The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-06-06
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (25,976 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Portland City Council Committee of the Whole convened on 2026-06-06, with roll call establishing attendance of the body. Following committee chair updates covering the meeting calendar, an autonomous vehicles report, transportation utility fee implementation, a planned water filtration plant tour, and a waterfront RFP update, the committee heard extensive public testimony on a proposed consent to transfer the Zenith Energy terminal franchise to Springer Holdings/I Squared Capital, amending Ordinance 188554. Dozens of testifiers, including attorneys, union representatives, company officials, environmental advocates, and residents, addressed topics including public records transparency, pending litigation against the city, renewable fuel claims, seismic risk at the Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub, third-party enforcement proposals, and calls to delay or condition approval. City staff and attorneys answered questions about the technical, legal, and financial review process, franchise conditions, and document disclosure; a commitment was made to post referenced records publicly. A motion to refer the ordinance to full council with a recommendation was made, and votes occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The committee then heard testimony on Vision Zero traffic safety, including street design, West Burnside paving, speed cameras, and community engagement, followed by staff responses to prior councilor questions before adjournment at 12:36 PM.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
0 Good morning. I call this meeting of the committee of the whole to of the Portland city council to order. It is 9:33 a.m. On August 6th, 2026. Keelan will you please call the roll?
1 Good morning. Koyama Lane here. Aye, Morillo. Here. Novick. Here. Clark.
2 Here.
3 Green here. Zimmerman.
4 Avalos here. And can you turn the lights up? Thanks.
5 Mr. Dunphy. Here. Smith. Pirtle-guiney. Ryan. Kanal here.
6 Christopher, will you please read the statement of conduct or. Kevin. I'm not sure he's doing it today.
7 Welcome to the meeting of the finance and governance committee of the whole. To testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance to the committee agenda at www.Portland.gov/council/agendae or by calling 311. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting in person, testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. Public testimony will be taken on an item. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over, the chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption results in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. State your name for the record. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifier should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
8 Thank you. Appreciate everybody being here today. So today we have a couple items on our agenda that are continuations of our meeting from two weeks ago. After the committee chair updates, we'll have a continuation of the discussion of the potential transfer transfer of the franchise from zenith energy terminals holding llc to springer holdings, llc. We had the presentation. We'll hear the testimony. Now. We do have 50 people signed up for testimony last I checked. And then we have vision zero, which we'll call the presentation item in public hearing together and do the public hearing portion first. That's I think four people have signed up for that. And then if time is remaining, we'll have some of the responses from staff to the questions councilors raised two weeks ago. I'll note for the record that this is the exact plan we had two weeks ago at the end of the meeting, and no changes have been made to that plan. So we're going to ask that if you need the full three minutes, you will have it. But if you don't need it, please feel free to make sure that there's time for other folks who are waiting to testify as well. All right. Can you please call the first item, kayla.
9 Item one document 2026-274. Committee chair updates.
10 Thanks. I'll keep the committee chair update portion brief today. Other than, of course, we do have an update from vice president Olivia Clark, chair of the public works committee. There have been some updates to the the meeting calendar, and you'll see that things are just kind of as they get locked in, being put into tentative and confirmed on the list or moved down as we know that we're going to need a little bit more time. Hopefully by next week, we'll have the more information on the oversight hearings for the rest of the year. No updates on part two or part three at the moment. You'll see that we'll do part four in a second, which is the committee update from chair Clark. But I did add a new council deadlines for administration, just to show what things are being expected back from the administration to council as a way of increasing transparency. Colleagues, please feel free to send me more. The only one I had was something I knew about this week, which is the investment policy options report back due on August 31st. Any questions on that before I pass it over to chair Clark? All right, chair Clark, take it away.
11 Great. Thank you, mr. Chair. Quick update. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Good. Yes. Thank you. At our last meeting, we had an excellent overview and discussion of autonomous vehicles. A PBOT provided us with a report, and I was very interested to hear about their research of other cities where autonomous vehicles have been operating. They'll be coming back to us. We ask them to come back to us drafting an ordinance for us to, to, to discuss, hopefully in September. We also got an update on the the work that's being done in preparation to implement the transportation utility fee and the street damage restoration fee. There's a lot of work to be done there before we can actually implement those in January. Tomorrow our committee is going on a tour of the filtration plant, which is well timed because at our committee meeting next Tuesday, we're going to be getting an overview of the oversight that's taking place of the project. And yeah, very well timed. And then we're also next week, I think we're having a discussion of hold on, oh, kind of tease out in the vision zero. We're going to tease out some of the safety measures and talk more in more detail about what kinds of safety measures we can implement. And that will be interesting. And then just a really quick update, really quick update on what's going on with the waterfront, the RFP, and just bringing us up to date on that. So with that, mr. Chairman, that's my brief report.
12 Thank you. Chair Clark, any questions for chair Clark? I see councilor Green is in the queue.
13 Thank you. Not not a question, just sort of affirming since the since the public works committee will be a quorum on that trip. Just want the public to know we're not discussing any policy items related to the committee at all. We're just getting information from the bureau. Right.
14 Thank you.
15 For that.
16 Thank you.
17 Thank you. That concludes the chair update. So I will ask keelan if you could please call item two.
18 Document 2026-263. Consent to franchise transfer from zenith energy terminal holding terminals holdings, llc to isaac springer holdings, llc. Amend ordinance 188554.
19 All right. I don't see anyone in the queue. We're ready to take testimony. So noting that for those who aren't immediately first, all the presentation and all that is in the meeting records from two weeks ago. So the 23rd and if you could please call the first panel. Keelan.
20 Yeah. Let me sorry, I just want to go over a couple quick reminders here. I will call up testifiers in groups of five. Each individual will have three minutes. For those testifying in person, you will see the timer countdown displayed on the monitor in front of the testimony table. For those testifying virtually, the timer is displayed in zoom. You will hear the timer chime twice, once when there are 30s left, then a second time when your time is up. Before you begin your testimony, please state your name for the record. All right, let's get started. Our first panel includes lynn hanlon, jules bailey, nick caleb, danny noonan, jerry zhang.
21 As people as.
22 People are coming up, I did also want to say thank you so much for your patience. Waiting the two weeks to do this.
23 Okay. My name is lynn spitaleri hanlon, and I'm speaking today on behalf of myself and many others who previously signed up to testify. In the interest of time, we've decided to provide a few collective testimonies summarizing our key concerns with the zenith franchise transfer. Our hope is that by giving back agenda time to you, you'll be able to move more quickly on one key action council can take now to make the zenith and all sci hub facilities safer. The sci hub policy project zenith energy is a company with a history of violations. Background deal backroom deals flat out lies to the deq about their plans, which is getting worse. A company that poses many threats to the health and safety of the community, the rivers and the environment. This and the city administration's inability or unwillingness to provide adequate oversight are why third party enforcement and due diligence around issues, legal and technical history are so critical. In a short time, we have learned that ysc has numerous worker safety, railroad safety, environmental and other violations in the uk, lawsuits around business practices and investment strategies in new york city, allegations of fraud and malpractice settled by substantial payouts in florida, and the list of bad goes on. This is why the community is asking for full transparency and documentation on the administrative review. I ask you has publicly stated it will continue to pursue expansion of the zenith facility into a major fuel export hub, increasing the facility's risk risk to portlanders by more fuel bomb train activity down the gorge, and even more fuel storage on liquefiable riverbank soils. We know you understand that this brings only risk and no significant benefit to portlanders. Our ask of you is simple make sure you're not creating a loophole by which the new owner, I ask you, can apply for facility expansions before you consider and implement the new zoning codes that will come from the sci hub policy project. The franchise transfer agreement should be conditioned or a separate resolution should be passed, precluding expansion permits until the sci hub policy has been debated and implemented. Especially given the nature of I, s, q, and the more time you have, the more you may learn of how. What a bad idea this is. We understand the city council faces a packed agenda of critical issues, but we also know that a catastrophe at the hub could erupt at any time. We stand behind council doing everything in your power to quickly pass the strongest possible cei hub protections to make portland's future safer and healthier. Thank you.
24 Good morning council. My name is jules bailey. I'm a former democratic state representative, former chair of the house energy and environment committee, and former board chair of the Oregon league of conservation voters. I'm appearing today in a consulting capacity with skyline renewable energy. The Portland based company backed by I squared capital and that is operating this seeking to operate this terminal. I understand the history of this facility. Concerns about crude by rail, fossil fuel expansion, safety and the conduct of the current operator are real. And you're hearing about them today from concerned citizens who earnestly want our city to meet its climate obligations and ensure community safety. I want the same thing. Approval today should not be understood as an endorsement of this facility's history. This smaller issue of a franchise agreement transfer is an opportunity to change it. Portland and Oregon have adopted policies requiring substantial reductions in carbon intensity of transportation fuels, including at least 50% renewable fuel, moving towards 99% in 2030. Those standards only work if there is reliable infrastructure to receive, store and distribute lower carbon fuels. This terminal is already a major point of entry for renewable diesel, a fuel that's not only lower in carbon but also safer than crude. It's also the only terminal in Oregon with sustainable aviation fuel storage at scale, and it supplied the fuel used in pdx's first sustainable aviation fuel delivery. Renewable fuels aren't the final destination. Electrification remains essential, but for heavy duty transportation and aviation, where full electrification is not yet available at scale, renewable diesel and sustainable, sustainable aviation fuel are necessary. Climate solutions estimates that renewable diesel produces at least 60% fewer life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum, diesel and often even less. And they work in existing engines. Council is not being asked to simply trust another operator's promises. I squared is making this acquisition through its energy transition infrastructure fund and article nine fund, with a mandate to invest in renewable fuels and clean energy infrastructure, and skyline has committed to eliminate fossil fuel storage at this terminal by October 2027. This commitment is not merely a response to the current permit, it's part of the mandate of the investment vehicle being used to acquire the facility, and there are many layers of oversight already. I would not have agreed to work with skyline without those commitments. The question before you is narrower than the history of this facility surrounding it. This is only about I technical, legal and financial ability to operate and maintain the pipes in the street. The decision today is binary. Approving the transfer allows a new operator backed by an energy transition fund and investment mandate to replace the current owner. Denying the transfer does not eliminate the terminal or its existing permits. It leaves zenith in place. Portland created demand for cleaner fuels through public policy, transit agencies, school bus fleets, trucking, aviation and construction all need this facility to meet that demand, and I respectfully ask your approval of the transfer.
25 Excuse me, chair, Kanal vice chair Ryan and Koyama Lane and esteemed city council members. My name is nick caleb. I'm the climate and energy attorney at breach collective. I'm registered with the city as a lobbyist. Since the last meeting on this topic, the city has been sued by zenith demanding that a court cut public process short and force council's immediate consent to the franchise. I suspect zenith and I squared were triggered by councilors questions to the city attorney and staff, which clarified that council has full legislative authority here to deny, approve or attach conditions to an approval and to conduct a full public process. Zenith and I were hoping that you would see this as a purely rubber stamping exercise and are now trying to bully you. Unfortunately for them, public process has just begun because the public remains in the dark. On essential information related to this proposed deal, the mayor's draft ordinance references documents that remain restricted from the public, including materials referenced in sections four, eight, nine, and ten, including but not limited to I alleged technical, legal and financial qualifications in the city's assessment of those qualifications. I've been trying to gain access to documentation related to the terminal sale since April and have been getting the runaround. In April, I made a records request and received a single unrelated document. The city responded to a broader records request in may with a fee estimate pending alert that lasted over two and a half months. An extraordinary delay for an estimate, in my experience. Interestingly, last week, the city finally sent me some of the documentation I requested, including a few of the missing documents from my April request. The city provided no explanation for why they had not provided those documents with the earlier release. Some of these records raised my eyebrows to say it softly. Unfortunately, I have not received all the crucial documents referenced in the mayor's franchise ordinance. These documents form the basis of the mayor's recommendation for approval of this franchise transfer. The public requires this information for any meaningful engagement in this public process. The city's failure to provide documentation referenced in the mayor's ordinance is an egregious failure of the city's obligations to the public, especially given the city's troubled history with zenith. This context creates an appearance of a deliberate strategy to delay the release of full records until after the approval of this franchise transfer. This would not be the first time the city pulled a stunt like this related to zenith. Last time it resulted in a multi-year scandal, and this city council finding in a resolution that high level staff, quote, substantially undermine public confidence in the city's administrative apparatus by creating the appearance of impropriety. I expect we all would very much like to avoid a repeat. To conclude, my ask today is simple. Please make documents referenced in the mayor's ordinance available to the public with adequate time to review them before any council vote on this franchise transfer. Thank you.
26 Okay. Chaz Kanal, vice chairs Ryan and Koyama Lane, Portland city councilors. Thank you for the opportunity to give testimony. For the record, my name is danny noonan. I am a registered lobbyist with the city on behalf of the 501 c three nonprofit bridge collective, and I am giving my testimony in that capacity. This meeting takes place in the midst of a full blown climate disaster in the form of a historic wildfire season in Oregon that will continue to worsen. This disaster is not an anomaly. June 2026 was the second warmest June, according to analyzes of global weather data data going back to 1850, 2026 is very likely to be among the top five warmest years on record and possibly the warmest. The 11 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 11 years. The brutal summer conditions we are now facing come after an incredibly warm and dry winter with oregon's snowpack over the last 12 months among the lowest on record. We are also now entering into a super el nino event in the pacific ocean that could drive temperatures even higher. These climate conditions should be reason enough for this council to be concerned about the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. But as you are well aware, there is the added problem that the city of Portland and approximately 90% of oregon's liquid fuel storage is situated within the cascadia subduction zone, in which there is a 37% chance of a 7.1 plus magnitude earthquake within the next 50 years. This will liquefy the earth under portland's critical energy infrastructure hub and cause the largest oil spill in us history so far into the Willamette. I'm sure you've heard this all before, and the reason I'm reciting these facts right now is that you don't seem to be acting like it. Yesterday, council held a hearing to consider the mayor's proposal to raid the Portland clean energy fund for sports stadium renovations, removing resources that are supposed to be for community adaptation to conditions like these under the flimsiest of environmental and energy efficiency pretexts, and cynically presenting this decision as a referendum on the city's economy. Today, council is considering rubber stamping a franchise transfer from one of portland's most notorious fossil fuel companies to an international venture capital firm with a particularly byzantine corporate structure. Speaking of flimsy pretenses, we have heard and will probably continue to hear about, how renewable fuels are in this terminal are going to be part of portland's future climate solution. The reality is that renewable fuels usually still have a greenhouse gas emissions intensity. Sometimes this is marginally less than fossil fuels. Sometimes it is more often there are environmental externalities associated with producing these renewable fuels that further diminish its purported benefits. Sometimes renewable fuels are just a way of outsourcing greenhouse gas emissions to agriculture and other sectors of the economy. The port of Portland, zenith and I squared capital have all indicated that they intend to expand fuel storage in this terminal, which flies in the face of economy wide analyzes that show that we need to wind down the use of all hydrocarbons and increase electrification, and which means that both the greenhouse gas emissions and the potential consequences of seismic risk increase rather than decrease over time. Please give this decision the attention it deserves. Thank you.
27 Good morning. My name is jerry zhang. I'm a I'm a vice president here at I squared capital. We know this terminal carries a nuanced history in Portland. We're here because we will be a different type of owner, long term, committed to Portland and oregon's clean energy goals and responsive to this community. There are a few points that attracted us to make this investment. Number one, oregon's clean fuel policies have made this, in the near term, one of the most attractive markets for renewable fuels anywhere in the country on certain measures ahead of larger states like california. Number two, our incentives and portland's point in the same direction. We create the most value by converting this terminal to 100% renewable fuels. Succeeding here means delivering on portland's and oregon's clean energy goals. I want to make an important distinction here. The ultimate owner of the terminal asset will be our energy transition fund, managed by sword capital. It matters which part of I squared is making this investment, and I square manages several distinct funds. Our energy transition fund adheres to eu's most rigorous sustainability standard, with a core, legally binding mission of investing in assets that genuinely move society towards a cleaner future, a mission that lines up with oregon's and portland's clean energy goals, our commitment to safety and sustainability is backed by real capability. We are a global infrastructure investor that invests in essential services people rely on every day energy, utilities, transportation, etc. We operate bulk fuel terminals in europe and the philippines, where regulatory compliance and safety are embedded within our core values. Consider the contrast between today's owner and the new one. Zenith is a houston based platform owned by two private equity firms. Zenith runs terminals across the country, whereas this facility is one of many in its portfolio, with other assets soaring fossil fuel products. I squared, on the other hand, is an infrastructure investor. The fund that's acquiring this asset is legally bound by eu's most rigorous sustainability standard, and this will be our only terminal in our fund. Our team will be based here in Portland, and our plan is to convert the asset to 100% renewable fuels. We have the experience, financial strength and values to operate this facility responsibly. For the long term, we plan to retain the full team that operates the facility today. It will be a good community. Partners and neighbors. Portland has a well-earned reputation for environmental stewardship and we plan to contribute to that. Thanks for your time.
28 Wow, so much in such a short time.
29 Next panel includes ben harper, randall friesen, samantha hernandez, jordan lewis, michaela mccormick.
30 Good afternoon. My name is ben harper and I'm head of sustainability here at I squared capital. And I want to thank you for your time today. I'd like to start by reiterating the change in ownership of this terminal as an opportunity to make a positive break from the past, and for our team to operate a best in class facility in supporting the city of Portland and the state of Oregon in achieving its climate and sustainable fuel goals today and in the future, which should be most important to the council and to the community, is knowing that we will be operating this terminal under the strictest regulatory framework, requiring the utmost operational diligence. The regulation under which this terminal is operated is not allow us to simply promise a cleaner future. It requires us to deliver one and to prove it every year to the regulators. The commitment to convert this site to 100% renewable fuel by 2027 is not a press release, but it's a condition of our ownership. And that's because we're purchasing this terminal in a fund governed by the european union's strictest sustainability regulation, the sustainable finance disclosure regulation, or sfd. Sfr is a transparency framework. It requires asset managers like ourselves and other financial market participants to disclose how they handle sustainability in their investments. Sfd classifies funds and therefore investments into three tiers according to their environmental and social impact. Article nine, which applies to this facility, is by far the strictest tier, and this is an important distinction for which I'd like to share. What makes an article nine fund investment different? So with an article nine fund investment. The core of these regulations include three foundational components. One, the investment must be an economic activity that contributes to an environmental or social objective. And in this case, the the environmental objective is to reduce carbon emissions from a very hard to abate industry like aviation and transportation. Second, the investee company must follow good governance practices, including mandatory yearly reporting requirements and other transparency mechanisms. And most. Third, and most importantly, the concept of do no significant harm. If you look at the regulations, you'll see the acronym d, n, s, h do no significant harm. This regulation requires us to evidence the operations do no significant harm to the community and the environment. So the concerns this council and committee has raised are no longer just our reputation at stake. It's our legal obligation. Being an article nine fund also elevates issues from reputational to regulatory relevant without inclusion. In our article nine fund, many concerns may be more reputational and community relations issues. Under article nine, they feed directly into the do no significant harm test, where significant harm finding on a local environmental objective could undermine our whole sustainability investment claim. So I'd like to point out that the interest and safety of the community and our financial interests point in exactly the same direction. Thank you.
31 Good morning, chair and council members. I am randall friesen, the executive secretary of the columbia pacific building trades council. I'm here today representing over 20,000 construction professionals across the Portland, metropolitan and southwest Washington regions. Our council comprises 22 local unions whose members build and maintain the critical systems within the critical energy infrastructure hub. Because over 90% of oregon's liquid fuel supply passes through this hub, this is a statewide infrastructure necessity, not just a local Portland issue. And it should be treated with that same level of gravity. Oregon, Multnomah county and city of Portland have set climate reduction goals, and this terminal is necessary component to reach those goals. As outlined in the city's carbon reduction goals, fossil fuels need to be replaced by nearly 100% renewable gas and diesel by 2030. Any delay or actions to prevent the hub from moving forward puts these goals and mandates at risk. That means sustainable aviation, fuel and renewable diesel are necessary to meet the state's climate goals. Renewable fuels are at least 60% carbon savings over petroleum fuel. Access to that fuel is necessary for construction equipment, trucks and other heavy equipment to meet state and local mandates. We are proud that I squared capital is not only committed to accomplishing the nearly 100% renewable fuel mandate, but also committed to using union labor for system upgrades and safety improvements, highlighting the highest skilled and trained workforce in the construction industry, demonstrating their commitment to safety, quality and family wage jobs with other renewable fuel projects on the horizon, such as next clean energy, this hub is and will continue to help decarbonize 90% of the state's available fuel system, while also helping show that Portland is soon to be ahead of the curve in the transition away from fossil fuels. We ask that the council, as you all carefully consider this proposal, to approve the franchise transfer transfer within the hub, as well as the needed work to access the public right of way to proceed with the deal. Thank you very much for your time and careful consideration.
32 Hello, committee of the whole. My name is jordan lewis. I'm a volunteer lobbyist for the Portland democratic socialists of America. I recently had the horror of reading in the news that fires in spokane have destroyed nearly a thousand homes and forced the evacuation of 70,000 people. Now, wildfires threaten forests on mount hood. The timberline lodge may actually be destroyed. As we process this news, we are smothered in a thick white smoke which casts an orange haze on. Everything blocks out the sun, gives us a constant mild headache, and leaves our tissues inflamed. The wildfire risk and smoke inhalation risk are no longer things we just read about on the news. It's getting harder and harder to change the channel or turn up the radio and ignore the new reality. When I moved to Portland in 2020, I actually lived in Clackamas area during the intense wildfire scare, which made the evening sun blood orange for a week straight. I was on an evacuation watch for several days. Our air conditioner broke and so I was exposed to severe wildfire smoke, which essentially poisoned me. This was six years ago. We witnessed those horrors and those stirred us to action. Right? Not really. When you talk to younger people, ask yourself, will this person live a full and healthy life? Will this person have the luxury of dying peacefully of natural causes? The younger the person is, the more likely they will burn to death in urban wildfires like happened in la, hawaii, and now spokane, they will experience heat waves coincident with rolling blackouts. They'll be drafted to fight in wars over scarcer and scarcer resources. They'll experience all kinds of new cancers as they inhale burnt forest cars and buildings from faraway conflagrations. When you talk to younger people, you know will grow up in this world, and you look back on how you spent your time in office, what will you tell them that you knowingly traded away their future for guilt free trips to the airport, that you undermined the Portland clean energy fund to pay for cops who don't exist, that you made roads bigger and larger so that more fuels could be burned, that you watched public transit get gutted so that more fuels could be burned, that you rolled out the red carpet for a fuel terminal to get sold to private equity. I'm testifying in opposition to the transfer of the zenith franchise agreement. A constant false sense of urgency is a sign of a scammer. I've seen this before from freeway expansion boosters, from the owners of the trailblazers, and from phone based identity scammers. The point has always been to use urgency to lock the public out of public decision making and to get unpopular decisions expedited. Good ideas hold up to scrutiny. The city attorney said last time the council has authority to attach conditions to the franchise agreement, that is public information. Zenith is already suing the city for the second time, hoping to silence people like me from our charter mandated opportunity to testify. It's shameful. And beware greenwashing. People will come here and talk about the renewable fuels plan. Where were these people when the transportation package flopped in transit got defunded? That's going to result in a lot more oil being burned. And where will these people show up to the climate protection plan when that comes under attack from the state government? No.
33 Michaela is joining us online.
34 Hello, I'm michaela mccormick. I'm a member of extinction rebellion pdx, for whom I'm speaking. Some of what I will say is a repeat, and it's well worth repeating. It is an outrage that zenith is suing the city to stop councils due diligence on I. Squareds technical and legal qualifications. Zenith's past illegalities and shady practices are the very reason that the city administration should provide all documentation on the depth of their I squared review. Zenith waited until the franchise hearings were in progress to sue. Are they afraid of what will be revealed in testimony without access to the city's vetting of isi squared. Even a cursory search shows that I squared. I squared is a giant private equity firm has multiple red flags showing. They have not put the safety and well-being of communities at the forefront. I squared committed 18 lawbreaking acts with associated fines in the uk and the categories of workplace safety and health, labor standards, railroad safety, consumer protection and the environment. There are lawsuits around I squared financial misconduct and regulatory compliance in new york and suits alleging insurance fraud and business malpractice in florida with I squared paying settlements without admitting liability. This does not bode well for Portland, given city administrators lack of willingness or inability to provide adequate oversight in the past, council should ensure protections have been built into the franchise agreement, such as a 3 to 5 year performance review with automatic termination for violations. Whatever decision council makes regarding the franchise, it is crucial that council pass an emergency resolution preventing fuel expansion permits until the cei hub policy has been fully debated and implemented. Thanks for your attention.
35 Checking to see if samantha hernandez. Here. Next panel includes heather king, marty glickman, jt hendrix, diane mason halter, john rosapepe.
36 I'm sorry everyone. Good morning. My name is marty glickman. I'm the executive director of braided river campaign, a registered lobbyist and a district two resident. We are here to ask you, our city council, to stand up against the fossil fuel industry. Bullying, stand up for the safety of portlanders, and protect our local democracy. We ask you to make documents related to this franchise transfer available to the public. The mayor's draft ordinance lists documents in sections four, eight, nine and ten that are unavailable to us and spark concerns of a deliberate attempt by the mayor and high level administrators to delay the release of these records until after the approval of the franchise transfer. And I want to specify high level administrators, because we know that most planners support staff, council aides make the city work well. Portland residents and environmental stewards cannot evaluate the essential technical, legal and financial information at issue or review the city's administration's own evaluation of this administration, and we need to look at these conclusions, and they need to be made public. In other words, we are here to ask for the information we need to fully participate in our local democracy. This refusal to give the public full information about a matter of great interest mirrors efforts by the mayor and high level administrators on the moda center issue, moda center issue, project mount hood, and the extreme discrepancies around housing money last fall, and the recent exclusion of environmental leaders from final negotiations with pge on a controversial project impacting ancient trees in forest park. This pattern of deceptive practices must come to an end. Transparency and accountability are essential ingredients in our climate emergency work plan and the future of our city. Renewable fuels are dangerous, toxic and flammable. Even Portland city code explicitly defines renewable diesel as being chemically the same as petroleum diesel fuel. Please consider the big picture when you make your decisions today. The unhealthy air we've been breathing in the wildfire fires generated by the climate crisis. People and wildlife are suffering. Remember our geography. We sit here just five miles from zenith zone is 300 yards from the Portland harbor superfund site and a few hundred yards from forest park. Zenith is also smack dab in the middle. Oh my. Of portland's largest heat island, the cei hub, we heard I squared capital's promises to be good community partners. Let's ask them to agree to a third party enforcement provision. They said today that they comply with important eu legal obligations. Maybe they will say yes to a meaningful local agreement for third party enforcement ten years from now. Will we look back and say, wow, look how far we've come? We are here to answer that question with you today. Thank you.
37 Good morning, chair Kanal, vice president Ryan and Koyama Lane and members of city council. My name is jt hendricks, and I'm a lifelong Oregonian who lives just up highway 30 in warren. I've had the honor of working at the Portland terminal for the last 23 years under its previous five owners. As a member of this community, I place the highest importance on safe operations and stewardship of the environment. Our environment. I've served as the terminal manager for the last eight years, and I'm proud to report there have been no reportable spills during that time. During my time as terminal manager. The Portland terminal is the largest renewable fuel storage facility in pacific northwest. It provides essential supply to meet the region's climate goal in the transportation sector, and is critical to accomplishing the city of portland's renewable fuel standard to reduce dependance on fossil fuels. Since there is no pipeline delivering renewable fuel to the Oregon market, storage is required to handle the rail and marine imports. My job is to ensure the handling of our renewable fuels is done safely, in full compliance with local, state and federal regulations. So the federal oversight is conducted by the u.s. Coast guard, the federal railroad administration, osha, department of homeland security, and EPA. State oversight, as you know, is conducted by the deq and the department of transportation, while local is conducted by the bureau of environmental services, Portland fire and rescue, Portland permitting and development, and the bureau of planning and sustainability. In addition to ongoing oversight from those agencies, we are required to have robust emergency response plans. These include a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan. This plan is a worst case scenario plan that is required by the EPA for facilities that could release fuel into navigable waters. We conduct annual drills with both the deq and clean rivers cooperative, who is a non profit spill response organization providing mutual aid. We also have a facility response plan. This plan is approved by dick ensuring that our facility can effectively contain and clean up significant spill, thereby minimizing environmental impact. We also have an earthquake response plan. In this case, the terminal would shut down operations and inspect for spill and damage post earthquake. To better understand the terminals seismic readiness, we have conducted two site specific vulnerability assessments that were conducted by Oregon registered engineers in both 2020 and 2022. These included soil borings and cone penetrations tests throughout the facility. The third party engineers concluded that the terminal poses low risk in connection to a 9.0 magnitude seismic event. The Portland terminal is essential piece of Portland and city renewable fuels infrastructure. I urge the council to approve this franchise agreement transfer so it may continue to serve the market safely. Thank you for your time.
38 Okay, be patient with me because I usually have to have prepared things. But listening to this, I just can't go with my original remarks. Let's do some fact checks. Isq is a giant private equity firm with 79% of its energy holdings in fossil fuels. We know just now, despite the sdr, and do no harm discussion that they have illegal numerous ledger, a long ledger of illegalities and fines. In the uk. We know that there are suits against their business practices and their shady practices in both new york and florida, and it's kind of hard to even imagine that the real possibility that isk could have even less of an ethical compass than the shady, dishonest lawbreaking zenith. We've been dealing with. City administrators justified their backroom deal with zenith based on the unfulfilled promise that they would transition fully to renewable fuels by 27. We've talked to you numerous times, and maybe we need to have another session with you to talk about the problematics of renewables, and that they have many of the same problems and are not necessarily a climate solution, but clearly ongoing. If you look at the facts around what zenith went and did after they made that promise, you can look at their fossil fuel expansion and exports and know that they never had that as their their real intent. And now they're leaving town. As advocates predicted, the city was scammed. When the city when will the city say no to bad players out of step with Portland policies and values? If isq wants to be welcomed into our community, come and set up a time to talk to the public about our concerns that we've repeated and repeated and repeated. Listen and agree to a good neighbor agreement with us that will really address those concerns. Within the franchise agreement, council should ensure oversight, such as regular performance evaluations, with violations viewed as cause for termination. Plus, council must pass a separate emergency resolution preventing fossil preventing fuel expansion permits until the cei hub policy has been implemented. Without this protection, our safety remains vulnerable to profiteers from outside our community, who we know have shown little regards to community safety and concerns in other places. When will city leaders take the crisis of climate change and public safety seriously enough for right action before the ruin of all we hold dear, including potentially our very existence? And just finally, I mean, it's just laughable. Some of these things that people say, we see these greenwashing dog and pony shows over and over again. What you just said about the core samples, every single group around there that had core samples had an exactly contradictory showing when dick in terms of like the risks. And so what does that say about zenith? They have something totally different than everything around them. I'm sorry.
39 Heather is joining online.
40 Thank you. Good morning. My name is heather king. I'm co-executive director and local lower Willamette riverkeeper for Willamette riverkeeper. I want to start by thanking you for the opportunity to testify today, and also for continuing with the public hearing process and not backing down to zenith. In their lawsuit, Willamette riverkeeper has deep concerns about the proposed franchise transfer from zenith to I squared capital. Despite requests, the city has not made full documentation related to this franchise transfer available to the public, and the proposed ordinance includes references to materials that were not made available to us. The city must make them available before city council votes on this matter. This transparency is needed for many reasons, but largely due to the city's mishandling of zenith in the past and the secrecy that accompanied it. For years, the city has shown an unwillingness to hold zenith accountable. Because of this, the franchise agreement should be strengthened to allow for third party enforcement. The people of Portland need to be protected, and as the city has continually fallen short, there needs to be a way for the public to enforce this franchise agreement. If I squared has similar failings to what we have experienced with zenith, if the city is going to transfer this agreement to an unknown international entity, it needs to put protections in place now to ensure compliance with the agreement and all that goes with it. The city is currently undergoing a transformation, with a focus on the cei hub and the immense harm it will cause to the people of Portland and beyond if the status quo continues. Zenith is a part of this problem, and right now we have an opportunity to strengthen the franchise agreement and better protect the city that we all love. Thank you.
41 Thank you.
42 Don rosa. Next up, we have skyler cruz, laurie king, margaret thomas, victoria burka, rt, vijay kumar.
43 Good morning. I'm going to use my testimony written on my phone because it's easier for me to read. Good morning, city councilors. First, I want to say what a privilege it is to live in this beautiful city. I moved to Portland from kansas in 1977. Thank you. One day I went with some friends of mine to the coast, and on the way we went by the Willamette river. I saw the cbi hub for the first time. We didn't know much about it back in the 70s. It had chevron on some of the tanks. Since living here, I've seen it many times and have learned more about the danger of a serious earthquake. A major earthquake occurs in the cascadia subduction zone. Approximately every 500 to 600 years. The tanks which zenith owns are on unstable ground. Forest park is across saint helens road from the hub. It covers 5170 acres and stretches along the west side of Portland for eight miles. The forest fire, fueled by any amount of oil and liquid natural gas, would exacerbate an already disastrous seismic event. Geologists have stated that a major 9.0 quake is overdue for the cascadia subduction zone, and could occur at any time. Any plans to transfer ownership of any part of the hub should include a mitigation plan, which should be evaluated by city council before the transfer is approved. Alternatively. Alternatively, zenith could make a mitigation plan and implement it before the sale. The ideal scenario would be to decommission the hub, dismantle it, and move it to a more stable location if we actually need it for our economy. I suspect this would not be an inexpensive operation, but we have to consider what a major earthquake and forest fire this close to dense residential neighborhoods would cost us, not to mention the possible loss of forest park. Thank you.
44 Skylar is joining us online.
45 Hello city council. My name is skylar cruz. I'm a resident of district four here in Portland. First off, I want to say the zenith suing the city to push along the franchise agreement. Very disgusting. Don't like to see that at all. You know, part of my experience as a young person who shows up to city hall, along with a lot of other young people, is the feeling that every time you speak, you are going to be silenced constantly, that your words aren't taken seriously. And this feels more and more true. Like the further you are away from the norm. As a trans person, I don't feel like I'm taken very seriously. I have evidence of that. It's very unfortunate to see that happen, but I think we need to understand whether or not these companies are being taken seriously, are they not by some of the city council? I think we have to really consider, like, what is actually going on here. We have corporations that really want to just take over and have their moneyed interest. And I believe in the economic like well-being of Portland. But what's going on here is really a cash grab without the real understanding of our safety. I live close to the ci hub, and we have just been seeing the effects of these fires recently. We know these fires can occur in Washington park, and those fires could reach the ci hub. It's a real risk to our safety. And we need to be taking this issue very seriously. I don't want to see this franchise agreement rushed. I want to see us incorporate third party support here to make sure that we are keeping this new company. I squared accountable zenith wasn't held accountable. It was incredibly unfortunate to see time and time again, and I don't want to see this process rushed just because some other people with a lot of money think that's the right move. People who don't have a lot of money, but who live here and rely on this wonderful city being functional and not exploding in a giant firebomb. That's what I want to see. Like this is the priority. You serve the people and I want the people to be safe. That's my top priority. Thank you.
46 Laurie is joining us online.
47 Good morning, city council. I wasn't going to testify today. I was simply going to stand by my colleagues who have testified against the passing this this franchise transfer. Today. I want to support lynn hanlon, nick, caleb, diana mason and all. But just hearing some of the testimony from I squared capital, I have to say something myself and that is I square capital is not seeking to buy zenith to simply sell so-called renewable fuels to Oregon. Zenith was explicit that they wanted to become a renewable fuels hub, a so-called renewable fuels hub for the west coast. This is big business that iswhere capital is doing. They're not just trying to help Oregon out. The facility will be operated by zenith. Staff. Do not fall for I square capitals. Modest claims that we heard just now a few minutes ago about. They just want to help Oregon meet it, meet oregon's climate goals. They want to become the west coast hub for renewable fuels. And don't forget that that fuels made from plant stocks are just as flammable, combustible, and toxic as fossil fuels. So they'll be just as deadly in the cascadia subduction zone earthquake. And it's very debatable that these renewable fuels are really carbon friendly, that they will, you know, really help the climate, all those things you have to hear more information about. Don't be bullied into a quick decision today. It's ridiculous that I squared capital has sued the city for not for delaying this decision after the city has been diligently going through a budget process. I mean, that in itself should say something. Do not make the final decision today. You should have all the information. The public should have, all the information that has been withheld. You should have all the information and you should have the time. City council, to look more closely at I square capitals past practice and for ways to keep them accountable. Let's not fall again for what, what what the city has fallen for so many times before. Thank you.
48 Good.
49 Victoria burke, aarti. Vijay. Kumar. Our next panel includes patricia kohlberg, carolyn roderick, max brumm, lindsay hutchison, john schroeder. Patricia. Go ahead.
50 Oh, okay. Thank you. For the record, my name is patricia kohlberg, and I really appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I am a retired primary care physician and public health official for Multnomah county health department. I'm going to start with a point I had not intended to make, but I just want to say that I've read and reviewed one of the most authoritative studies that purports to show that a life cycle analysis of renewable diesel shows a net reduction in greenhouse gases. This is a deeply flawed study, and, among other problems, completely fails to take into consideration the market conditions for various feedstocks. I strongly caution the council against tethering our future to renewable diesel. Regarding zenith, I will say, along with others, that Portland has a long history with zenith, and it's not pretty. There have been deceptions and lies and reversals and backroom deals largely designed to circumvent our community's expressed desire not to expand fossil fuel infrastructure in our community and to effect a significant drawdown of the fuel stored and transloaded at the hub. Many of us have been left with a bad taste in our mouths and diminished faith in city bureaucracy to deal openly and honestly with the public. How can we avoid repeating that history with yet another huge corporation that has no ties to Portland and wishes to enter into? Purpose than to extract profits for shareholders? Because that's what corporations do. And I squared capital has its own history. People have already talked about the 18 violations in the uk, most of which were health and safety or labor violations. If this does not give you pause, it should. I urge the city to slow down the process to allow for ample community engagement, public disclosure of all relevant details of the franchise agreement and provision for a disinterested third party to provide oversight of the agreement. Again, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify this morning.
51 Lindsay.
52 Thank you. Good morning. My name is lindsay hutchison, and I'm a resident of district three. I'm very concerned about the lack of transparency the city has provided to the public on the zenith transfer agreement and around zenith in general, the city has been operating in secrecy behind closed doors in its dealings with zenith for years. The. The proposed ordinance mentions a memorandum and other materials that were not made available to the public. How are we supposed to testify on something when we don't know what the city is using to make their decisions? These materials need to be made public before council votes on this matter, even if. Zenith's lawsuit against the city. Additionally, this is an opportunity for city council to strengthen the franchise agreement by adding the right to third party enforcement. The zenith energy bulk fuel terminal is the largest in the ci hub, with plans to expand. The ci hub is one of the worst public health and environmental disasters in the making. As it currently stands, the city has shown an unwillingness or inability to stand up to zenith, and the public lacks faith that the city will ever do so. This is especially true given zenith's recent lawsuit against the city about this franchise agreement transfer a blatant attempt by two large corporations to bulldoze over the public. I thank city council for allowing this public process to continue, despite the lawsuit adding in third party enforcement to the franchise agreement before it is transferred to a large international entity, would help promote the public's faith in the city. The city would still have every right to enforce compliance, but if it dropped the ball, the public would know that they are still protected. I urge the city to release the materials for public review and strengthen the franchise agreement. I know the city can do better and can stand up to corporate bullies, and I hope I get to see that. Thank you for your time.
53 Max is joining us online.
54 Hello.
55 Go ahead. Max.
56 Hello.
57 My name is max brumm and I'm a district four resident. I'm opposed to the franchise agreement transfer. The public does not have all the available information regarding this transfer deal. As noted from other testimony given, there are several documents that the city staff has not made available to the public, and I would like for that to be made available so we can get all the available information, and we can bring up any other concerns that are present and not hidden behind backroom deals or hidden behind public records requests. The city and past city councils have let us down repeatedly on how zenith has handled business in Portland. From broken laws unwilling to enforce current agreements, shady lobbying practices and lies that have covered two mayoral administrations. Pressure that is placed for not only signing this franchise agreement transfer, but also from the disastrous business practice that zenith has engaged in. I ask before I ask the city to agree, before the city agrees to and signs the dotted line to one, make sure all the documents are made publicly available. Two have reviewed and analyzed them, making sure that this decision is truly the best for the city and for the environment, and for the safety of those who live here. And at a minimum, please attempt to negotiate for a third party enforcement of this agreement so that the community and environmental organizations can ensure the terms of that agreement are upheld. If the mayor continues to ignore his duties. And I just want to add one other note to that. All these lobbyists in favor of this, they are really good at what they're doing. The slickest way to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right amount of time, and then shut up. Thank you for your time.
58 All right. Checking to see if carolyn roderick is here or john schroeder. Next up we have jeremy beausoleil Smith, emily hawley, Jamie partridge, adam harris, harlan schober.
59 As folks are coming up, just want to give a sort of housekeeping announcement that we'll be taking a break just before 11:00. Thanks.
60 Go ahead.
61 Jeremy, go first. I see him.
62 Okay. Go ahead. Jeremy.
63 Thank you. Good morning, city council. My name is jeremy Smith. My generation wants a livable future. We want air. We can breathe, water we can drink, and rivers and forests we can enjoy. Over the past week, we've choked on our poisoned air. That's a direct result of climate change. My generation wants to live long lives and we want to die peacefully. But if we don't stand up to fossil fuel industry, the fossil fuel industry, their bullying and stand up for the safety of portlanders and protect our local democracy, we won't have that opportunity under our city charter. Portlanders are entitled to a full legislative process, including full information about legislative items and the opportunity for public testimony. Zenith energy and I squared capital clearly do not want council to exercise its legislative power, so they're trying to bully you into surrendering your legislative authority and responsibility to the public on a matter of critical importance to public safety. All the documents related to the franchise transfer should be made public. Portland residents and environmental stewards cannot evaluate the essential technical, legal and financial information at issue or review the city administration's own evaluation of this information and conclusions without these documents being made available to the public. In other words, we cannot be full participants in our democracy. This refusal to give the public full information about a matter of great public interest mirrors other efforts, particularly the recent exclusion of environmental leaders from final negotiations with pge on a controversial project impacting ancient trees in forest park. This pattern of deceptive practices must come to an end. It is past time for the city council to hold the administration accountable to basic due process, transparency and compliance with public records requirements. Council must not allow private actors or the city administration to undermine due process until the. The public has received full information related to this franchise approval. There must be a presumption that the mayor and his administrators are hiding information from the public because there's something they do not want us to see. I squared capital's own public statements demonstrate their intent to expand operations at the zenith energy site into a regional fuel hub. This is an extremely concerning proposition and a matter of grave public interest. Expansion of fuel storage at the cei hub compounds the existing catastrophic health and safety risks of this facility for portlanders, our rivers, and our environment. We also know that I squared capital has a record of safety, employment, consumer protection, and environmental violations, at least in the united kingdom, if not elsewhere. At a bare minimum, Portland community members have an absolute right to review documentation related to this matter, to give public testimony, and to ask our city council to attach conditions to any. We must stand up to fossil fuel corporations. Thank you.
64 Chair Kanal vice chair, Koyama Lane and Ryan and committee members. My name is emily hawley. I'm a human rights lawyer and atrocity investigator with a focus on corporate accountability in such abuses. A core limitation upon my own work is the incentive, corporate incentive structures and power. At the end of the day, corporations are motivated by profit. All that really matters is their obligations to shareholders and bottom lines. And without sufficient teeth, the penalties for flouting the rules risks become simply the cost of doing business. Zenith, with its rampant disregard for local regulations and facility that poses an existential risk to Portland, is the archetype. Since zenith first exploited a loophole to swoop in and convert an asphalt facility into oil by rail throughput upon liquefiable soil on a river along the cascadia subduction zone, Portland has witnessed successive city administrations acting to handmaiden what appears to be the equivalent of a house flipping operation. Zenith swept in flouted local regulations to illegally expand storage and throughput, all for the corporate equivalent of a slap on the wrist. Now, zenith hopes to exit Portland and sell the facility at a tidy profit to a company overseeing the expansion of data centers into the amazon. Will I be any better stewards in this area? Only if local officials create the incentives to do so with lucrative incentives to break the rules. It's upon governments to create strong regulatory frameworks that can compete with destructive corporate greed. Fortunately, the 12 of you are not bound to protect zenith's profit margins. But to the steward, the city of Portland, including by mitigating the cataclysmic risk posed by a looming industrial disaster at the cei hub, which threatens the largest industrial disaster in continental u.s. History. When Portland is on fire, I'm sure portlanders would be grateful that it is renewable naphtha stored in those tanks. The communities ask for counsel. Today is easy. We ask you to do your due diligence, including exploring the possibility of conditioning approval, ensure public transparency and allow genuine public engagement. As of today, as demonstrated by incomplete records, responses to records, requests and records delays. The public has not been given the transparency they require. This is a precondition for any decision, and it has not been met. I would also add that I squared plants as the city, as the testimony showed last in the last two weeks, zenith will. The. The management and staff is planned to continue on through I squared, which has been a considerable source of concern. So we ask you today, please ensure the city is not stewarding corporate profit for the price of public safety. The 12 of you wield enormous power in this moment. Please take your responsibility seriously. Thank you.
65 Jamie partridge, adam harris, harlan. Schober. Next up, we have robin bogicevic, anthony resch, diana richardson, rowan. Harvey. Diana lobo. Diana richardson is online.
66 This is.
67 I don't see adam. If he joined on a google pixel five.
68 I don't know. Yes.
69 Okay. Diana, can you hear us?
70 I can hear you, but I am not able to participate at the moment. Okay.
71 Diana, we can hear you. If you want to turn on your video, you can, but you can go ahead and start your testimony. Okay. We'll come back to diana. Rowan. Harvey.
72 Hi. Well, good morning councilors. This has been an eventful morning. My child is in the background, so I appreciate all the patients. But my name is rowan harvey. Pronouns are they them. I'm a lifelong portlander district three resident, parent and field organizer with. Next up, a political home for diverse young people to build political power. I'm urging you I'm urging you to put off the zenith franchise agreement until there is full transparency and disclosure for the public and maybe to get out of Portland. I was born at saint vincent's in Beaverton and spent the majority of my childhood in southeast Portland, just up the street from the kmart on the corner of 92nd. If anyone's familiar with that, I remember the mild summers we had, the downpour of rain that would drench you to the bone in any season, but I don't remember if we went inside because it was too smoky to safely be outdoors. Someone else already mentioned this, but back in 2020, when we had the smoke, my youngest had just been born. He was in August, he's an August baby and we had to stay inside for weeks with a newborn and three year old in order to make sure that everyone could be safe. And luckily, no one got poisoned, unfortunately, and we were also part of that evacuation order. Unfortunately for my children's generation, this could become normal for them. This is because of multiple decisions like this, made over decades by city officials and administration, choosing to commodify land and ignore the real risk for the communities most impacted, like young people of color, in exchange for big money from companies like zenith, they care only for profit without a single thought of the consequences on public health, the environment, or what legacy we're leaving for the next generations to take on. Mayor wilson has consistently shown through his actions that public engagement is not his priority. Rather, he prefers to make deals behind closed doors, away from the public eye. Zenith energy replicates this pattern and is attempting once again to sneak their agenda into our city, this time through an agreement transfer so that another company can instead do it for them under a different name. Where did it go? The company we know little about, aside from the fact that they are funding data centers across the country. And in case you haven't heard, communities in oregon's have made it very clear we don't want data centers rushing into a decision this critical without comprehensive input from the people who call the city home, is unjust and unacceptable. Young people don't want zenith energy utilizing a pipeline in our city to transfer their oil, and we especially don't want them doing it right next to our river. We don't want to be the next national headline with a devastating oil spill that could impact the health and safety of our communities, our soil and our water for generations to come. And if this new company, I ask, has been funding data centers all over, it's not a far off guess to presume that this agreement opens the door for them to build here. And I can assure you that won't go over well with the people you answer to. Passing this agreement today signals to the public that our concerns and our input doesn't hold value for the people we elected to represent us. It signals that the mayor doesn't see himself accountable to the people he represents. It signals to young people we represent who are often the loudest voices in the room for climate change, that the future you're envisioning doesn't include them, and that the impact of your decisions felt by them means nothing. And maybe you won't feel the impact, but your family's next generation will. So I urge you to push this vote until public input has been gathered, until we actually have a transparent process and just kids in here. Thank you for your time.
73 All right. Adam.
74 Hello, I'm adam harris. I live in district three. First off, I and I'm sure others had to take off time. Time off work today to testify. And I really hope there can be more regular evening sessions in the future. I'm testifying strongly against this transfer. While Portland does need some fuels, having them in one concentrated place on unstable soil and right next to the river has always been terrible for the city at any time, but especially in the event of a disaster, and the current smoke is rarely a sample of what we would get if something bad happened there. If this deal is approved, I squared capital wants to expand their chemical storage at the hub. Instead, the city should be concentrating its efforts to draw down and close the hub as soon as possible. And while they promote an increase in biofuel storage in an effort to make the facility seem more appealing, biofuels once made, are no less hazardous and just as dangerous to store in that location. The company companies are already suing the city, claiming the process is too slow for them, considering only their bottom line and not any care about Portland. They're already acting in bad faith, so there's no need to be nice to them, and they're just going to keep acting this bad to the city in the future. Previous administrations have been strangely kind to zenith, somehow never finding fault with their operations. Mayor wilson, in addition to bringing this matter to the council, has ignored serious problems, ingenious practices, and mayor wilson has repeatedly ignored environmental groups in Portland who have confronted him about these issues. If this deal is allowed to go through before it does, the council needs to add serious third party oversight and enforcement to their operation to ensure their responsibility and stop any further backroom dealings, even though these companies would much rather Portland not be allowed to express our concerns about this facility that affects everyone in the city. I encourage everyone who can to testify and write to the councilors with their thoughts on this next time this comes to council, the
75 The operation of the ci hub, and I hate that name and its presence in the city, et al is a much bigger deal and a greater danger than some of you councilors seem to fully realize. I strongly encourage all of you not to buckle to the pressure to rush, and instead fight for the city's safety and think long term about the future of Portland. Thank.
76 Robin.
77 Hi city councilors. My name is robin and I'm a resident of district four. There are some massive issues with resigning this franchise agreement as it currently stands. The biggest one is that it has simply been ineffective at holding zenith energy accountable. Across two mayoral administrations, the city has repeatedly failed to enforce the franchise agreement and rubber stamping that same ineffective agreement without any meaningful public review or accountability would be a critical mistake for our critical energy infrastructure. I'm really concerned about the lack of transparency around this transfer. Community confidence is already really low because of zenith's long history of violating the public's trust. It's your job as council to insist that oversight actually happens, and to make sure that this agreement actually protects portlanders, rather than some corporation. Also, do we even know who this I squared corporation is? They don't appear to have any real history or stake in Portland. From what I've been able to find, I squared is a private equity firm that invests heavily in some pretty hot markets, mostly data centers and fossil fuels. Apparently, it also has plans to expand the ci facility into a more regional fuel hub. This likely means more of those bomb trains moving through Portland just within recent memory. In early July, we had a union pacific train derailed near the steel bridge. We got really, really lucky that railcar was empty. Frankly, with our lack of major earthquakes, Portland has been incredibly lucky in general. But every time a train carrying explosive fuel rolls over that bridge to the ci hub, we're rolling the dice. And how lucky are we really willing to be if this transfer moves forward? We can't let it happen. On blind faith to a shadowy private equity firm. This needs to come with actual public scrutiny and actual third party oversight, and it has to come with some form of actual enforcement. Otherwise, we're just repeating the same mistakes and we're hoping for a different outcome. Thank you very much.
78 Deanna. You're muted. Deanna.
79 Hello. Deanna richardson. Good morning, city council. I had not planned to testify this morning. Instead, I wrote my testimony. But I would like to echo the last three speakers and let that be my testimony. Just to reiterate, there has to be transparency, meaning we have to have we, the public, must have time for the thorough investigation and all of the aspects of this agreement to be made public. And there must be not negotiate for not maybe not try. There must be third party oversight, and it must all be enforceable. Without those three things, you really shouldn't make a move. Thank you.
80 Go ahead. Sir.
81 Hello. Committee of the whole. My name is anthony resch and I am a district three resident and make under $19 an hour. I also wanted to say greetings to the vampire suits that zenith and I-squared, who make a bit more than 19 an hour. I would assume the citizens see you suing the city to stop testimony processes so you can transport a bomb through my city, risking countless lives and infrastructure. It's disgusting to know the risk of the risk of charred flesh and liquefied fat of human beings. Important has a monetary sum, but I'm sure your accountants could tell me about how much that is. As you all step outside today, I want you to look at the eerie orange haze and thick, choking smoke that wafts over the entire city. I want you all to realize that more of this is coming. We can sit around here and recycle beer bottles and do peace signs and greenwash, but the 45,287 fires that have happened in the us this year will be increasing, and we will be dealing with this again and again and again. I don't even really know what to say here. I don't have these incredible speeches. I don't have the same data figures that these other people have. But what is the deal need to be shuffled through the door this quickly so its own citizens don't even get to see the whole process? Is rent due? Does the sale need to happen, or is keith wilson's pizza party canceled? I don't really get it. If you really want to expand the operations of the ci hub and sell it to private equity corporation, thanked by the trump administration, you can at least go through legal channels and show all of us the details and not use expensive lawyers to silence one of the last processes. We, as working class portlanders, have to slow the liquification of human existence for material wealth. City council, I am just asking you do not. Please don't rush this deal. You really do not need to. I'm begging you. Please. Thank you for your time.
82 Thank you. This is kind of a natural pause point. So we're going to take a ten minute break return. We have, I think, 15 ish people left signed up to testify quick. Other housekeeping note we're if we end this topic today, that doesn't necessarily mean any particular outcome. If we end this topic by 12, we'll have the chance to do the vision zero topic in full. If we end it by 1215, we'll at least hear the the four testifiers on that item. If not, then we won't be able to do that. Just wanted to give that context. We'll be back at 1102. Thanks.
83 All right.
84 Thank you. We're now back. And keelan, if you could please call up the next panel when you're ready.
85 Okay. From the last panel. Diana lobo, are you here? Okay. Our next panel includes mark d'arienzo, helena garcia, adam schmidt, lillian weaver, ruth dallas. Lillian is online.
86 Yeah. Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is lillian weaver, and I am a phd student at Portland state studying environmental justice and community emergency preparedness issues around the sci hub. The I squared deal is another example of backroom dealings between the city of Portland and big oil businesses. The city has repeatedly not enforced franchise agreements with zenith, and I have no trust that this will change with I squared, especially given the lack of transparency in the current process. Given this, I ask the council to create a process for third party enforcement of the agreement. Additionally, I squared is indicated that they. They intend to expand zenith. The zenith site for renewable fuels renewables is a is a sparkly and distracting word, but especially given my. My studies of this topic, I've found that renewables are no safer for surrounding communities than other types of fuels. Any fuel expansion at the hub increases risk. Further, there has been a lack of transparency throughout this process. The public deserves access to all of the materials and documents related to the agreement, and sufficient time to understand how they will impact our lives. The mayor and city attorneys are pushing to make this transfer happen, without allowing the public access to vital information. I am asking you to stand up to this pressure and make this a just and fair process. Thank you.
87 Thank you.
88 Bruce is online. Ruth. You're muted.
89 Hi, my name is ruth dallas. I am a resident of district two and I have prepared testimony, but I'm just going to reduce it to two points. One is that renewable fuels are only renewable if really reducing reductions in greenhouse gases if they're made from waste fuels, there is nowhere enough, nearly enough, not even a fraction of enough waste fuels available to make these fuels. Instead, they'll be made in the global south, cutting down all sorts of food crops and planting just soy and palm oil to make these fuels. And then they are no longer renewable. They barely make a dent, or sometimes are just as polluting as fossil fuels. My other point is what several other people have said. If square one is being honest and they're going to be good partners and they really are going to do renewable fuels, then let us see the agreement. Why is the agreement a secret? We should all be able to look at it and there should be third party verification. Thank you very much.
90 Thank you.
91 Okay. From this panel, just checking to see if mark d'arienzo is here. Helena garcia garcia and adam Smith moving on to the next panel. Ben latson, will rasmussen, stephanie mclaren, jonathan nash, Elana boec.
92 Go ahead.
93 Good morning. I'm will rasmussen, administrative law lawyer at miller. Nash been practicing for 20 years. And miller nash has been in this town for 150 years. I am advising skyline renewables on the proposed acquisition, including the limited franchise agreement that's at issue in this hearing. I urge the council to approve and give its consent to this transfer. I am just going to touch on two really short points today. First, the scope of this hearing, the scope of the franchise transfer is really narrow, and the only issue is whether I squared qualifies to operate the pipes in the right of way. It clearly does. The second issue I'm going to hit on is just the real world impact of this decision. The real world impact is whether we have zenith operating the terminal in Portland or we get I squared operating the terminal in Portland. I'll argue I squared is going to be an improvement for the city of Portland. On the first issue though, the scope of this hearing, it's narrow under the terms of the franchise agreement itself. I just want to take a moment to remind the council of the staff report that it heard at the hearing two weeks ago. I wish it was before the testimony today. I think it would have helped a lot of people tailor their testimony. This hearing is just about the pipes in the right of way. It's not about the terminal. And there's only one issue about the pipes. On the right of way. Does I squared have the technical, legal and financial ability to operate those pipes? It clearly does. Council has heard a lot of testimony so far today about a number of things that are other than those narrow issues. Folks spoke about the terminal and its tanks, as opposed to the limited number of pipes that cross front avenue. Other people talked about zenith and its past actions and the recent investigation the city did, as opposed to I squared and its ability to operate those pipes. And many people gave compelling testimony about the realities of climate change in Portland, Oregon, as opposed to the terms of the agreement that govern this franchise transfer. Those broader concerns are fair and important. They're just not the decision in front of this council. Today. I squared is, well more than qualified to operate these pipes in the right of way. It's more qualified than many franchise operators in this city, and so the city should approve it. The second issue I just want to touch on briefly, the only two real world outcomes, zenith or skyline here. People have called for transparency and sustainability and accountability. Those are fair things that all portlanders want. As ben and jules and jerry mentioned earlier, this fund is organized under article nine of the eu sustainable finance disclosure regulation that is called dark Green funds. In the parlance of the eu, it means sustainability is not just a side benefit, it's one of the fund's objectives. It has built into it enforcement mechanisms, it has built into it disclosure requirements, and folks would risk delisting if they didn't follow the pursuits that they said they have. I would just respectfully ask this committee to approve the consent. And I would say if I squared doesn't operate or doesn't qualify to invest in the city of Portland, I don't know who would. Thank you.
94 Okay. In this panel is ben latz and stephanie mclaren, jonathan nash or Elana boec here. Next up we have kathy cohen, calliope ruskin, charis bach.
95 Am I up? Hi, my name is calliope ruskin. I'm a constituent of district two, but I'm a rising junior at lewis and Clark college in district four. I grew up protesting fossil fuels. I remember the bp deepwater horizon oil spill. I was four, I was a child when I knew that the deepwater horizon killed 11 people, an additional 82,000 birds, 6000 sea turtles, and 25,000 marine animals were harmed or killed. A disaster of higher magnitude can occur in our river at the hands of zenith energy, its employees. And now I squared capital. Why haven't you learned from bp? Why haven't you learned from the explosion? Explosions from oil trains. Our blast zone encompasses over one fourth of the city's residents. Why haven't you learned from pipeline failures? I've learned that I can't trust my elected officials to fight against oil companies. But I'm here to beg you. Please don't make it worse. Stand strong against fossil industry bullies and their bogus greenwashing claims and and continue to allow us to do our civil duty of testimony and public access to documentation. I beg of you, no more backroom deals, zenith. And I don't want you to hear our voices because we know the truth. They are a danger to our city and ourselves. I implore this council to explore a third party enforcement condition or provision of this franchise agreement. The public has no trust in either zenith nor I, nor the mayor. A third party would hold all parties accountable for their actions. I ask that there is a full and complete review of this franchise agreement, with ample opportunities for public input. Despite many records requests, the public does not have access to the full evaluations of the proposed franchise agreement. Please release them. Plus, council must pass a separate emergency resolution preventing fuel expansion permits until the sci hub policy has been implemented. When the big one happens and it will, the sci hub will dump 90% of oregon's oil and 100% of its jet fuel into the Willamette. How many animals will die? How many people will die? Their blood will be on these company's hands. Do you trust them? Because our blood is in your hands. Thank you.
96 Miss cassie. Online. Okay. Good morning, city council. My name is chris bok. She her? I'm the climate policy director at 350 pdx. And we represent thousands of people around the Portland area for whom zenith and the cei hub has been a major source of concern for the last decade. You've heard eloquent and informative testimony before me about what is at stake, the way zenith energy has gone back on its word, the extreme danger their bomb trains and toxic tanks pose to the public and the environment, the dubious claims of renewable and sustainable fuels, and the need to renegotiate a franchise agreement that's enforceable with third party oversight. Many of us submitted a joint letter detailing our concerns to what has already been shared. I want to add that we want city council to pass an emergency resolution preventing new or renewed fuel permits until the sci hub policy project has passed and is in effect. If I squared is serious about reducing its climate impact, they will want to partner with Portland to create a new franchise agreement that will reduce emissions and increase safety through a transparent and community engaged process. And so I want to use some of my time to invite us to pause and take a moment to reflect, as human beings who get to steward this place for the present and the future. Today, we can see and feel the impacts of climate change in the smoke blanketing our region in the very color of the light. Take a moment to feel it in your body. I feel it in the back of my throat, in my itchy eyes, and the tension in my shoulders of having to be on alert. Now take a moment to reflect on the Portland that you want to see. What would our rivers look like? What would it feel like to breathe? What would we see when we look around? I do this work partially because I'm a mom. Last night, my teenager and I were talking about the future. I want all of us to be able to look my teenager in the eye and say, we're cleaning up this mess so that they don't have to. Now, as a unique moment of inflection, a moment that doesn't come along every day where you and we have the power to change the terms of this agreement. So please take this moment to renegotiate the terms and start moving into the direction of the Portland that we want to see.
97 Thank you.
98 Kathy.
99 Good morning, committee leaders. My name is cassie cohen. I am a second generation portlander and executive director of the Portland harbor community coalition. Do you recall the preexisting liability that already exists for the city of Portland to clean up the Portland harbor superfund site? Cleanup is supposed to start in two years, allowing I squared capital to qualify to operate. Pipes at the edge of the river will continue a heightened risk of recontamination of the river. It pains me that corporations such as I squared capital calculate the risk of spills and explosions of their infrastructure as minor damages to their profit margins. As you heard already, we share the concerns of risks from proposed renewable oil spills, explosive fire hazards and recontamination of our river, causing irreversible harm to tribal cultural resources and treaty rights as well. With a city that takes pride in sustainability, workers rights, values, quality controls, all city leaders should be as concerned as we are. That I squared capital is not technically legally viable due to its own legacy violations. I squared, representatives said. Commitment to safety compliance leaves a false sense of security. Risk of these violations locally would put portland's environment, residents, workers and infrastructure at even far greater risk than what already exists with zenith and the rest of the very explosive ci hub, the mix of I squared 18 recorded violations are a pattern, not a fluke. Nine safety related safety offenses, six employment related offenses, two environmental, one consumer protection related, six workplace safety or health violations. Labor standards six of them three railroad safety violations prior to a city council vote on this franchise, we expect city leaders to ensure full transparency of all records, including explanations of city leadership and evaluations on its viability. In lieu of these violations, we ask that you share any draft ordinance, language resolution language that should include, we hope, will include third party independent enforcement and oversight on this franchise transfer. Thank you.
100 Anthony rush. Okay, that completes testimony.
101 Thank you. Thank you again, everyone for testifying. Thank you to for everyone for your patience as well as we got through. You know this over two meetings. Colleagues, feel free to get into the queue for technical questions, discussion, amendments, motions, etc. And I imagine we will have requests for either the staff from bts or, and or city attorneys. So please feel free to come up. It's probably going to be you for, for these seats. And going forward, we'll start with councilor Avalos. Thank you.
102 Thank you. And yes, definitely would love staff to come up as I have a few questions. Let me start by just saying that I know this is an issue that many portlanders care deeply about, as we clearly heard in the testimony. And I want to start by acknowledging the elephant in the room that this facility has had a long and controversial history. So many people have lost trust in the city's oversight. And I think it's important that we recognize that history and take those concerns seriously. At the same time, I think it's also important that we're clear about the decision that we have before us today. This is not a vote on whether the facility should exist, or on expanding operations or rewriting the franchise. It's my understanding that today are. The main question is whether this existing franchise can be transferred to a new owner under the legal framework that currently exists, and. But that also doesn't mean that council's role is to just rubber stamp this. We do have an obligation to understand what due diligence has been done and what authority we have under the franchise agreement, and how the city intends to hold this new owner accountable going forward. So my questions are focused on those kind of oversight responsibilities, because if a new owner is going to inherit this franchise, they also need to inherit every obligation that comes with it, in my opinion. And portlanders deserve confidence that those obligations will be monitored and enforced. So with that, could you start by walking me through the documentation that staff reviewed to determine that I ask, or I don't know, what's the best way to call them meets the technical, legal and financial qualifications under the current franchise agreement. Just talk me through how you collected that info, what you were using to base that decision on.
103 Thank you, councilor Avalos. Good morning everyone. For the record, my name is tate white. I am the deputy director of bts, but I am acting director this week as director, engstrom is out on a much deserved vacation. Dca oliveira is also very sorry not to be here. He is double booked at a county hearing about the moda center, so I am joined today by andrew speer, who I'm going to let introduce himself.
104 Hi. Good morning council. My name is andrew speer and I'm the franchise utility program manager at bts. With regards to your question, councilor Avalos, we went through four rounds of questions, so we received the request to transfer the franchise in January of this year. And then we went through four rounds of questions with between the councils representing isq as part of the transfer. As part of those questions, we asked kind of four distinct rounds and then received replies back from iscs attorneys as part of our inquiry. Did you? I didn't know if you had a specific question of like.
105 I'll get into some more specifics. So let's start with, was your review based on information that was provided just by I squared, or did the city independently verify any of the information that we received from them?
106 We did a little bit of inquiry into like some of the responses, but primarily relied on the, the information provided, because that was the scopes of the question was only the company could really answer those questions.
107 And did staff also review their compliance and operating history at similar facilities in other jurisdictions? And if so, what factors were considered as part of that?
108 Yes, we, as part of the fourth round of questions, asked for any compliance violations across any of the companies owned or the facilities operated by the by, isq and there were a few pending pending investigations for facilities outside of the u.s. There were no violations or major violations found within the u.s. And so given the materiality and the scope being outside of the us, it was found as not connected to them having safety violations with to operate this facility or, or operate operate this facility in an unsafe way.
109 And so you all note that the council may place conditions on a franchise transfer related to their qualifications. So I'm curious what conditions, if any, did staff consider before recommending an unconditional transfer?
110 Yeah. If you recall, the presentation by director engstrom two weeks ago, the three areas that the franchise agreement allows for conditions to be posed on is technical, legal and financial. Given the. Structure of the company and its financial backing of the different chains that we showed in the slides of the holding companies which own ultimately own the the company requesting the transfer and their ability to operate the facility in conjunction with their other facilities in a safe manner. There was nothing found within the documents we reviewed that would pose staff recommending some type of obligation outside of the current franchise.
111 So to clarify, when you say technical qualifications, it's not so does it just mean operating the facility or does it include include things like compliance programs or organizational capacity to meet ongoing regulatory obligations?
112 Yeah. Well, there's a little bit of nuance within your question. The the franchise is really only connecting to the pipes crossing front avenue. And so it's the operations of those pipes crossing and transporting fuel across them that we're talking about. Within regards to compliance for the franchise agreement, there's not that many aspects of compliance obligations to the company. They need to pay their fees to the city for accessing the right of way. So that is one piece. They need to also provide bond and insurance requirements, obligations. So if an event was to happen or on a permit, there was an issue during construction, the bond or the insurance could be called upon. And then there's other provisions that are like what we're here today under section eight, which are transfers, right? Which are kind of obligations between the company and the city in this case, to transfer it to a different entity. So we looked at all of those as part of our review with that scope in mind, and didn't find any thresholds for additional obligations to be provided.
113 And to be clear, if the new owner wants to modify any portion of the franchise agreement in the future, is that going to require council action?
114 Yes. The the agreement a franchise agreement is a contract, 1 to 1 contract between the city and the company. In this case, it would need mutual agreement by each party to enter into negotiations to amend the contract.
115 Lastly, given the public interest in this facility, did staff consider whether any additional reporting or transparency expectations would be appropriate under the city's existing authority, even if the underlying franchise itself is not being renegotiated.
116 Again, there weren't any areas of the franchise that allow for us to impose those. Given the three categories that we outlined of technical, financial and legal.
117 Okay, well, thank you for answering those. I think what I'm hearing is, well, actually, maybe one final question. If council wants to have that discussion, I guess, what is the method in which we can like is it we discussed that? I guess I'm just trying to understand what are the ways that we can add extra layers of accountability. If we want to take those steps.
118 I, I would defer to the city attorney on that. I mean, there's multiple venues, but I can't recommend anything.
119 Okay. I'll just follow up with the city attorney later. Thank you.
120 Thank you. I know we do have city attorneys on the back, so if you're able to come up. Would appreciate it.
121 Thank you for my question. I'm good. I'll follow up.
122 Okay. I will have one for for city attorneys, even if you don't councilor Avalos. So in the next few minutes, if you could. Councilor. Morillo. And then. Councilor.
123 Green thank you chair. I almost called you president. Thank you guys so much for being here today. And thank you so much to everyone who came and testified today to provide a variety of perspectives. But I was especially moved by the community members who I know have been working for years, if not decades, on this issue and trying to make sure that the city is accountable. So I just want to level set and say that if the city isn't doing our part to be as transparent in the process as possible, we are going to inherently incur the wrath of some very well organized folks. And I personally would like not to do that. I would love for this process to be as transparent and smooth as possible, so that should everything be going well, then we have that trust established. So I just want to start with that, just making sure that we are getting whatever records the public needs to them and answering their questions fairly, because that is at the very least what they deserve. And I feel as a councilor That in many of our processes we have been rushed and given limited information. So if I, as a councilor Feel that way, I am certain that the public feels even worse. With that, I had a question about the I squared article nine aspect of this, and perhaps this is a legal question, so let me know if I shouldn't direct it to you. But they stated in their testimony that the commitment to end fuel storage is binding, and I want to know what exactly that means from a legal perspective by it being actually binding. So maybe, maybe the city attorney should come up.
124 I don't know if nancy thornton or robert taylor either. If you would come up, please.
125 Thank you.
126 Councilor robert taylor, city attorney. And I have nancy thornton here also from my office. Can you can you restate the question, please?
127 Yeah, I just wanted some clarity on the I squared testimony. They were talking about how article nine means that they are legally bound to they have a commitment to end fossil fuel storage by 2027, I think was the date. And I wanted to know how what exactly that commitment means in terms of it being legally binding and what the enforcement is for that if they don't do it.
128 I I'd be happy to follow up with you on that in a later communication.
129 Okay. Should we just save any and all legal questions for later?
130 I'm happy to do my best here, but I to be able to fully answer that question, it would help me if I had an opportunity to think about that.
131 Okay. That's fair. I think that given the. I have a lot of questions that perhaps can't be answered in this venue, so I definitely don't feel comfortable approving anything today without more information. And I'm just saying that here for my colleagues, I'm going to need more time to look at this. We were during a very busy budget season. Then we just ended that. Now we're jumping into this, and I think council needs the opportunity to do our due diligence on this. We don't this is not something that can be rushed. If we want to gain public trust or do our due diligence as city councilors. And frankly, since. We've already threatened a lawsuit, I feel like I can take my time now. But okay, I guess we can't answer any questions here, so I'll just loop back with you later.
132 Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Green and councilor Pirtle-guiney.
133 Thank you. Thanks for everyone who gave testimony. There was an idea floated during testimony that I'm kind of curious about, which was the the concept of a of attaching conditions. And so robert and nancy, I hope that you can help me answer some questions up here on the fly and but I'm looking at section eight two a, which is in the franchise agreement, which defines the consent of transfer clause there. And it says the city may condition any condition, any transfer this franchise upon, upon such conditions related to the technical, legal and financial qualifications of the prospective party to perform according to the terms of this franchise. And then it goes on to say, as it deems reasonably appropriate. And so I guess my question would be that last independent clause there, as it deems reasonably appropriate. Like, what does that mean, context of this clause?
134 Well, it would mean that we as was discussed earlier, the franchise is is focused on the the pipes in the right of way. And so you can condition based on those three factors. And those conditions would have to be reasonable. So they can't be unreasonable. That's what that last phrase is referring to. So it's got to be focused on the operation of the pipes in the franchise and the legal technical. And financial ability to operate in the right of way. And the conditions have to be reasonable.
135 All right. And so then thank you. And so there was an ask to sort of attach some sort of an emergency resolution somewhere along this process, either along with the item or, or independently to, to kind of hold any new permit issuances or any new capital expansion there. And so we've adopted some broader policy making. And so I wonder, would it be appropriate to attach. A directive or a finding in this ordinance to say the city is currently engaged in a comp plan and zoning policy thing that's going to be coming to us very shortly? And so until we've council's considered that, then we would not issue new work and then let the transfer go forward as as it is otherwise. Would that be appropriate? Would that be reasonable?
136 I'd like some time to think about that. Before I talked about that in this venue. And I do think if we were because there is that reasonable requirement in any conditions, I think it would be in the city's interest to work with. I squared to to understand their view on those conditions.
137 I appreciate that, and I mean, I think that is also reasonable to kind of think that through and not from the dais. That's why I'm not interested in trying to floor amend something like that to that end right now. But I needed to ask that question here while you guys were here, because we heard it multiple times from testimony. I think what we had heard earlier in our conversation about the predecessor company involved here was this idea that, let's be forward looking here. Let's think about how we can do some forward looking comp plan and zoning code changes. And that work is actually very near to completion. And so I wonder if there's an opportunity to sort of say, let's give some comfort to the community here by, by kind of meeting that moment here. And that's, that's what I'm interested. So I look forward to working with your, your office and seeing if that's a thing that we can attach to this. And I think that's probably the question I have for now. I think councilor Morillo had asked some other questions about the studies. And, you know, there was I think it
138 His findings four, eight, nine and ten or something to that effect that referenced some documents. I'd be interested in seeing those as attachments. Thanks.
139 I believe you already have those. Those should have been sent to you, but happy to, you know, make those public and, you know, publish them with the agenda.
140 Yeah. I think if they can be attached as exhibits to this agenda, that would go a really long way. Thanks.
141 We can do that.
142 Thank you. Councilor Green. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Followed by councilor Zimmerman.
143 Thank you chair. Councilor Green. You just asked my first question, which is can we get those items attached as exhibits or are they privileged for any reason? And it sounds like there is a commitment to attach those to the agenda items so that the public has access to them. Is that accurate?
144 Correct. Yes.
145 Would those be just so that folks know what to expect? Would those be the complete set of documents, or are there some documents that the attorneys would need to review before being able to post everything?
146 I believe everything that was listed in the in the ordinance itself is public record. So I'll take a final look to make sure that that's true. But yeah.
147 Great. Thank you. I want to just note related to that. And unfortunately we don't have the administrator with us today. He makes most of our meetings. I don't mean any criticism by that, but I wish he could hear me say this. We're dealing with a topic where there's not a lot of public trust. And I think the city sometimes makes unforced errors. And it sounds like by not sharing documents on this one that are not privileged that we can easily post, we made a bit of an unforced error. And I want to actually say that differently, because I don't want to wrap council up in that choice. The administration made an unforced error. For folks in the community. We can't change what error was made, but if we can get it fixed moving forward, I hope that that's helpful. And I appreciate you all being willing to post those. The second question that I had was also about the topic that's come up about the expansion of permits. Can you speak to the process of of any requests for expansion for permits that would allow expanded capacity if that request was made after this transfer? What process would that take?
148 Under the franchise agreement? Councilor. The any expansion of facilities is allowable on the on a defined portion of front avenue. And so we would need to know the plans and what, what what different pipe. You know, they're looking to expand or number of pipes and in what section of front avenue. And then we would be looking at, you know, within the scopes of the franchise, if there's any call out of any use of or transportation of fuels, and if there are deviations from what is allowable within the agreement, then we would work with the company to understand if, if those were allowable under the agreement or not before issuing the approval under the franchise. And then there's a second step that then they would be allowed to then pursue permits with PBOT as part of the construction in the right of way.
149 So any expansion, and to be clear, for the sake of this process, we really are only talking about the expansion of access in the public right of way, the expansion of the the piece before us, the franchise agreement before us. It sounds like there is an assumption of approval if conditions are met, but that does need to go through a full lengthy permit process permitting process.
150 For the request that comes to us. It's not technically a permit, but they must seek approval before expansion.
151 Okay. And under this particular franchise agreement, you had said there were some conditions that had to be met. Do you know if this particular franchise agreement allows for for easy expansion or if there are significant limitations?
152 There was a an amendment to the franchise after 2017 when it was transferred to zenith, and it revised certain aspects of what could be transported. And so that's that was passed via a second ordinance. But, you know, attached to the original ordinance, which is a franchise agreement. And so there's certain requirements on the few. It's not fuels, but it's the chemical, the composite makeup of what's allowable in the pipe. And so that would take into effect once the request was made, we would look at both franchises or excuse me, both ordinances to evaluate the request.
153 Okay. So it sounds like there may be a little bit more digging that we need to do there for me to fully understand how much risk there is of expansion.
154 It's my understanding that that that second ordinance that was passed was in conjunction with being, allowing to transport chemicals that would be needed in the process of renewable fuel. So that's the only context I have for that second one.
155 Heard, I think I'm looking for some information around total amount. It sounded like what community members were concerned about was the total amount of product that was moving through and an expansion, not in type, but in amount. But I can try to find that out at a further time. That seemed like it was an ask for us to do something separate from this process. So I may not need the answer today. I think I'm going to end there and thank you all. Look forward to seeing those documents posted on the agenda. Thanks, chair.
156 Thank you, councilor Councilor Zimmerman, followed by councilor Smith.
157 Thank you. There was a discussion about reasonable reasonableness, I believe, a few years ago that Multnomah county there was a commissioner That was pursuing risk bonding. I don't know that they ever got that across the line, so to speak. But in that sense, in this case, is adding a risk bond provision. Would that be considered reasonable? And I look to all four of you, because I'd actually don't know where the best place to throw that question toward.
158 I think I think that's something we could discuss with the, the I squared to see if that would be something that we could work through as a condition.
159 Okay. Thank you. That's all.
160 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman, councilor Smith and myself.
161 Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you all for the presentation. Just in terms of the scope of work and the expansion, how much new work is expanded to the scope of work that will be done with the new franchise?
162 Councilor? There's no request as part of this transfer to expand the facility.
163 Okay, that's that's what I was trying to figure out. Thank you. So it's the same scope of work, correct? Okay.
164 Thank you.
165 Thank you, councilor Smith. I'm next in the queue. I appreciate everyone being here. Thank you for the presentation before, as well as for being here to answer questions. I recognize the the scope. A lot of what councilor Greene and councilor Pirtle-guiney said is in my notes as well. I think the the questions I have. So in terms of the the records being added, I agree completely about the public trust issue that councilor Pirtle-guiney raised, and I actually had unforced error in my notes verbatim as well. So by the administration here, I think, is that something that we'd be able to get amended or proposed or I guess, floated as an amendment to put into the public record prior to public testimony on this at council, because there will be another consideration of this item by council.
166 Yeah. And robert taylor, city attorney, just to be clear, so that under the. We handle records, requests and records we receive under the public records act, there's a provision in the public records act that says that documents that are provided to a public entity in in confidence and in with the assurance that they'll be held in confidence will be treated as such by the public entity unless the public interest requires their disclosure. And we operate under that all the time with various different members of the public or corporations who provide information that the city requests. And this information was was requested by the city. It was provided as part of the due diligence. We treated it like we do those other types of documents. Under the public records law, there's been requests, public records, requests that are filed. Based on the testimony today, I think it's clear to me that the public interest is is in the disclosure of it, and we will follow that public interest. We will disclose that information.
167 Great. Thank you for the staff, and thank you for being here. Items related to the broader policy conversation have been approved out of the planning commission in March, but not yet filed with us. And some testifiers have alleged that the city is delaying the proposal of the planning commission items to council and to this committee in order to allow for the sale and franchise transfer associated with the terminal to go through and new ownership to file permits under the current rules before council changes the rules. If we approve those planning commission referred items. As pointed out, there's a lack of public trust on this issue among the public, and so I want to ask these two questions on the record. To your knowledge, is that the intention on the rush of the franchise transfer and or the delay of the planning commission referred items?
168 Thank you for the question. Councilor Kanal. Again, for the public record, my name is tate white. I am acting director of bts right now, permanently deputy director and yes, the ci hub project has been going on since last year. It has involved significant public process and gone through the planning commission. I could go through all of that, but given our time, I'm going to acknowledge. Yes. On March 10th, portland's planning commission voted to forward it to city council for consideration, and staff have been working really hard to develop the draft code for title 17 related to the drawdown program, and released a public review of that in June. And we held public engagement on that. It's a really complex project requiring updates to the comprehensive plan as well as that title 17. So that's why we've needed to take this time to involve that process. And then last week, director engstrom did make a request to come to the committee of the whole to to review that. So it is a very complex project, and we have been diligently working on it for for over a year, and there's no intention to slow that down.
169 Thank you. It's a follow up on that is, to the best of your knowledge, has any person in the city discussed creating a deliberate gap between the franchise transfer and the broader ruler code changes?
170 No. Definitely not. I think they're tangentially related, but they are sort of separate processes overseen by by different scopes of work and authority.
171 Thank you. So I think we've we've had a couple questions. This might be more on the lawyer side about conditions. Another thing that I don't think has been brought up post testimony is are we able to develop conditions based on a good neighbor agreement that was floated in testimony. And I just wanted to get the the the that on the record.
172 I think there would be a separate process if we wanted to engage in the good neighbor agreement type conversation. I. And again, any, any conditions that you impose as part of the approval of the transfer or focused on the pipes in the right of way and the legal, technical and financial ability to operate those in the right of way. So that that's the framework we're operating in. And I think the good neighbor agreement might be a separate conversation.
173 So if just to clarify, I appreciate that answer in in the event that the good neighbor agreement, because certainly a potential failure of pipes under the right of way would affect neighbors as well, even if everything else with the terminal was perfect. So isn't there a potential narrowly scoped good neighbor agreement?
174 I think I think that's a definitely a possibility. We can discuss with I with I squared. I think there were some other yeah, I we'd be happy to talk about that. I think there were some other ideas that were floated that, that that may be more connected to the, the actual franchise.
175 And I appreciate that. And similar question about the third party enforcement request. And I think we've had the questions on what is the existing enforcement look like? And under the article nine scope, and certainly didn't expect to have european union regulations be a topic here today, but would be curious about how that conversation. Is that the same answer? Effectively, we could we need to kind of scope it out between now and when it comes to council.
176 Yes.
177 Okay. I appreciate that. And that concludes my questions. Councilor Zimmerman, are you still in the queue or is that a legacy hand? Okay, so colleagues, we have the option of there are no prefiled amendments. We have the option of discussing it further, but there's nobody in the queue right now. Or someone could make a motion at this time with relation to referral. Nobody's in the queue. I don't know if wants councilor Ryan, your mikes on. So if you wanted to.
178 To your question again, are you asking if we're calling the question.
179 Yeah. I mean, I, we would need either a motion to refer this to the full council with a due pass recommendation or a motion to refer this to the full council with no recommendation or I guess theoretically, a request to continue it. But otherwise there's nobody in the queue to discuss this item.
180 So staff has recommended this. I trust their due diligence as professionals. I say we we move this forward.
181 And would you like to put a recommendation on that?
182 Yeah, I mean, I just said I, I'll be supporting.
183 It so that that's a motion to refer to the full council with the due pass recommendation. Is there a second?
184 Second.
185 Okay, I think I'll. Councilor. Novick on that one was first. Now there are colleagues in the queue for discussion on that motion. So, councilor Novick, would you like to speak to it?
186 I.
187 I think I agree with what councilor Ryan just said. I would like to I mean, I understand that we have a narrow issue here, and I would like to get zenith out of town. I think that the. We can we can we can approve this, this transfer and take up other issues without limiting our ability to take up other issues, such as oversight as we go along.
188 Thank you. Councilor Novick councilor Morillo, then councilor Green.
189 Yeah, I think I've been repeatedly told when I've tried to move policy forward quickly in committee, that committee is the place to workshop policy and to make sure that we're doing our due diligence and digging into it. And sometimes people will even have a policy go through committee twice, three times, four times, really interrogate it. People have done that to almost all of my policies. So I think that for an issue that impacts the entire city and the well-being of all of our residents, we should do our due diligence and look into anything. I am pretty concerned by the testimony that was here today, and the there are clearly questions that need to be answered, even if there's nothing new that comes out of having more discussion, there is. We clearly do not have the public trust. And if we don't have the public trust, we're just going to endure. You know, if portlanders want us to be reelected, you're going to have another four years of people not trusting the decision that you made and then being upset with all of us. So I would rather earn the public trust than make the decision. So again, we are in a committee right now, even if it's just committee of the whole, I think we should take time to evaluate everything that's before us and to really bring the public along in that discussion. Thank you.
190 Thank you, councilor Morillo, councilor Green. And then I'm next in the queue.
191 Yeah. Thank you so much, chair Kanal. You know, we did a zenith franchise investigation that I think was left a lot of questions unanswered. And to while I understand this is a very narrow scope consideration, it's still the point at which the city has a regulatory checkpoint. And if we're not going to exercise that checkpoint by attempting to put conditions on that, that satisfy some of the more forward looking policy frameworks that we might consider with the public together and as a body, then we've missed a moment there, and we've already gotten commitments to attach the documents that I think the community has been asking for. So I would not vote to pass this out of committee today. I think that, you know, we should keep discussing it. Hearing committee. Thanks.
192 Thank you, councilor Green. I'll put councilor Pirtle-guiney and then follow that.
193 Thank you. Chair, you know, to zenith, the lawsuit you filed is not helping us. This should be a straightforward process. There are many items coming where we get to dig in on what is happening in the ci hub, and a. A transfer of a franchise with a very narrow scope shouldn't be where we dig in. But that lawsuit has raised old distrust and I think not helped us move forward quickly. And I've already discussed the lack of trust that the city has stirred up through not releasing documents. And despite all of that, we still have a very narrow scope before us. Colleagues. Technically, can this company operate the franchise? I ask that question when we were first briefed on this, and the fact that the same staff are going to be staying on on the ground and operating, this leads me to believe that, yes, technically they can legally can they comply with local laws? Well, we've heard that they choose not to comply with local laws as a company in some other places, but they have local counsel who know the local laws. They can legally comply with our local laws financially. Are they qualified to maintain the infrastructure? I think for better or worse, the fact that this is a a very large financial company, investment company means that they they likely can keep up the infrastructure. And so I'm hearing a lot of concern about not having these documents. And I think we need to post them and have that transparency. I'm hearing a lot of concern about other pieces that I want us to dig into on the other questions that are coming about ci hub, but I'm not sure what waiting does to help us answer those questions, because it seems to me that the answers to those questions are quite straightforward. So I'm not sure if anybody else is going to be in the queue to provide information on why they have doubts raised there, but right now I'm not seeing the argument to wait, despite the fact that I think this process has not moved in a way that allows it to be straightforward, as it should have been. And despite the fact that as many folks have raised here today, there are a lot of questions that we need to answer about the operations of all of the entities within the ci hub more broadly. And I think one testifier said early on, they want us to get through this so we can get to those questions quickly. And I think I'm sitting with that comment pretty firmly right now. Thank you, chair.
194 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. I'm next in the queue. So speaking as the chair of this committee, I think attempting to bully me out of letting people testify on this item was not a good way to demonstrate. I don't know, whatever the intent was there to demonstrate, but this is a place where people get to testify. That's the point. So I just want to get that on the record here. Testimony is not a delay. Testimony is a part of any credible process that involves the public in any way, and especially when someone when the bully's own business partners are among the testifiers. I think that's worth noting as well. So I appreciate that at speaking. Now, just in terms of my vote, I appreciate every point the councilor Pirtle-guiney made. I agree with that. I think that one of the concerns is, and this is true in all the land use conversations we have, we often are limited in our decision making power to, to, to things that are a narrower scope than what we discuss in broader policy conversations. And so it is challenging to do that. I know that we have the first reading anticipated, based on the request that that deputy director white pointed out, to have the the broader ci hub project come to council or come to this committee. Sorry, we have that currently penciled in for September 16th. And so I'm looking forward to that. I also understand here that the scope is much narrower for me. My vote will be based on. And I took the pains to clarify whether there was a due pass or no recommendation on it. That's the reason for my vote. But I'm happy to help move this to a decision. At this moment, I'll just be voting based on the ask to make a recommendation to the full council to approve it or not. So with that, I don't see anyone else in the queue. We have a motion to refer this item on to the full council with a due pass recommendation. Keelan would you please call the roll.
195 Document 2026-263 moved by Ryan. Seconded by Novick Koyama Lane. No. Morillo.
196 No.
197 Novick I.
198 Clark I.
199 Green no.
200 Zimmerman I.
201 Avalos no.
202 Dunphy I.
203 Smith I.
204 Pirtle-guiney I.
205 Ryan I Kanal.
206 No. The motion is approved with a vote of seven ayes and five nos. The ordinance is referred to full council with the recommendation that it be passed.
207 Thank you everyone. We'll move into the next item now. Keelan would you please call the next two items together?
208 Being part of the.
209 Community, caring about the environment.
210 Items three and four document 2026-262 vision zero updates and document 2026-276 vision zero public input.
211 When will you have that discussion?
212 Thank you colleagues. So while we're kind of having a changeover here, I want to welcome back dana dickman. We are going to have testimony, and I'd like to do that first. And then with time permitting after that, dana, you had some responses to some of the questions that we brought up.
213 The testimony.
214 Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that based on whatever time is left after that, and that's why we had these two items called together, similar to my comment on the previous item. I want to thank those who wanted to testify on this. We didn't have that opportunity last time. I apologize for that. But we did make an opportunity for vision zero testimony this time. So with that keelan, if you could please call up our panel of testifiers.
215 We have five people signed up. Sarah reiser, justin skolnick, mike dennis, jordan lewis, joe rowe.
216 And feel free to.
217 Start whenever.
218 You're ready. Thank you.
219 Can I go ahead? Okay. Good morning councilors. My name is sarah reiser. I support crash victims in Portland through my work with families for safe streets. Since learning about PBOT plans to prioritize paving over safety on west Burnside, joey capone and his family have been on my mind and in my heart. Joey was killed on west Burnside as a pedestrian in 2022. The loss of joey's life is unimaginable, but the damage from that crash extends beyond losing joey. That crash inflicted life sentences of grief on pam capone, joey's mother, cassie capone, joey's sister, and ella capone, joey's wife. There are many more who continue to grieve that I can't mention to many, these people are also victims of dangerous road traffic, and they are your constituents. Plans for west Burnside don't reflect city plans or vision zero principles. This project calls for paving now and safety improvements later at meeting. At a meeting earlier this week, a PBOT employee justified this by saying Burnside has critical paving needs. She didn't mention burnside's critical safety needs, despite the reality that it's traffic kills people by deferring safety, PBOT implicitly condones sacrificing human lives in the short term to prioritize driver convenience. Again, this approach flouts vision zero objectives and goals. On September 17th, 2025, this council approved a resolution brought by councilor Lane to reaffirm the city's commitment to vision zero. That resolution created a new task force. There's no seat at the table for safety advocates, nor are advocates allowed to sit in or listen in on these meetings at this time. So we don't have any idea what the task force is working on and talking about. This is problematic for many reasons, but especially because it makes it hard to be effective and helpful. At that September 2025 meeting, councilor Avalos introduced a friendly amendment to ensure meaningful community engagement is built into the vision zero task force, including its analysis and action plan. Councilor Lane accepted the amendment and and underscored its importance, saying, we need to know that there will be a connection to stakeholders from the community. I appreciate dana dickman's concern on this item. I know it's on her radar and we have been communicating about it, but as of now, the community is not a part of the task force, its analysis or formation of the action plan in any way. So the friendly amendment from Avalos is not being upheld. I want to leave with one last point, and that is to urge the committee to distinguish between safety and danger in a vision zero context, and our unhoused neighbors provide a brilliant example. They are vulnerable and therefore they require more effort, more safety interventions. However, they do not cause danger in our traffic system. Thank you.
220 For you.
221 My name is justin skolnick. Two weeks ago, I made the mistake of opening my phone online. Posts alerted me to something that was said in this committee. One of my councilors tried to make a causal connection between pedestrian deaths and substance use. I happen to know a lot about that topic. In fact, iowa prosecutors used my family's grief to get something on the books connecting a quantity of thc with a pedestrian death. I'll get to that. First, I want to quote Dan Ryan directly. He said, unless we start doing better cross-referencing with public health, when it relates to vision zero and bringing in more of a like swat team analysis to really get to the bottom of this, I think we're going to continue to see high numbers, and we can't mask it with other things. Now, everybody knows Dan has two interests, the other being storefronts, but he says he's been persistent about proving that the people getting hit by cars are responsible for getting hit by cars because of drugs. That is the kind of edgy, shoddy thinking I remember from middle school. My kid sister was walking to work. She was 20 years old and trying to establish residency for in-state tuition at the university of iowa, because she discovered that her dream job was actually possible. But to become a nurse practitioner, she had to switch tracks. And so she did. She was strong like that. She was vibrant. She was funny. You would want her attention and care. Most people did. On the morning of September 4th, 2003, she waited at the crosswalk for the signal. At the same intersection, at the same time. A kid her age who'd gotten stoned off his the night before woke up, smoked a big fat blunt, and crawled behind the wheel of his big old suv. The light changed for him the same time. It changed for my sister, and he made his left hand turn into my sister. Investigators found her fingerprints on the fender. This means she knew what was happening to her and tried to stop it. This is physics. This is basic physics. This is mass and velocity. There are straightforward mathematical equations that express how this works. The vehicles are larger and faster moving than the human bodies they're driving into. My five two sister could not fight off an suv. Dan, that is the problem. My sister wasn't on drugs. They ran her blood at the hospital where she died 30 hours later. Do you have the faintest idea how insulting it is to hear a grown man work persistently to pin pedestrian deaths on the pedestrians? Or is being insulting the point? Technically, you are my rep, though you have another constituency, mostly d4, mostly men. Men who, by the sound of what they say, never fully escaped adolescence. They love it when you're bad. Blaming victims is a bad thing. My brother in christ. If this building and its temptations are more powerful than your soul is able to resist, then remove yourself from it and resign.
222 Thank you and thank you from the other panelists for your testimony. And thank you. Committee chair Kanal and vice chairs Koyama Lane and Ryan and members of the committee for the opportunity to provide public comment on vision zero. I'm mike dennis with Oregon walks. Last September, each one of you voted to approve resolution 37716, a resolution that was forwarded by councilor Koyama Lane and co-sponsored by councilors Clark and Green and Morillo and Smith to recommit the city to vision zero. Thank you. Thank you for your leadership standing up for our most vulnerable road users. As you may recall, the resolution reestablished the goal that, quote, no person should die or be incapacitated from simply going about their day, unquote. As the one year anniversary approaches, it's time to reassess or I'm sorry, to assess and test. How serious are we about this commitment in the past year, in one significant test, you all passed the transportation utility fee, and in doing so, you carved out specific funds for vision zero budgets, defined priorities, and you demonstrated vision zero as a priority. Thank you. There's some other tests to determine if we're really determined committed to vision zero or if it's in resolution only. So first, your city staff needs you to stand behind their expertise and for you to stand behind your commitment to vision zero. They're going to be some hard decisions on street design changes. We know that the built environment has the biggest and most lasting impact on saving lives and eliminating injuries. Street design changes must happen to save lives, but change is hard, and changing a transportation system that's prioritized the automobile for decades is daunting. Your leadership and support is necessary to reshape our cities, our streets, our neighborhoods to save lives and make our community safer and healthier. So your constituents may be upset with you. And please use your voice to help explain how we're prioritizing safety and community over convenience and car speed. Second, please stay engaged. Please stay engaged with vision zero. Please. For instance, request a list of prioritized vision zero investments that will give you goals and benchmarks so you can measure how each public dollar is used. Reach out to PBOT staff with questions to problem solve. And I really appreciated you all. Inviting dana dickman, and wendy and clay to come talk to you about vision zero. Think about how you can break down silos, how PBOT can't deliver this vision zero alone. Can we break down silos to bolster community led tactical urbanism, like what strong towns has been proposing, and continue to elevate vision zero across the city? For instance, I know the city is looking to hire a new deputy city administrator for safety. Can you make sure that person and that hiring process and that job description puts vision zero as a priority? My last and final comment is on Burnside. Sarah spoke very articulately about this. We I would just add a comment that I recognize phase one is already underway. We have ten neighborhoods and stakeholders who have spoken loudly about being involved in the future. So please take a beat, integrate the needed safety needs, engage these voices and do the project right from the start. I apologize for going over and really appreciate your time and your commitment to vision zero.
223 My name is joe rowe, district two. I want to start by paying respect to a teen victim of our failures to implement zero vision zero. You are all invited to a flower vigil. For fallon smart, who was killed in a Hawthorne crosswalk ten years ago. Please attend. 5 p.m. August 19th. Hawthorne and 43rd. Her dad will be there and her dad has three goals, all of which fit into vision zero. Pay respects. Number two address the lack of justice. Number three, safer streets for kids and everyone. If you look at cities who have vision zero, that's a hub supported by many intervention spokes. And each of those spokes has big benefits. Even one weak spoke can risk pedestrians and drivers. These vision zero spokes hold the safety system in place. We listen with respect to my neighbor testimony that vision zero tolls tools will harm their business or freedom from shorter trips, but we must balance that. Listening to karen's and chad's with facts, it's a fact that cities like hoboken, new jersey, helsinki and oslo do not have dead teenagers or dead anyone for long periods. Land use puts people above profit. These are the spokes that make vision zero possible. Progressive land use key foundations of vision zero. Unapologetic and near unanimous lawmaker support for all vision zero components. Lawmakers who stand up to the cairns and chads but listen to them. High capacity, high speed busses and more transportation choices, fewer trips by cars, better parks and safe routes to schools. Separated and protected paths for pedestrians and bike busses, not just paint like Portland paint lower car dependance. Lastly, enforcement and equitable and just penalties. Equitable and scaled fees for bigger cars and citations for driving violations. The more affluent, the bigger speeding ticket, the heavier the vehicle, the higher the yearly fees. Portland will never, never have nice things unless we spend money to build a system where elderly kids, elderly and kids can come and go without the fear they need to sit in a steel personal vehicle. Lastly, cities that are safer for kids are safer for the planet. I would like a moment of silence for Jamie diaz, our librarian on a sidewalk bench mowed down for joey and ben carlson mowed down walking on Burnside. Ben carlson was killed by douglas james walker of Beaverton, who's obviously a friend of the police, because they never cited the driver who drove on the sidewalk and killed ben carlson. This is for all the cities, for all. The moment of silence is for mike and dennis and sarah and my colleagues who've mentioned victims. We are crying, literally for you to do what other cities have done. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. You just need to stand up because you ran for office. No one forced you to put your name on the ballot.
224 Thank you.
225 Okay. Thank you.
226 Jordan.
227 City council, jordan lewis, district four resident volunteer lobbyist for Portland democratic socialists of America. I was going to testify in person. I apologize on the agenda. Had the testimony happening after the presentation. So I'm here remotely. I we just saw the immense power of 55, 56 community advocates coming together to express their feelings and how that is treated and rewarded in this city. But I'm going to remain here, and I'm going to continue talking anyway. I live on west Burnside, and I have experienced a lot of really heinous behavior from drivers, which was not an individual choice on their behalf. It was enabled by the infrastructure on west Burnside. I have crossed west Burnside in 18 on a game night behind a family with small children speaking spanish, lifted truck with a white guy, lurches right turn, lurches into the crosswalk and almost hits them. Am I allowed to be upset about that? We have been on alder in 18 and car very rapidly right, left, turned in like a sweeping motion and shouted slurs out of the car. Are we allowed to be upset about that? I have been overtaken very quickly on 17th while riding my bike. Am I allowed to be upset about that? I have seen a car run the wrong way down north down 18th. Am I allowed to be upset about that? The experience living on west Burnside. I love my apartment. I would love to stay here longer, but the the the conditions outside are hazardous to human health. I can't stand it. And so I will be leaving this apartment, this lovely apartment that I love to go move somewhere else that is not on such a hazardous thruway. And this is a great opportunity with the rebuilding of west Burnside to maybe remediate some of these conditions. A friend told me there is a weed store that has two locations about a quarter mile from each other, separated by west Burnside. Because it is so difficult for pedestrians to move across that street that it is actually profitable to open two businesses on either side of the road. Unfortunately, I have heard that the rebuild will be mostly paving, repaving and that any transformative elements have been delayed and will be staged to a later segment. I have lived in this city long enough to see malicious procedural door closing, weaponized against vulnerable communities on these streets. So this is where that cynicism comes from. And I really, really hope this council can step in and actually see some transformative elements on west Burnside. I want it to be a place people want to live. I could not raise kids here. I would not trust my kids outside. This is ridiculous. There's literally a heavy vehicles going around, crashing and killing people, breaking their bones and making their blood come out. That's bad. I don't want that. Thank you.
228 Thank you.
229 That completes testimony.
230 Thank you, everyone for being here. And we'll get. Dana back up in a second. But. Councilor. Koyama Lane.
231 Thank you chair. I wanted to thank everyone who took time to come here for testimony, and also just wanted to ask everyone to take a moment of silence right now, as was suggested. Thank you.
232 Thank you, dana, if you could come on back. And colleagues, we have about five minutes left here. We have about one minute of other things. We have the ability to run a few minutes over. If you are all available for at most five minutes or so. So I'd ask for that. I know some folks do have pre-planned absences or notices that have been acknowledged. So dana, I'll let you take it away.
233 Thank you.
234 Hi, I am dana dickman. I'm the city's vision zero policy manager. Thank you for having me back here today. I just want to also thank the community members again for being here and sharing their thoughts, sharing their pain, and why this work is so important. Sorry it gets to me. We only have five minutes left. We had planned to do some short presentations on a couple of the questions that you all brought up from the 23rd. You should all have a memo that has a written response to all of those questions. We obviously don't have time for a presentation today, so I think I would just ask if there is any discussion that you all want to have about where you want us to come back and elaborate on some of those questions. There was some interest in talking about the speed camera program, some other things that were felt. We needed more time than we would have at committee. So I guess I would pose that to you. I can follow up with folks individually that asked the questions, or I can work with this body and, and talk about how you want to come back to different committee, kind of pose it back to you.
235 Thank you. Dana, are you able to just kind of walk us through the memo, just show us not talk about every part, but just explain, right?
236 I don't have it digitally, but I can kind of just walk you through it. So what we did was we took.
237 I think the clerk can bring it up if it's a an exhibit.
238 It should.
239 Be or sorry, the council operations somewhat amazing over here.
240 Yeah, it's the memo, not the presentation. So the memo essentially looked at each one of your questions and documented what it was and then had a response. Those responses are coming from the folks that are doing the work across the city. Some of them were more directed towards pb, some of them were PBOT, some of them I answered, some of them. The deputy city administrator answered, so you'll have essentially the reiteration of your question and the response to that. These are summarized. So again, you're only getting you're getting kind of a quick response that we could then come back and do a deeper dive on. Yeah, you can see I can walk you through. That's just the first question. Councilor Clark asked specifically about how do we stack up against comparable cities? So there's some information in there about our rate per deaths, per 100,000, and how we stack up against some cities that when I say comparable cities, I'm looking at places that have a similar population and size. Like we often work with cities like new york city and other places that we consider peers on the vision zero work, but in some ways they're not a great comparison. So the comparisons that you have in the memo are cities that are of comparable size and population, and then you'll see that there are, if you're walking through it, responses to the questions about speed reader boards, about when we might be able to get speed cameras or additional speed cameras. There was a question about the police bureau's traffic division and how they deploy resources. So there's some summary information about what the traffic division prioritizes and how they do that. You have information about west Burnside. We do have a colleague here from PBOT that was supposed to present. So you also will see a slide deck associated with that in your materials. There is a response related to councilor Koyama Lane question about how vision zero and safe systems connect to neighborhood greenways and safe routes to school. And then do you want me to continue to kind of go through each question or what works best for you? I know the time is very limited. Okay. We also have a response to the question about how budget cuts are going to impact the vision zero team, especially around outreach and engagement. Then councilor Pirtle-guiney had a question about when the I-5 closure is happening and how vision zero and PBOT is engaged in that. And then finally there was councilor Kanal question about adt or the vmt on the corridors. And there's a very long answer for you. Councilor Kanal, about data, where we have data and why that's not a measure that we use regularly, but we are happy to follow up and get you more information if you want to see that data in a map form or something like that.
241 Yeah.
242 We can follow up.
243 Yeah. Yeah.
244 Oh thank you. Dana, I just wanted to appreciate you for really listening and taking some very close notes and responding in a really expanded, specific way. I see the memos, ten pages, and you took it very seriously. I hope that there's some room at some committees. I think the public safety committee would be a great place to talk more about speed cameras, and I think some of the questions that councilor Ryan brought up were also important, and I think those would be also great.
245 I apologize.
246 For another committee conversation. So thank you. I hope that folks will look at these presentations. Thank you to our folks from PBOT for providing information around the west Burnside paving project.
247 And just with the limited time we have left, I know councilors Novick Green and Smith are in the queue. I'll ask you to keep it brief. We'll get through all three and then close out the item. Thanks.
248 Thank.
249 Thank you, mr. Chairman. Councilor Koyama Lane took the words out of my mouth. I do think that we should have a discussion in the public safety committee about whether the prospect of dramatically expanding speed and red light cameras. We're talking about going up to 45. New york has 3000. We have one third as many Lane miles as new york. So comparable for us would be 1000. So I'd like to see when we can have a reasonable conversation about what the process might be, and what would need to happen for us to dramatically expand the program. Great.
250 Thank you.
251 We'll follow you up.
252 Thank you, councilor Green.
253 Thank you. I just want to say briefly, and it's not a question to you, dana, but it's just while we're on this topic, we we have to stop this practice of just abandoning the plans that we have because one block or one two blocks of neighbors called and got really cranky about it. Like, we cannot, we cannot do that anymore. We adopt plans as, as a council that then are directives for the city. We have to see that through. I'm I'm happy to stand by the policy. And you can't we cannot move as the bureaus because one councilor Got your ear. That's unacceptable. And so we have to sort of hold the line. We have to do our safety improvements. We have to put forward and stay with our northwest motion plans and all the like. And so I'm just going to keep reiterating that, because that's a pattern I see in the city of Portland in this new form of government. I'm not an executive, I'm not a commissioner. I cannot do anything about it except for raise my voice. And so I'm going to continue to do that. So thank you.
254 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Smith.
255 Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you so much, miss dana. I didn't I was not at the meeting. Did you give this to the public works committee?
256 This presentation was at the last committee of the whole, and I think you were gone that day.
257 Okay. And it was. But. But it's never been given at the public works committee, where transportation.
258 Not the same presentation. No.
259 I yeah, so what I think is because this deals with transportation and that's what public works does, that you should also try to get on our schedule so that the folks, so that we can really talk about these things in, in a more appropriate committee, because I think that we could go deeper into this. And I appreciate you bringing it here, because it's it is something that all of us have supported at this diocese. But I would also like to be, when you're talking about vision zero, I want us to be one of your stops, if not the first stop to let us know what's going on.
260 Yeah, absolutely.
261 Okay.
262 You will have a presentation next Tuesday from PBOT staff to dig into some intersection safety work. So that'll be a great way to dive deeper. Yes I will.
263 Okay, perfect. Thank you so much.
264 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor, if you want to close out the item.
265 I just wanted to say thank you. Councilor Smith, vice chair of the public works committee, for your commitment and for saying that I agree it'll be important that we. I've been pushing for more on the on the public works agenda and would love your support and and adding in some more of this, I think we've. Pbot specific vision work, vision zero work is going to be next week. Dana also does the citywide work that includes a lot of other areas. And that is why we have that citywide position, because public safety, fire, police, emergency management, city life. I mean, there's a lot, I think, that sometimes can be a bit of the challenge is that we just think it's a PBOT thing. It is. And we do need to focus on it in in public works, but it's not just a PBOT thing. And so but I hear that and I really appreciate your, your support and most of the questions that councilor Clark said last week are ones that I think we should dig in specifically in the public works committee. Thank you.
266 Thank you.
267 Thank you. And thank you, dana, just as we wrap up, two quick notes. First, the next meeting of the committee of the whole is next Thursday, August 13th at 9:30 a.m. You can see in the chair's update what we're talking about. Then I also wanted to take the opportunity to note today is the 81st anniversary of the bombing of hiroshima. And I know there's there's some events that are still going on and others that were canceled due to air quality. But I wanted to observe that while we're here for a moment, and I appreciate the opportunity. Appreciate everyone being here today. Thank you for the time. The meeting of the community committee of the whole is adjourned at 1236.