews?

1:57:06Yes.

1:57:06Okay, thank you.

1:57:09Was there a question for staff also?

1:57:11My 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.

1:57:22But if the intention is to remove that, then— My question for staff is moved.

1:57:27Perfect.

1:57:27Thank you very much, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:57:28Councilor Novick.

1:57:30Clarifying question.

1:57:32Are we to speak now to what we think about this removal or just to what we think about dividing the question?

1:57:39We're discussing— we're in discussion of the overall amendment at this point.

1:57:42Okay.

1:57:44I 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.

1:57:55But I also wanted to say flying is really bad for the environment.

1:57:59Um, 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.

1:58:12So 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.

1:58:22I don't want people to interpret that as my saying flying is good because it's bad.

1:58:28Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:58:29Councilor Murillo.

1:58:32Councilor Clark, could you just clarify for this part?

1:58:35So 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?

1:58:47D does.

1:58:48I think D does that.

1:58:49It removes aviation fuel storage.

1:58:52But you want to remove all Amendment 2?

1:58:56I want it all to be gone.

1:58:57Okay, I understand.

1:59:00Tom, 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.

1:59:14So 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.

1:59:25I would prefer that we just deal with it in the technical amendments and not do it now.

1:59:30Okay, thank you very much.

1:59:32Councilor Morillo— Councilor Knoll.

1:59:37Yeah, I, I appreciate this conversation.

1:59:39I will be voting yes on this amendment.

1:59:42So 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.

1:59:49We are still in discussion of the overall, uh, Green-Pirtle-Guiney-Kanal-Clark-Koyama Lane 2.

1:59:55Thought it had been divided.

1:59:57The question has been divided for the purposes of voting, but we are still in the—.

2:00:00Got it—.

2:00:00The discussion.

2:00:01Okay, well then I'll do both parts together here.

2:00:03So 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.

2:00:21And so keeping that text in, as was just mentioned by staff, excuse me, as was just mentioned by staff, is really important.

2:00:29So I'll be supporting that.

2:00:31I 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.

2:00:46I don't think that's what's happening here.

2:00:48Port can expand what it does.

2:00:50It'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.

2:01:05This is what other businesses do.

2:01:07This is pretty normal.

2:01:08You know, you create more shelf space for the stuff that's selling.

2:01:12And 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.

2:01:25So that's, that's the underlying argument here.

2:01:27So I'll be supporting that.

2:01:29I don't necessarily think we need— we haven't heard any argument against the, the rest of it.

2:01:35So 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.

2:01:44Thanks.

2:01:45Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

2:01:46Councilor Green.

2:01:48Thank you.

2:01:50Just 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.

2:02:15And so Ultimately, this is all governed by the Title 33 capacity review.

2:02:23And so take it or leave it, that was the motivation why this part was struck on the exemption while the other part lived on.

2:02:35I will be— what's— so I will be voting yes on this.

2:02:39I always get confused.

2:02:40I get backwards on the division of the question.

2:02:42I'm sorry.

2:02:42So I'll be supporting too.

2:02:45And then I also just want to draw your attention to the first part of this amendment, which is the directive.

2:02:49That'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.

2:03:09It'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.

2:03:15So that's what that directive does.

2:03:17And I hope that we can support all of the sub-amendments here, but at least 1, 3, 4, and 5.

2:03:25Thanks.

2:03:26Thank you, Councilor Green.

2:03:27Councilor Zimmerman.

2:03:28Just 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.

2:03:46So where did this all come from?

2:03:50I 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.

2:04:05And so the things that are there reflect this sort of back and forth, day-by-day work with these advocates.

2:04:14Not every office was able to do that.

2:04:16And 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.

2:04:27Yeah.

2:04:28And some people might decide, hey, I'm not good with this part, but I'm good with the rest.

2:04:33So 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.

2:04:41Thank you, Mr. President.

2:04:43There was always the understanding that there was a caveat here.

2:04:46And I think I made that really clear to my co-sponsors that this piece I would not be supporting, but the overall I am.

2:04:54Okay, yeah, it's just a little confusing when you all have your names on it.

2:04:57So going down to, uh, Amendment Number 4, the city administrator must impose.

2:05:04Most of the time when we do things, we say may impose.

2:05:08Is this a significant change to other code within the City of Portland's penalty structure?

2:05:17I'm actually not familiar with any must imposes.

2:05:22I would defer to the city attorney.

2:05:25Um, we looked into this and the, and the guidance and the consistency was to use in this situation the word must.

2:05:33From who?

2:05:33Guidance and consistency from attorneys?

2:05:35Okay.

2:05:36As 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.

2:05:46If the intent is that it's a mandate.

2:05:48So if we're talking about must versus shall, that's separate.

2:05:52But 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.

2:06:03We felt that the charter and the code does not limit the council's authority to change that from discretion and a mandate.

2:06:11I certainly don't— I agree with it.

2:06:13I'm just asking about practice.

2:06:15This seems like a shift from practice, which is we generally write code to say the city administrator may—.

2:06:22Agreed.

2:06:22Do something.

2:06:23And 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.

2:06:35Councilor, 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.

2:06:53Right.

2:06:54So I'm glad we're getting into this.

2:06:57I guess words matter when you have this much coming out of amendments.

2:07:00So must impose penalties and fines on a bulk fuel terminal owner or responsible party who fails to comply with your Requirements.

2:07:10Okay, we all, we all get that.

2:07:12I mean, may or must is different there.

2:07:15Or who has misrepresented any material fact.

2:07:20What constitutes a material fact?

2:07:25I'm just trying to get a sense of like, what are we talking about?

2:07:27Are we talking about like there's an error in a document and now all of a sudden we must impose, or we—.

2:07:34What are we talking about?

2:07:37And, 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.

2:07:47But now we're going to use the word must.

2:07:49So now I have to know what we mean by material fact.

2:07:52And so these have cascading effects, and I have heard no one speak to that.

2:08:00Bueller.

2:08:02I mean, may I?

2:08:03Please.

2:08:04Yeah, 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.

2:08:27So misrepresentation is not a mistake.

2:08:29It isn't— it is a willful obfuscation of the fact.

2:08:34And 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.

2:08:44And it's not up to some future city administrator whether they choose to let this operator slide or not.

2:08:49So 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.

2:09:05And 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?

2:09:18You've chosen very deliberately and that'll On its surface, right, it sounds good.

2:09:24But then to know that we have literally— I can't think of a single area in city code where we use this word.

2:09:30This seems like a title shift, and, and we kind of glancing over it.

2:09:34And I'd like to understand.

2:09:35So thank you, Councilor Green.

2:09:36I do appreciate your argument.

2:09:38There 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.

2:09:45So I'd like to understand what Council President, if I may.

2:09:52Councilor, I want to address your first question to the sponsors first, and then I have a note on this as well.

2:10:01And 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.

2:10:20And 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.

2:10:29And 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.

2:10:46So 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.

2:11:06We govern not just for today, but for the long haul.

2:11:10And 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.

2:11:30Thank you, Mayor.

2:11:31And you see through the lawsuits that have moved through courts work to make sure that that accountability is there.

2:11:41And 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.

2:11:57Not 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.

2:12:11And Councilor Knoll also wanted to respond.

2:12:14Yeah, thanks.

2:12:15I'll just note the word must appears 706 times in Title 17 of the code, which is what we're working on here.

2:12:24They're all a little different.

2:12:25Most of them are about how, um, you know, the— what an applicant must submit.

2:12:32Um, but there are examples of what the word must is used to put an imposition upon the city.

2:12:38Um, 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.

2:12:46I'm seeing a nod there.

2:12:47So there may well also be, um, the word shall Additional times.

2:12:51But for example, in 1713.130, the city must undertake a review.

2:12:551713.140, The city must expend SDC revenues.

2:12:59There's a lot of those sorts of things.

2:13:02Much of our code has not yet been updated to specifically mention the city administrator.

2:13:07That'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.

2:13:15Thank you.

2:13:15But 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.

2:13:24For the specific usage, I agree with everything that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney said.

2:13:28And 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.

2:13:39So that I would say is the other piece that's more specific.

2:13:43But just in terms of a general sense, Something we've, we've done before.

2:13:46Uh, are there any of those penalties— because you mentioned 706— are any of them in a penalty section?

2:13:51Because my question was specifically about penalty and not the word must.

2:13:55I'd be happy to go through them for you.

2:13:57The attorney has said no.

2:13:59So I, so I recognize that the word must is a common word in the United States and in the English.

2:14:04I get it.

2:14:05But that wasn't really the question.

2:14:06So I kind of find your argument a little silly that I was specifically talking about in the penalty section.

2:14:13We have generally set up a system that looks for mitigation.

2:14:18And 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.

2:14:27That was my question.

2:14:27Okay, well then, to be more specific—.

2:14:29And if it's yes, I want to hear that.

2:14:31So if you'll accept will as a synonym, 1726.170, penalty for violation.

2:14:39Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter will, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $500.

2:14:46Uh, and then in the later section it says will be subject to the penalty.

2:14:50So it uses the word will twice.

2:14:52Okay, 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.

2:15:16And I think it's two sides of a similar argument here.

2:15:21I 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.

2:15:40And so, um, this is, this is giving me some pause.

2:15:47I appreciate both yours and Councilor Green's explanation of those.

2:15:52Those are both important.

2:15:54And for me, very big shifts in how we do it.

2:16:00If I'm a person who doesn't believe in Mandatory sentences, so to speak, right?

2:16:06I believe in— we've set our penalty structures, we set all that, and there's also usually a cure issue.

2:16:14But I do very much, Councilor Green, I do appreciate the misrepresented, meaning there was a deliberate aspect to that.

2:16:25And so that one, that holds water for me.

2:16:28Thank you.

2:16:29I go back to who then determines what a material fact is in a situation.

2:16:43Councilor, is that an actual question you're looking for staff to answer?

2:16:47Anybody who feels they are equipped to answer would be fine.

2:16:50I'm getting a lot of Bueller moments, so it's okay.

2:16:54I 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.

2:17:01I know you wrote novels for number 3, but number 4 is some new language that's different.

2:17:11Well, I would think that the city administrator would determine if it was a misrepresentation or an error.

2:17:21And that, that misrepresentation rose to the level of a material fact.

2:17:27And 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.

2:17:40Is that right?

2:17:41I look for legal counsel on that interpretation, but—.

2:17:45Yeah.

2:17:46Yes, 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.

2:17:55Um, will is typically used in a little bit, uh, something would happen in the future.

2:18:01It's not, um, mandatory in the moment.

2:18:06Um, and then may is the most permissive.

2:18:11Thank you for that.

2:18:13Okay, um, into number 3 in the, the inventory and reporting requirements.

2:18:22There's a significant amount of change in number 3 in the, in the language.

2:18:28Um, 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.

2:18:48Are 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?

2:18:58So usually if I write a document and a lot of things get redlined out, I would probably have some concerns about it.

2:19:03So 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.

2:19:18I 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.

2:19:37That'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.

2:19:49So that's why you see a lot of the changes in Amendment 3.

2:19:54Um, I think the, uh, the ordinance directives, you know, that's Council's, uh, prerogative to say what they want to see happen.

2:20:07The penalties, I, you know—.

2:20:09I'm not actually asking for council's directive.

2:20:12I'm asking because this product originally came from you.

2:20:15I'm actually asking for a professional opinion from BPS because I have a feeling— I know where at least 5 are, they sponsored it.

2:20:22But 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.

2:20:30Those are the types of things that would help me in evaluating such—.

2:20:34Councilor, 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.

2:20:42It's really just like, what would this take?

2:20:45And it's true that more frequent reporting and analysis is going to cost us a little more staff time.

2:20:55All right, thank you, Mr. President.

2:20:56Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

2:20:58Councilor Novick.

2:21:00Yes, thanks, Mr. President.

2:21:01I apologize, I think that I'm looking at the amendment out of context.

2:21:06I'm just curious, is there somewhere in the document, the original document, that it says how the penalties will be calculated?

2:21:13You know, does it require the penalties be a certain amount?

2:21:17Yes.

2:21:19That 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.

2:21:29And then the reduction requirement, failure to comply with the reduction requirement was 25 cents a gallon for every gallon that they failed to reduce.

2:21:41So what I'm wondering is, Would this provision require us to get penalties of precisely those amounts?

2:21:50And here's my concern.

2:21:52I 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.

2:22:03So we would sometimes come in saying, okay, here's a penalty of $14 million based on that.

2:22:07The company would say, that's insane.

2:22:08And then we'd argue about it.

2:22:10We wind up with with settling for something less than that.

2:22:15If 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.

2:22:29So 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.

2:22:38I have some concerns about the operability of saying must impose a penalty of a specific amount and there's no room for negotiation.

2:22:46I guess this is really a question for the city attorney.

2:22:48How do you read it?

2:22:49Does it— we must impose a specific penalty, or would it give some flexibility to negotiate the penalty?

2:22:57Um, as I— and I need— I also have multiple pieces.

2:23:01So 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.

2:23:14Okay, 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.

2:23:39If I may, the other piece of this is the process that we go through with the reporting and that the failure to comply determination.

2:23:51And 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.

2:24:10And 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.

2:24:21And 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.

2:24:34Right.

2:24:34But I mean, this means it's sort of all or nothing.

2:24:38I mean, normally you sort of like make a risk assessment of if this goes to court, what are the odds we'll win?

2:24:46And You don't always go for— I mean, just like, you know, prosecutors, you don't always go for the maximum.

2:24:52Um, you have some, uh, you know, thought about the likelihood of victory, and you adjust the penalty appropriately.

2:25:00Okay.

2:25:01So 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?

2:25:16Are you asking about the language or whether I have legal concerns about the implementation?

2:25:21Uh, 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.

2:25:37I 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.

2:25:48But I think your assessment is correct.

2:25:50It would avoid the ability for there any sort of negotiation of the penalties that we have in other code sections.

2:25:58Thank you.

2:25:58In that case, I actually would like to have Mr. Taylor here to answer the question.

2:26:07Let's see if he can make his way down here to answer your question.

2:26:10In the interim, I will move to Councilor— is that okay, Councilor Novick, while we wait for Robert?

2:26:18Steve, is that all right to move on for a second and come back?

2:26:20Yeah.

2:26:21Okay, great.

2:26:21Thank you.

2:26:22Councilor Knoll.

2:26:23Thanks, Council President.

2:26:24Yeah, 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.

2:26:38So 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.

2:26:49I, I wanted— I, I didn't get in the queue for this.

2:26:51I just wanted to flag that, and I think it may be helpful to have Robert, uh, comment on that part too.

2:26:55But 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.

2:27:08And 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.

2:27:23I 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.

2:27:35Um, and I think it— we, we should be doing that.

2:27:38And 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.

2:27:51And, 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.

2:28:05And then based on that, they're going to say, well, we're going to invalidate the people you also voted for.

2:28:10It, it becomes a little harder.

2:28:11So 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.

2:28:26Our city attorney is getting briefed on the question at hand, and we will welcome him over.

2:28:33Welcome, Mr. Taylor.

2:28:38Hi, uh, Robert Taylor, city attorney.

2:28:41As I understand the question, uh, the— if, if you choose to use the word must in the code, that is a mandatory.

2:28:52If you choose to use may in the code, that gives some discretion.

2:28:57So if you use must, and that says the city administrator must impose a penalty, then the city administrator will do that.

2:29:08They will—.

2:29:08They do not have discretion.

2:29:11Uh, 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.

2:29:29But 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?

2:29:43I think the city administrator They don't have discretion.

2:29:46And I think that's the real choice that the council has in front of them right now.

2:29:51Do 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?

2:30:08I think that's a good question.

2:30:09Councilor Novick.

2:30:11Yes.

2:30:12So 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?

2:30:31You 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.

2:30:52This language is directed at the city administrator's authority to impose it as an initial matter.

2:30:59And this would not give the administrator discretion.

2:31:02They would have to impose it.

2:31:04I think the language is And then it would go through the process.

2:31:08So that's the real choice in front of you.

2:31:10Do 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?

2:31:25Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

2:31:26So I'm a lawyer, so I care about imposing things on lawyers, not on city administrators.

2:31:32So my concern was, you know, handcuffing our lawyers.

2:31:37But 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.

2:31:52Yes.

2:31:53Yes.

2:31:53Yeah.

2:31:54Thank you.

2:31:57Thank you very much, Councilor Novick.

2:31:58Councilor Kanal, you also had a question for the city attorney, is that right?

2:32:01I think you got covered.

2:32:02Okay, great.

2:32:05Pausing for dramatic effect to see if anyone else wants to talk.

2:32:10Okay, colleagues.

2:32:11Keelan, 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?

2:32:24Council President, can we clarify what the vote is, how that works?

2:32:31No, it's a yes to amend.

2:32:33Yes to amend.

2:32:33As the language is here.

2:32:34So if you don't like that, then you gotta vote no.

2:32:38Wait, say that again.

2:32:41Vote no.

2:32:45Okay.

2:32:48So, okay, let's just be clear that to amend this, to remove the amendment, you would have to vote no.

2:32:54Council President, may I offer a different way of thinking about this?

2:33:00Okay, sorry.

2:33:01You have separated the amendment, so we are voting on Section 2 of the amendment.

2:33:07An affirmative vote passes Section 2 of the amendment, so you are voting to pass that.

2:33:14Got it.

2:33:15A no vote votes not to pass that change.

2:33:19So if you want Section 2 to go into effect now, separate from the rest of it, you vote yes.

2:33:24If you do not want it to go into effect, you vote no.

2:33:27Thank you.

2:33:29Thank you.

2:33:30Keelan, can we please call the roll?

2:33:32Clerk—.

2:33:33It's important because I'm the first vote— no.

2:33:35Green?

2:33:38Yes.

2:33:39Zimmerman?

2:33:39No.

2:33:40Avalos?

2:33:42Aye.

2:33:43Smith?

2:33:44No.

2:33:46Aye.

2:33:48Aye.

2:33:50Aye.

2:33:53Novick.

2:33:58No.

2:33:59Dunphy.

2:33:59No.

2:34:02The amendment, uh, part 2, amendment 2 fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.

2:34:08Can we please call the Roll on the remainder of the Green-Pirtle-Guinea-Canal-Clark-Koyama Lane 2.

2:34:15Clark?

2:34:16Aye.

2:34:18Green?

2:34:19Aye.

2:34:20Zimmerman?

2:34:20No.

2:34:22Avalos?