CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES April 12, 2011

Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. on April 12, 2011, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Tierney, Moncrieff, Kehoe, Gudman, Olson, and Jordan. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Doug Obletz, Shiels Obletz Johnsen, LOPTP Project Manager; Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager

3. PUBLIC HEARING 3.1 Resolution 11-19, recommending a Locally Preferred Alternative for the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Mayor Hoffman declared a potential conflict of interest because the law firm in which he was a partner, Dunn Carney, had several clients who could potentially work on the streetcar option of the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project (LOPTP). He reported that he contacted the Oregon Ethics Commission, which had also received a separate inquiry into the matter. He indicated that the Commission staff found that the facts at most created a potential conflict of interest, as opposed to an actual conflict of interest, because if the project came to fruition, then there was the potential that these clients might ask for legal services from Dunn Carney. He stated that a potential conflict of interest did not prevent him for participating in this decision. Councilor Tierney declared a potential conflict of interest because he was an employee of PGE. He noted that PGE owned real property and electrical distribution and transmission facilities that the development of the streetcar line could potentially affect, and would provide power to the line. He indicated that, in response to an inquiry to the Oregon Ethics Commission, the Commission staff found that the facts created at the most a potential conflict of interest, as opposed to an actual conflict of interest. He stated that a potential conflict of interest did not prevent him for participating in this decision. Mayor Hoffman led the Council and the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Hoffman reviewed the public testimony procedure and time limits for the hearing. He emphasized that this was the citizens’ opportunity to share their ideas, opinions, and facts. He asked for respectful treatment of all speakers in an effort to promote an atmosphere of fairness, courtesy, and respect for different opinions.  Staff Report Mr. Obletz stated that the decision before the Council was the first step in a long process of study, evaluation, and discussion leading eventually to decisions about how to move forward with meeting the long-term transportation needs in the Lake Oswego to Portland corridor. He indicated that the primary question was whether the Council should support the recommendations from the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Steering Committee to select the streetcar as the preferred mode of the three modes studied by the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 31 April 12, 2011 He commented that the decision was less about cost and financial commitments than it was about setting a course for how Lake Oswego developed in the future, how it participated in the inevitable growth coming to the region, how it connected to the region’s transit infrastructure, and what transportation choices Lake Oswego citizens would have. He pointed out that this project had a 10-year horizon and would not play an important role in Lake Oswego’s livability until 2020 with its benefits not realized until possibly as late as 2040. He commented that they knew that the region would have more people, that gasoline would be more expensive, and that traffic on Highway 43 would be greater in the future. He described the demand for good transportation choices as a key factor in people deciding where to live and raise their children or start a business. He acknowledged that this was a difficult time to bring forward a proposal to invest tax dollars in such a significant project. He contended that there was no perfect time to do so because of the long gestation period for such projects. The longer they waited, the higher the costs would be. He noted the risk of regional priorities for transportation investments changing, even though this was a unique project for the region. He indicated that the local governments’ foresight to buy the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way in 1988 was a significant factor in making this project cost effective and relatively affordable. He observed that if they had to buy the right-of-way today, the project would be a non-starter due to the acquisition costs. He explained that the ‘further study’, for which the Steering Committee had recommended the streetcar option, was a process involving seeking federal approval to proceed with the preliminary engineering and the preparation of the final environmental impact statement. He reiterated the comment he made last March that there would be a number of key milestones during the coming years when the Council would make definitive decisions about how the project proceeded, the cost to the City, and the funding sources. He indicated that, in the near term, staff proposed to address several high priority issues outlined in Exhibit B of the draft resolution. He said that the critical issue was developing a more definitive finance plan for the project, including sharpening the project costs. He noted that each step of the process would require the project partners to shoulder certain cost burdens. However, it was within the Council’s purview to commit to any funds going forward. He urged the Council to consider the relatively limited impact of this decision and its context. He indicated that the draft resolution closely followed resolutions that other jurisdictions would consider this year, with Exhibit B covering the issues of particular concern to Lake Oswego. He said that staff would bundle together the eight actions of the regional partners for consideration by the Metro Council this summer.

 Council Questions Councilor Kehoe asked why the packet contained a resolution recommending the streetcar as the LPA when Council would not vote on the question until next week. Ms. Kirk explained that, in order to have a public hearing, they had to have the resolution on which to base the public hearing. She indicated that the Steering Committee recommendation served as the basis for the resolutions that each jurisdiction would consider, but that did not preclude any changes to the resolution. Councilor Kehoe indicated that this bothered him because it seemed like they were putting the cart before the horse. He mentioned his discomfort with the mailer sent out last weekend on Lake Oswego’s postal permit, which he described as an advocate, propaganda piece (not an informational piece) and a deceitful part of a process intended to come to a preordained conclusion.

 Public Testimony Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 31 April 12, 2011 1. Teri Cummings, West Linn City Councilor, 2190 Valley Court, West Linn, speaking as an individual Ms. Cummings indicated that her remarks represented her own opinions, and not the West Linn City Council’s. She observed that it appeared that the Lake Oswego City Council was very close to having already decided to support the recommendation. She asked the Council to consider some things before it made its decision. She recalled that, at West Linn’s first and only meeting on January 4, 2011, the Metro representative told the West Linn citizens that West Linn was not part of the project thinking. She pointed out that this transit project would make West Linn’s transit/bus service even worse, forcing their citizens into their cars more. She contended that, given the amount of money projected for this project, West Linn’s transit had no chance of improving. She pointed out that the West Linn business people would not see any benefit from the transit dollars that they have invested in TriMet, since the buses would not bring their clients to their businesses. She held that there was no reason that she could give to her citizens to support this project.

2. Lynn Peterson, representing Governor Kitzhaber’s Office, Sustainable Communities and Transportation Advisor Ms. Peterson spoke from her written testimony (p.1, writtentestimony). She commended the City for a strong history of livable, vibrant community development. She spoke of the importance of considering the project’s short-term and future impact on the community. She presented the three reasons why the Governor’s Office supported the recommended locally preferred alternative (LPA) of the streetcar: jobs created, future mobility, and vibrant livable communities. She stated that the State of Oregon stood ready to help Lake Oswego implement its strong vision through partnerships with organizations, such as ODOT, and to continue to help the City and region grow stronger economically.

3. Andrew Ferguson, 1188 Cherry Circle Mr. Ferguson indicated that he was a fifth generation Oregonian who has lived in Lake Oswego all his live. He contended that bringing the streetcar to Lake Oswego and the related massive expansion of Foothills would ruin the city forever. He argued that the existing weekday congestion on State Street (caused by cars entering and leaving the Albertson’s parking lot) would triple under this plan. The hundreds of cars projected to access the new parking structure and enter Foothills would negatively impact the lives of residents south of A Avenue by creating congestion all day long, instead of only in the morning. He contended that, unlike Bridgeport with its eight lanes of traffic, the residents south of A Avenue had to squeeze into a landlocked single traffic lane to reach their destination. He argued that the Council’s plans would create an untenable and unacceptable congestion that could not be fixed. He stated that he strongly opposed this wasteful use of City resources that would ruin the core of the city that he loved. He indicated his intention to support future Council candidates who also opposed this debacle.

4. Heather Chrisman, 172 Middlecrest, former City Councilor Ms. Chrisman spoke in support of the streetcar. She mentioned reduced carbon emissions as compared to enhanced bus and an annual operating cost $1.5 million less than enhanced bus. She commented that buses got stuck in traffic, had less capacity, and needed replacement in 12 years, instead of 40 years. She argued that this opportunity would not come again to Lake Oswego, especially for under $20 million. She recalled from her time on the City Council that there were always people opposed to change. She argued that the streetcar would bring pedestrians, contribute to a more vibrant downtown, and

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 31 April 12, 2011 connect Lake Oswego to various destinations in Portland. She spoke in support of Lake Oswego being part of the transit system in the Metro area.

5. Ellie McPeak, 123 Furnace Street, former City Councilor (p.17, StreetcarEmail0412) Ms. McPeak read an argument presented by her neighbor, Vidya Kale (p.48, StreetcarEmail0412). Ms. Kale discussed the peak oil theory, which she contended would lead to dramatic increases in the price of oil. She held that only cities with easy transportation connections would thrive in a time of high oil prices. She asked the Council to consider the streetcar and the associated Foothills development as an opportunity to bring the community closer to Portland, to increase the tax base, and to make the city attractive to newcomers.

6. Roger Martin, 1405 Cherry Crest Mr. Martin mentioned that he has worked with transportation issues in Lake Oswego since the early 1960s when he chaired the Streets and Roads Committee. He recalled that the Committee identified State Street and its traffic as a key issue that had to be solved, yet little has been done since that time, and there was no expectation of any construction in the future. He commented that Lake Oswego saw little return in bus service for the $2.5 million in payroll taxes that TriMet collected from the Lake Oswego taxpayers. He argued that statistics documenting the growth of Lake Oswego from 3,316 residents in 1950 to 42,000 plus residents in 2011 showed that growth in Lake Oswego was inevitable. He advocated for developing the Foothills Road area in order to address that growth through condominiums geared towards the city’s aging population who also needed access to the medical facilities in the OHSU area. He recommended that the Council consider the community’s future needs.

7. Rob Fallow, 91 Foothills Road Mr. Fallow spoke from his written comments (pp.10-11, writtentestimony). He stated that he owned property in the Foothills area. He recalled his earlier testimony at the Metro hearing that the streetcar was a fiscally responsible option. He discussed how the projected cost figures yielded $360 million as the real cash number for the project, and the local regional match as less than 24% of the project cost. He mentioned the estimated new tax revenue from development associated with the streetcar as $35 million for Lake Oswego alone. He noted the upcoming need to address shortly the aging sewage treatment plant and the potential costs. He argued that enhanced bus service would do nothing to mitigate the problem, but the streetcar and Foothills development would. He asked the Council to support the streetcar and Foothills development.

8. Janine Dunphy, 15450 SW Boones Ferry (p.19, StreetcarEmail0418) Ms. Dunphy indicated that she had intended to address the issue of how the streetcar would forever impact Lake Oswego. She recalled that one reason she moved here 40 years ago was because Lake Oswego was totally separate from Portland. She discussed the Metro flyer, mentioned by Councilor Kehoe, which she received on Saturday, three days before a public hearing and paid for by taxpayers. She commented that, had the facts been presented more honestly, using Lake Oswego’s bulk mailing permit might have been okay. She described the flyer as shamelessly skewed and biased towards the streetcar. She contended that the flyer’s statement that “most of those who submitted comments were in favor of the streetcar” was a blatant misrepresentation of the testimony that she personally heard at the Steering Committee hearing, in which those testifying against the streetcar outnumbered those in favor of it by a small number. She commented that the fact that six of the eleven Steering Committee members also sat on the Portland Streetcar, Inc., Board did not sound like a balanced and unbiased group to her. She

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 31 April 12, 2011 indicated that the Committee’s recommendation in favor of the streetcar came as no surprise to her, given that the stated mission of Portland Streetcar was “to construct and operate the Portland streetcar system.” She argued that this flyer paid for by citizens essentially said that the streetcar was a done deal, even giving dates for the final environmental impact statement and the funding sources. Yet, neither Lake Oswego, Portland, nor Metro has voted on the question. She asked the Council not to support the streetcar. She suggested that the best option was to put it up for the vote of the citizens.

9. Jeff Wickert, 17151 Canal Circle Mr. Wickert recommended a no vote on this issue. He cited the City’s lack of funding (currently or in the future) to address the magnitude of the project. He referenced the House of Representatives’ release today of its continuing reduction resolution, which would take millions of dollars from the Department of Transportation. He argued that the federal government, with its need for 2012 budget cuts to reduce the deficit, would not have sufficient funds for this project, He suggested a common sense approach of allowing Lake Oswego citizens to vote on the question, and not limit the decision to the Council members. He urged the Council to let the citizens decide whether they wanted to fund schools and services. He argued that they were focusing too much on the streetcar and needed to get back to the fundamentals and needs of the City, and not just the wants.

10. Helen Nickerson, 11175 Riverwood Road, Portland Ms. Nickerson stated that she lived on the street planned as part of the route for the streetcar. She said that she walked and rode her bike on her street and through her neighborhood all the time because she felt safe there. She argued that this would change once the streetcar came because of the train and the strangers on the train. She described her street as a small, friendly street with wonderful neighbors on all sides, which a streetcar would ruin. She asked the Council not to build the streetcar.

11. Chris Nickerson, 11175 Riverwood Road, Portland Ms. Nickerson urged the Council to send this question to the voters. She described it as a contentious issue, on which everyone deserved to have a voice. She indicated that her problem with the streetcar was that the Council was asking the people to drive a Bentley into Portland when a Ford would do just fine. She expressed her hope that the Council would consider enhanced bus service, which was flexible, inexpensive, and provided a fast way to get to the Portland downtown.

12. John Schick, 14 Hotspur (pp.20-21, StreetcarEmail0412) Mr. Schick commented that in his 87 years, which included living in Lake Oswego for 37 years, combat, MIA, and POW experiences in World War 2, the Depression, working for two major corporations in Portland, and sitting on political action committees, he has seen this kind of routine before. He remarked that he did not expect to be around when the bill for this project came due, but he would prefer to leave the generations that followed him something of a concrete nature instead. He questioned what benefit the streetcar had for the 40% of Lake Oswegans living in Mountain Park, Lake Grove, and Westlake. He spoke to setting the community’s priorities first. He stated that his priority was the schools, followed by the library, the streets, etc. He commented that he has been trying to get the City to repair his street for 20 years, but they were a low priority. He remarked that he has come down to City Hall so many times and been turned down like a bedspread that he felt no one cared about him.

13. Budd Kass, 10 Mozarteum Court

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 31 April 12, 2011 Mr. Kass stated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 22 years. He indicated that he has worked with a large number of local governments as a consultant and seen outstanding projects time after time proposed and then abandoned. He recalled that some people had said that the project was too expensive, not needed, or too far out. He commented that he has seen many jurisdictions kick projects like cans down the road and then fall over those cans five to fifteen years later. In advocating for taking the long view, he said that the project manager contextualized the situation very well. He argued that, in the long view, the streetcar looked better and better.

14. Peter Sweet, 796 First Street Mr. Sweet stated that he opposed the streetcar and urged the Council to vote it down. He encouraged the alternative of submitting the issue to a vote of the citizens of Lake Oswego, since the issue affected all Lake Oswego citizens. He stated his reasons for opposing the streetcar. He argued that there was no demonstrated need for the project. He cited the numerous communities across the country that rejected offers of federal money to build a rail system because they could not afford the system after it was built. He contended that there was not one light rail system in the world that paid for its operating and personnel expenses completely, and those that paid the most towards those expenses had a dense population, which was not the case in Lake Oswego. He held that, given TriMet’s fiscal problems, the streetcar operating expenses would be to the detriment of all the community’s essential services. He contended that this was not about the streetcar, but rather about a major real estate project in Foothills, which the proponents claimed was critical to the City’s economic well being. He commented that the site was one of the most expensive to develop with a variety of issues, including flood plain, elevation changes, earthquake zone, environmental issues, access from Hwy 43, the PGE substation, and the Union Pacific railroad tracks. He argued that this project was not to solve a social problem for Lake Oswego but rather to help the Foothills developers. He conjectured that the upfront infrastructure costs in attempting to overcome these obstacles would be in the tens of millions of dollars. He predicted that the timing mismatch between the upfront expenses and the tax revenues generated by subsequent Foothills development would be insurmountable without a heavy City subsidy. He argued that the City, at this particular time in its history, needed to solve the West End Building development site, address the stalled Lake Grove redevelopment, explore the opportunity for industrial and high tech development in the Pilkington/I-5 area, and site a 9-1-1 center. He noted that he did not have time to discuss the costly and important issues in the streetcar project and why he felt that bus rapid transit and a bike path to Portland were more feasible, economically sound, and cost efficient. He urged the Council to turn down the streetcar project and to save the economic, political, and cultural future of Lake Oswego.

15. Chris Dudley, 1150 Fairway Mr. Dudley commented that he understood the appeal of having a streetcar in Lake Oswego. He said that he supported mass transit where there were the numbers to justify it, citing his understanding of the benefits of mass transit from having lived on the East Coast and overseas. He argued that the numbers put forward by the proponents did not justify a $458 million endeavor. He stated that it did not make sense for the City to go down this path at this time. He cited the failure to demonstrate a need for the streetcar as a major problem, given the lack of numbers showing a dramatic reduction in congestion in the future. He remarked that there were arguments regarding the negative impact on the environment from the streetcar construction. He indicated that the strongest argument he has heard so far was that the cost was too steep. He argued that in these uncertain economic times when they struggled to pay for the necessities, they could not justify paying for the niceties.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 31 April 12, 2011 He commented that the community was still paying for the last time the Council decided that it could not pass up an opportunity, citing the West End Building for which the City paid more than double what it was worth today. He asked the Council members to evaluate this decision as if the money were their own, because he was confident that if they did so, they would not buy the Bentley, they would buy the Ford.

16. Meredith Scanlon, 7070 SW Frogpond Road, Wilsonville Ms. Scanlon indicated that she grew up on Radcliffe Road in Dunthorpe. She stated that her generation did not want to see urban sprawl. She argued that the Foothills development was important, and that the engineers could handle any logistical issues. She spoke of seeing Lake Oswego grow up instead of out from its current downtown location, and not become scattered like Tualatin or Beaverton. She described the streetcar option as an opportunity for Lake Oswego to engage in something unique that would boost the downtown business community, create jobs, and give Lake Oswego the new blood that it needed to thrive. She argued that the streetcar would attract rider ship as a form of public transit using electricity instead of gas. She expressed her hope that all the Council members would get behind this project and make it a successful project.

17. Alice Schlenker, 257 Iron Mountain Blvd, former Mayor Ms. Schlenker stated that her preference was the no build alternative for the streetcar, which would avoid $450 million in capital expenditures. She encouraged the Council to table this plan and find a new alternative, using a process that considered community input at the beginning of the process, instead of at the end of it. She argued that the Council needed to avoid the $1.25 million in annual operating costs, to avoid filling in wetlands and the 100 year flood plain, and to avoid creating 18 new acres of impervious surface on the east side. She noted that she served as mayor from 1988 to 1996. She recalled that they purchased the right-of-way and kept it open with the trolley against many people’s advice because they understood the need for alternate transportation modes in the future. She indicated that the intent in the original urban renewal plan had been to bring the trolley into downtown Lake Oswego or a streetcar to the west side. She stated that there had been no urban renewal plan for Foothills as currently proposed. She argued that the proposed Foothills development plan was out of sync with the community and being used to justify the streetcar. She held that the federal fund match was unacceptable at this time because they did not know whether those federal funds would be available at the time of construction. She stated that the Willamette Shore Trolley line was never supposed to be a commuter line. She questioned how many Lake Oswego residents commuting to work in Portland would get out of their cars to take a trolley that only took them to the South Waterfront. She reiterated that this was the wrong plan at the wrong time. She indicated that she held the former mayor and the current Mayor responsible for making the case that this has to be done now. She stated that Metro knew that Lake Oswego was built out and a completed community. She suggested that any one who did not understand that read the 2040 plan, on which Visioning Committee she served. She emphasized that the 2040 plan did not include an urban renewal district for Foothills, for Stafford, or for buying Hwy 43. She commented that the Council needed to get back to basics and consider the public. She observed that these plans have brought a schism in Lake Oswego that she has never seen before. She recalled City Halls full of people against whatever project the City was proposing, but those situations did not create this break in the community. She mentioned her work with various civic and government groups. She contended that this community project needed very careful consideration. She commented that this was one time when the Council needed to listen to the Lake Oswego citizens because they deserved a continuing, livable community with its wonderful quality of life.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 31 April 12, 2011 18. Bill Klammer, 16915 Greentree, former Mayor (p.37, StreetcarEmail0412) Mr. Klammer stated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for over 30 years. He agreed with Ms. Schlenker that the community was not headed in the right direction. He cited the State Revenue Department statistics that 106 households in Lake Oswego have applied to the State for property tax relief, which meant that these households had less than $39,500 in income a year. He recalled that, during his tenure as mayor, that figure was in the 30s and 40s. He mentioned that, when the parking cost in Portland became prohibitive, he began taking the bus downtown for his volunteer work at SCORE, which he remembered as a good transit experience. He argued that the City was overestimating the rider ship for the trolley into Lake Oswego because the transfers at South Waterfront took too long. He predicted that people would revert to cars and make the situation worse than it was now.

19. Larry Talbert, 3421 Turner Lane, West Linn (p.110, StreetcarEmail0418) Mr. Talbert stated that he owned several properties in Lake Oswego. He stated that the value of the streetcar was overestimated. He agreed that the project was most beneficial to the Foothills developments. He suggested that, although costs were downplayed, people try to remember the last time that they saw a project by a government body that came in at or under its estimated cost. He pointed out that 40% of all government money was borrowed today, which left even the 60% federal match to their children and grandchildren to pay off. He indicated that he did not find that the environmental impact statement was completed satisfactorily. He remarked that the costs would likely create an urban redevelopment district for Foothills development. He commented that he saw the ‘takers’ supporting this project (bureaucrats, consultants, construction companies) and the ‘givers’ opposing it (taxpayers and fee payers). He urged the Council to oppose the streetcar option.

20. Richard Ackerman, 919 Westpoint Road Mr. Ackerman indicated that he served eight years on the School Board. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Dudley that it would be nice to have a streetcar but not at the associated costs, the dollar amount, and the possible overruns, given that people could not currently afford to move to Lake Oswego until their kids were in junior high or high school. He argued that they would make a worse problem by adding more taxes. He noted the increasing national taxes to pay towards the national debt. He asked the Council to vote no on the streetcar or put the question to the voters of Lake Oswego.

21. Jerry Wheeler, 13594 Blazer Trail, Chamber of Commerce CEO (p.58, StreetcarEmail0418) Mr. Wheeler urged the Council to move forward for further study the LPA that would work best for the community’s future economic and transportation needs. He reported that the Chamber Board voted 17 to 2 in support of the streetcar option. He mentioned the feeling around the table that this was about the future health of the community, its growth and development, and the legacy left to future generations. He argued that enhanced bus did not offer any opportunity for economic development but rather added more vehicles to an already congested highway. He acknowledged that the streetcar might not solve all congestion on Hwy 43, but pointed out that it did offer an alternative to sitting in the congestion. He conceded that development costs were high, but contended that the local match in conjunction with the right-of-way ownership went a long ways towards creating a positive return on this investment in Lake Oswego’s future. He mentioned that the City’s portion of an enhanced bus line would be out of pocket for Lake Oswego citizens with no help from urban renewal funds or potential new districts. He stated that statistics showed that a streetcar was a true economic driver for commercial development near and

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 31 April 12, 2011 along the line. He argued that they needed to find out what that potential would be for Lake Oswego. He reiterated that an enhanced bus did nothing for future growth and needs. He contended that redeveloping Foothills had the potential to provide much needed housing for young families and empty nesters, with the streetcar enhancing those opportunities. He acknowledged that developers would make money off the development, but argued that that was what developers did in creating viable, lasting projects that benefited communities for years to come; if they could not turn a profit, they would not do this project that would enhance Lake Oswego’s quality of life. He observed that, before any of this could happen, they needed to know more and have questions answered. He contended that the only option in addressing return on investment was the streetcar. He asked the Council to listen closely to citizens on both sides of the issue, but, at the end of the day, it was the job of the community leaders to do their due diligence. He urged the Council to move the streetcar to the next phase for further study.

22. Chuck O’Leary, 1944 Palisades Terrace Drive Mr. O’Leary stated that, having studied all the pros and cons of the three proposals, he supported the streetcar. He recounted how, after World War 2, Los Angeles opted to abandon its streetcar system and replace it with a bus system, based on the compelling arguments that buses were more flexible and cheaper. He recalled that, 40 years later, Los Angeles was in gridlock 24 hours a day and decided that it needed a transit system of light rail and streetcar. 30 years and $40 billion later, the system was about 20% done. He advocated for looking at what they wanted Lake Oswego to be like for future generations. He asked the Council to support the streetcar.

23. Paul Graham, 4215 Fruitwood Court Mr. Graham observed that the DEIS provided citizens with a lot of data but unfortunately did not bring the community together on choosing an alternative. He acknowledged that the City’s dollars were limited and that the streetcar project was expensive. He commented that the community could get along with Band-aid fixes to its infrastructure and without many other amenities until the economy improved. He observed that the infrastructure and amenities were positive reasons why people lived in Lake Oswego. He argued that, for the community to succeed, it needed economic development, more housing opportunities, better transportation options, and a better business climate. He contended that a streetcar system would facilitate all of these elements. He commented that they especially needed strong visionary leaders who could look into the future and see how important the streetcar could be to the community. He expressed his hope that the Council would be able to provide that kind of leadership.

24. Gale Gipson, 19 El Greco (p.47, StreetcarEmail041) Ms. Gipson indicated that she has lived in Lake Oswego for 26 years and was a Mountain Park resident. She concurred that Lake Oswego has become a divided community. She commented that when she first spoke to people about the streetcar and other expensive City projects, the residents had not realized that they did not have a chance to vote on these important decisions. She argued that they were seeing today’s economic realities ignored time after time in favor of highly speculative ventures offering questionable returns to the citizens, such as the streetcar. She held that the decision needed to be put to a vote of the people.

25. Gary Gipson, 19 El Greco (p.47, StreetcarEmail041) Mr. Gipson mentioned that he was the individual who wrote letters to the Oregon Ethics Commission regarding Mayor Hoffman and Councilor Tierney’s possible conflicts of interest. He observed that United Streetcar, the likely recipient of the streetcar manufacturing contract per former Mayor Hammerstad's comments in the Review, was a client of Mayor Hoffman’s firm.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 31 April 12, 2011 He acknowledged that the letters from the Commission found probable but not actual conflicts of interest. He read excerpts from the two letters he received in reply, indicating that “absent more specific details,” the staff found it difficult to apply Oregon Government Ethics Law in this situation. He pointed out that these were only opinions, and not rulings. He stated his belief that both matters should continue to be pursued, as they would constitute actual conflicts of interest if either individual voted on the matter.

26. Betty Kehoe, 5835 Ridgetop Court Ms. Kehoe commented that she found the hatching of these plans in secret by earlier Councils, with no consulting of the citizens as the most egregious thing about this situation. She alleged that the sensitive lands overlay plan, which was first presented to the citizens as Metro’s requirement, was a deceitful effort from the beginning to mitigate the flood plain in Foothills by taking away citizens’ private property rights. She said that she greatly respected everything Alice Schlenker said.

27. Nanci Cummings, 14316 Holly Springs Road (p.38, StreetcarEmail0411) Ms. Cummings stated that she felt that the need for the streetcar was fabricated. She described the reasoning as faulty. She commented that if those who supported the streetcar felt that they knew what was best for the community, then let the community vote on it and respond to their arguments.

28. Jim Bolland, 804 Fifth Street Mr. Bolland spoke from his written comments (pp. 6-7, writtentestimony). He mentioned his initial skepticism regarding this project, which the DEIS bore out in finding a transit project that did not reduce congestion. He disagreed with Metro’s claim that the 240% reduction in Lake Oswego stationary development projections would not affect its rider ship projections. He expressed his concern with how tainted and corrupted the process has become. He discussed three reasons why he seriously questioned how the Council could move forward with a recommendation for an LPA at this time: the history of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) tainting the public process, the improbable right-of-way assessment at $97 million, and the flaws in the LPA process itself possibly invalidating that process. He argued that any City Councilor voting to move forward with the LPA process, in light of the corruption in the process, violated public trust at a minimum or participated in a fraudulent application at the worst. He contended that the City Council had the responsibility to demand that the streetcar information presented to the public was fair, accurate, and unbiased.

29. Judie Hammerstad, 17330 Grandview Court, former Mayor Ms. Hammerstad mentioned that she has been involved with the streetcar project for a long time, noting that she served as a Clackamas County Commissioner when the Consortium purchased the right-of-way and signed the IGAs. She agreed with Ms. Schlenker that they purchased the right-of- way as a transit corridor. She recalled that they had thought at the time that eventually it would serve as the public dollar match for the federal government, which has occurred. She commented that the FTA, in looking at the right-of-way value, would ask how much it would cost to build the project from scratch. She speculated that purchasing the right-of-way would cost well over $100 million and involve litigation. She acknowledged that this set aside right-of-way did contribute to the cost of the project both negatively and positively. She reviewed how the $90 million value of the right-of-way as part of the local match reduced the $458 million to a range of $298 million to $347 million (2010 dollars). She commented that eliminating expenses, such as extra cars, would reduce that figure even more. She contended that

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 31 April 12, 2011 the project was reasonable in comparison to other transit projects in this region with many positive benefits for Lake Oswego.

30. Dee Denton, 580 Sixth Street Ms. Denton thanked the City Council for its time, effort, and commitment to the community. She noted that she has lived in Lake Oswego for almost 50 years and been involved in many community efforts to enhance the community’s livability. She recalled seeing people oppose everything ever done here, from the water treatment plant to Mountain Park to Oswego Pointe because they did not like change. She said that, while she respected their opinions and their right to voice them, she trusted that the community and City leaders knew what was going on and were guiding the community in the right direction. She spoke in support of the streetcar as something that would benefit everyone. She described Foothills as an area with potential for the future of Lake Oswego as far as livability and affordable housing.

31. David Ludwig, 117 Iron Mountain Blvd Mr. Ludwig stated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 38 years and was the owner and president of Vista Market Intelligence, a market research company. He indicated his understanding that no market research has been done to ascertain whether Lake Oswego citizens needed or wanted a streetcar or the Foothills development. He mentioned what Peter Sweet told him the Mayor said in response to Mr. Sweet’s comment that it would be easy to survey citizens these days, that the citizens did not have enough facts to offer an opinion because they have not been to the Mayors’ conferences where the Portland mass transit program was the envy of every city in the country. He contended that it would be inexpensive and prudent to conduct a survey before undertaking the streetcar project in order to gauge the acceptance levels and need for such an endeavor. He argued that it was up to the Council and the Mayor as visionaries and fiduciary custodians to ascertain whether the market of the Lake Oswego citizens wanted this project, saw a value in it, and were willing to help pay for it. He commented that the Council was coming across badly to the citizens. He read the William Stafford poem posted outside the Chamber doors and urged the Council to take the words seriously.

32. David Luck, 26 Del Prado Mr. Luck pointed out that the contention of the supporters regarding cars on the road in 2035 and their pollution was predicated on the presumption that in 2035 people would still be driving in gas- powered cars to Portland or to a central location to their jobs. He held that history did not bear that out. He spoke from his written testimony (p.4, writtentestimony), contending that the City should not commit any monies or provide any support to the streetcar project. He noted the fatal flaws that he saw in the project. He contended that the DEIS dismissively handled the major impacts on the neighborhoods on the streetcar route. He alleged that the supporters were aware that the project made no sense, which has forced them to resort to exaggeration and fabrication, which appeared in both Resolution 11-19 and in the Steering Committee recommendations.

33. Roger Hennagin, 1131 Devon Lane, former City Councilor Mr. Hennagin commented that, while the streetcar would not reduce the current level of congestion on Hwy 43, the 40% increase in traffic projected for 2035 meant gridlock. He addressed the argument about not spending money during a recession. He noted that, in the 40 years that he has lived in Lake Oswego, he has lived through five recessions and every time, they

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 31 April 12, 2011 have come out of it. He speculated that, with what was happening at the federal level, the 2016 construction date would get pushed back to 2020, by which time they should be out of this recession. He spoke to the Council having a duty and the vision to prepare Lake Oswego for the future with its increasing population and traffic and to do something to protect the citizens against future gridlock.

34. Elizabeth “Betty” Burke, 5063 Foothills Drive Ms. Burke mentioned that she saw the streetcar line primarily as a transportation method for getting people from here to there. She commented that the City Council in the late ‘80s had the foresight to join with others to preserve this transportation corridor. She cited her personal experience as a public transit user since 1996 in describing Highway 43 as a bottleneck for those coming from or going to Portland. She expressed her hope that the streetcar option would be selected and eventually extended to West Linn. She emphasized that the population in Lake Oswego and to the south would grow. She invited anyone opposing opening a new lane from Lake Oswego to Portland to travel on the #35 bus for a couple of weeks.

35. Lynn Hennagin, 1131 Devon Lane Ms. Hennagin stated that she has been a resident for 41 years and was a proponent of the streetcar. She cited the example of Georgetown in the Washington, D.C., area, which voted against having a subway station in town because of the element it would bring in. With no streetcar stop to bring in customers, the businesses moved to Rosalind. She argued that the streetcar would enable Lake Oswego to have a vibrant community.

36. Doug Greenburg, 2880 Upper Drive Mr. Greenburg stated that he opposed the streetcar and thanked the earlier speakers who spoke against this expensive and unnecessary project. He spoke in support of a citizen vote on the issue. He recalled that the community elected the new Councilors on a platform of fiscal responsibility, which included no streetcar. He commented that he thought Mayor Hoffman’s initial statement clearly indicated that he should recuse himself from this vote. He urged the Councilors to vote against the resolution as an action of proper fiscal stewardship.

37. Art Scevola, 1656 Glenmorrie Drive Mr. Scevola stated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 18 years. He presented information from John Charles, a leading transit research with the Cascade Policy Institute, that, to date, the Portland Streetcar has been 73 times more expensive to build per mile than the rapid bus alternative system in Los Angeles. He argued that the streetcar was not superior to the rapid bus system by even a single metric, as the bus system was twice as fast, cheaper, more flexible, more frequent, and easier to implement. The Lake Oswego streetcar project would like cost more than $70 million per mile if built, depending on design choices. He pointed out that it was apparent to even the most casual observer that the Lake Oswego to Portland streetcar as the LPA has created a deep divide within the citizenry of Lake Oswego. He cited the letters to the editor in the Lake Oswego Review. He argued that this community would not come together in support of the streetcar or any other LPA without a vote of the community whose taxpayer dollars the local governments has used to pay for the endless consultants, multiple planners, visioning process, appraisals, and environmental impact statements. He emphasized that he saw no way for an LPA chosen by the City Council and Metro to pass muster with the voters unless the voters had the final say. He mentioned that Multnomah County’s Commissioner Kafoury, three Lake Oswego Councilors, and three volunteer groups have concluded that it was unconscionable to make a commitment by any method to indeterminate future expenses for undefined benefits based on ill-advised land use

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 31 April 12, 2011 and environmental practices. He argued that there was no way to support any such project, no matter how a great a personal legacy it would be.

38. David Jorling, 684 Ninth Street (p.46, StreetcarEmail0418) Mr. Jorling stated that he supported the streetcar. He commented that the DEIS did not factor the rising gas prices into its projections. He cited the Executive Summary of a 1998 comprehensive study on the true cost of a gallon of gas, which stated that the true cost then was over $15 per gallon. He explained that this was due to oil company corporate welfare, which was not reflected in the pump price. He expressed his hope that the current Congress would eliminate that subsidy as part of balancing the federal budget. He calculated that the streetcar project (using the DEIS projections and factoring in a 5% savings increase per year) in 27 years would save taxpayers $450 million, and, in 51 years, save $450 million a year. He argued that this was about the future and the best way to deal with what their children could expect in the upcoming troubling times. He urged the Council to recommend the streetcar as the LPA.

39. Robert Sack, 208 Durham Street Mr. Sack mentioned his appointments to the City’s Downtown Transit Alternatives Committee in 2005 and to the Streetcar Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). He stated that there has been ample opportunity for citizens to attend these committee meetings. He indicated that he always presented any information he received to his neighborhood association. He argued that it was a disservice to the citizens serving on these committees to imply that they were sneaking through an agenda, when that agenda has been public. He commented that, as a citizen living in Old Town, he would like to see the City grow with the accompanying vitality. He spoke of Foothills developing as a clone of Old Town with walkability and more affordable housing attracting younger people. He agreed that the streetcar went hand in hand with new development.

40. Dan Williams, 17226 Tualatin Street Mr. Williams stated that he has lived in Lake Oswego since 1990 and currently served on the Budget Committee. He disagreed with Mr. Obletz, as he saw the cost and financial commitments as very important elements in this project. He commented that a key point to remember was that before the government could give the citizens anything, it first had to take it from them. He emphasized that they must never lose their grasp on the fact that the money came from the taxpayers, no matter which level of government was asking for it. He reviewed the trend of the increasing cost of the streetcar. Three years ago, the streetcar cost was the value of the right-of-way only, two years ago the cost added on $6 million, and one year ago, it was the right-of-way plus $8 to $10 million. He noted that today he has seen numbers as high as $33 million plus the right-of-way. He referenced the streetcar proponents’ cost figures as $450 million for the streetcar project and $1 million a year less in operating expenses than the $50 million enhanced bus option. He calculated that it would take 400 years for the streetcar project costs to break even against the enhanced bus costs. He discussed the financial situations of the City’s partners in the streetcar option. He pointed out that TriMet was broke with $1 billion of unfunded liability right now and $1.5 million owed to Lake Oswego. He mentioned that ODOT had its problems and that funding at the State level was tight and unable to fund even the State’s biggest priorities, such as the schools. He observed that the City of Portland could not afford to fix its streets. He noted that Portland Streetcar, Inc. was dependent on Portland and TriMet.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 31 April 12, 2011 He cited Multnomah County Commissioner Kafoury’s comment that Multnomah County could not afford to pay for it either. Clackamas County was paying $2 million a year for WES plus millions more for Milwaukie light rail. He questioned whether anything would be left for Lake Oswego. He argued that if the local match went through on a local improvement district, than Lake Oswego’s police, fire, and schools would suffer. If it went through on a bond measure, then it would add another layer of debt to what the City was already paying for its major sewer and water infrastructure projects.

41. Kelly Calabria, 4962 Billford Lane Ms. Calabria asked the Council to vote no on the streetcar as the LPA. She cited her experience on the Budget Committee in stating her familiarity with the City’s financial challenges and her belief that the streetcar option was an overly risky and unnecessary project to take on. She acknowledged that there were benefits to public transportation, but reiterated that the streetcar did not make sense for Lake Oswego at this time. She argued that, while Lake Oswego was one of the most desirable cities in Oregon to live in, the community could not be everything to everybody. She expressed her concern that the City government was more concerned about presenting the appearance of being ‘the best’ to outside agencies and less concerned about the cost and the citizen values of family, schools, parks, and culture within Lake Oswego. She questioned the need for a streetcar, given the demographic shift in the community in the next 10 years to over 40% of the population being over 60 years old. She contended that the young families, sales professionals, and telecommuters that she saw moving to Lake Oswego either could not use the streetcar or had no need for one. She observed that the number of peak hour commuters to downtown Portland from Lake Oswego was also not growing. She asked why the community should invest so many of their tax dollars in a streetcar when there were two other less risky, more affordable, and more practical options available. She referenced Lake Oswego’s motto: Lake Oswego, a place to live, work, and play. She questioned spending money on connecting Lake Oswego to Portland when they still needed to connect Lake Oswego to Lake Oswego with walking paths and sidewalks, and they needed to maintain their natural areas, City facilities, and schools. She commented that she was baffled at even discussing spending money on the streetcar in this hurting economy with the City, the County, the State, and the Nation not having enough money for schools, infrastructure, and necessities. She argued that the possibility of getting federal funding was not a good reason to spend money on projects that the community did not need. She raised the question of the streetcar operational costs. She spoke to getting their own house in order and prioritizing projects based on what the Lake Oswego citizens wanted and the resources available. She contended that they could not have unlimited programs and services with limited funds. She expressed her concern as a lifelong Lake Oswego citizen, a local real estate agent, and a mother regarding where the streetcar liability would lead the community long after this Council has moved on. She thanked the Council for its careful consideration of the future of Lake Oswego.

42. Linda Zmrhal, 968 Lake Shore Road Ms. Zmrhal asked the Council to vote no on the streetcar. She recalled her family history of raising two children in Lake Oswego before moving out of Oregon due to a job transfer. She said that, when the opportunity arose, they chose to move back to Lake Oswego because of the community, the village feel of the town, and the quality of life. She indicated that she did not understand the desire to transform their quaint village into a small South Waterfront type of community. She commented that she supported a rapid bus option and putting the question to the voters.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 31 April 12, 2011 43. Kent Meyers, 13580 SW Goodall Road Mr. Meyers said that he has lived here since 1963 and worked as the LO School District Assistant Superintendent of Instruction for 18 years. He commented that they did not want to put an albatross around the necks of the streetcar opponents because he clearly saw that a yes vote by the Council would lead to the election of different Councilors and a majority possibly deciding to stop the process. He remarked that, based on the former Mayors Schlenker and Klammer’s remarks, he now understood why he did not attend City Council meetings prior to Mayors Hammerstad and Hoffman’s tenures: those earlier mayors were so sensible. He compared the Lake Oswego City Council in recent years to the federal government, in that they never saw a project on which they did not want to spend other people’s money. He expressed his concern regarding the Council’s process for the past 10 years. He cited the old adage “Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you.” He contended that the Council never let the community do anything about the second part of that adage because it did not let the community vote and correct the problem. He cited the work of a small group of citizens who decided to buy the West End Building as part of their vision; they did so without a community vote but allowed the community to decide how to use it. He described that venture as not successful with the City losing around $14 million on it, or $350 per individual in the community. He commented that he thought the same group of people were pushing the streetcar, and that the community should learn from the past. He suggested putting a big plaque with the names of those responsible for buying the West End Building in a public place in order to give credit where credit was due.

44. Cynthia Scevola, 1454 S Glenmorrie Ms. Scevola stated that she opposed the streetcar. She argued that if the people of Lake Oswego were intelligent enough to vote for the City Council members, then they were intelligent enough to have the right to vote on this important decision that affected all of them.

45. Jodie Wiley, 13060 SW Fielding Road Ms. Wiley stated that she opposed the streetcar. She argued that a vote of the citizens was the only way to satisfy both sides.

46. Jill Gelineau, Schwabe Winson and Wyatt, 1211 SW Fifth Ave, Portland, attorney representing Public Storage Ms. Gelineau stated that Public Storage opposed selecting the streetcar as the LPA. She described the 30-year-old Public Storage 600-unit self-storage facility on State Street as a significant incubator for small start-up businesses, a provider of economic vitality to Lake Oswego, and a significant generator of taxes for the various local taxing entities. She argued that the streetcar option would severely impact Public Storage because the Foothills plan called for the condemnation of their property, which would eliminate the business entirely. She stated that the Public Storage facility sat on 3.4 acres squarely in the middle of the Foothills framework area. She emphasized that the business was not interested in redeveloping its property or in being subject to an eminent domain taking of its property for the streetcar so that developers around it could redevelop for profit. She expressed Public Storage’s concern regarding the economic sensibility of the project. She contended that the value of the real property held up as the federal match was almost certainly overstated. She held that the millions of dollars needed would certainly come out of the pockets of local businesses and taxpayers to the detriment of other essential services. She acknowledged the candidness of the DEIS in stating that this project would take very few cars off the road. She argued that therefore, this was not a transportation project. She stated Public

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 31 April 12, 2011 Storage’s belief that it was irresponsible to spend millions of dollars on a project with so little hope of improving transportation in the region.

47. Ruth Bregar, 17 Hillshire Ms. Bregar commented that she was a big fan of public transportation, as it could often move people more efficiently and effectively than a car. She questioned the practicality of the proposed streetcar system. She mentioned that she lived on the other side of town in Westridge. She conjectured that she could travel to downtown Portland by car in less than 20 minutes, which was considerably less time than it would take for her to drive to the streetcar and take it downtown. She pointed out that more than half of Lake Oswego residents were in the same situation with little incentive to take the streetcar, even 10 to 20 years from now. She asked the Council where it expected the rider ship to come from, and whether there was sufficient rider ship to support the project. She asked who would subsidize it if it was not self- supporting. She questioned whether Lake Oswego would want to assume such a huge financial burden if the subsidy fell to it.

48. Max Dordevic, 11578 SW River Road, Portland Mr. Dordevic indicated that he was 15 years old. He stated his opposition to the streetcar. He expressed his concern about the safety of his family and neighbors with the train running so close to their homes and bringing strangers and potential crime into the neighborhood. He mentioned that the kids rode their bikes and skateboards and walked their dogs in the safety of the neighborhood. He argued that the safety for which they moved to the neighborhood would be taken away. He held that the streetcar would see few riders and contribute almost half a billion dollars to the massive $14 trillion national debt. He contended that an enhanced bus system made more sense. He stated that he thought it was unacceptable for the Council to place its debt on his generation.

49. Linda Franklin, 15203 Lily Bay Court Ms. Franklin stated that she opposed the streetcar, citing the reasons already expressed tonight, especially by Alice Schlenker. She asked the Council to let the citizens of Lake Oswego vote before the City spent any more money. She addressed the environmental arguments made by the proponents, in commenting that there would be electric buses in 30 years, just as there were electric cars today. She argued that it was unfair and unreasonable to compare gas costs to the streetcar, given the likelihood that they would have enhanced buses and alternatives that did not use gas.

50. Howard Franklin, 15203 Lily Bay Court (p.39, StreetcarEmail04-11; p.17, StreetcarEmail0418) Mr. Franklin stated that he opposed the streetcar. He commented that he understood the need for representatives in a democracy to vote on matters at the federal level and even on most matters at a local level. He described Lake Oswego as a village, which some people wanted to transform into a larger city. He observed that having a mini-Pearl District in Lake Oswego represented a major change from the type of community to which most Lake Oswegans moved. He argued that this issue represented such momentous change that the citizens should have a right to vote on it. He emphasized that this was not a small matter in terms of dollars or philosophy. He pled with the Council to let the citizens vote on this question as a matter of majority rule. He argued that the citizenry were intelligent enough to vote on the type of community in which they wanted to live.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 31 April 12, 2011 51. Cheryl Salamie, 3001 Westview Court Ms. Salamie stated that she opposed the streetcar. She suggested looking at those who wanted the streetcar, as many of the vocal supporters of the streetcar were not residents or taxpayers of Lake Oswego, and many had conflicts of interest. She stated her belief that the real goal of this project was the City of Lake Oswego subsidizing the private development of Foothills. She cited the City having already spent $1.3 million for a development analysis. She described Foothills as in an earthquake, landslide, and flood plain zone with authentic sensitive lands. She argued that this project made no sense for Lake Oswego. She indicated that she did not want her local and federal dollars spent on a high risk, frivolous project like this. She contended that the project would be severely damaging to the environment and character of the city. She observed that many Lake Oswego taxpayers did not want the streetcar at any price, while others thought it would be nice but did not want to pay for it. She commented that the Council’s vision should reflect the values of the citizens, and not Metro, TriMet, Portland, or private developers. She remarked that this was a bigger and longer-term investment than the financial disaster of the West End Building. She held that the streetcar project deserved a vote of the citizens.

52. Lauren Hughes, 18711 Westview Ms. Hughes indicated that she has read the DEIS and three of the technical reports. She stated that there was no doubt that the streetcar option was environmentally devastating to the Willamette riverfront. She referenced the EPA and Department of Interior comments that the streetcar was the most environmentally damaging option and would require significant and costly compensatory mitigation. She argued that the reality was that the streetcar would forever change the character and habitat of the riverfront, which was the community’s true sensitive lands. She alleged that this did not matter to the project partners. She compared the claims in tonight’s resolution that the streetcar would be environmentally sensitive and create opportunities for habit improvement, redevelopment of impervious surfaces, and clean up 31 known hazardous sites to trying to put lipstick on a pig. She cited the DEIS’ facts that the construction and operation of the streetcar would disturb up to 71 acres, destroy critical habit resulting in the death of wildlife, fill 10 acres of flood plain, add up to 26 more acres of impervious surface, impact the serenity of the parks, and have long-term negative impacts on 15 protected species. She contended that the high retaining walls needed to address landslide and earthquake issues would trap animals in the corridor to be run over by the streetcar. She argued that the suggested habitat improvements did not begin to address the massive damage caused by the streetcar construction and operation. She contended that approving the streetcar meant a shameful reminder every seven to twelve minutes that the Lake Oswego community abandoned its character and values and traded wildlife and real sensitive lands for streetcars, condos, and plazas, just like Portland did. She commented that it was not a surprise to find the same people in Portland working on this project. She argued that the resolution proved that streetcar advocates would shamelessly rationalize this project and misrepresent the facts. She contended that the truth of the DEIS was that the streetcar was proposed to be built in a known earthquake/landslide area within the 100 year flood plain, causing massive environmental damage with no significant benefits to traffic congestions or emissions, and costing $458 million. She held that there was no way to rationalize or mitigate the project.

53. Mark Jacobson, 17453 Redfern Mr. Jacobson indicated that his family owned a gas station on State Street for 49 years, which they sold two years ago. He said that, even if he still owned the gas station, he would want the streetcar because it would increase the property values. He commented that, although he has

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 31 April 12, 2011 never taken the bus into Portland in the 45 years that he has lived in Lake Oswego, he thought that he would take the trolley into Portland for to attend a Blazer game or go to a restaurant. He argued that, with Lake Oswego having the finest police force in Oregon, they would not have any problem with crime.

54. Kent Studebaker, 4137 Westbay Road Mr. Studebaker indicated that he opposed the streetcar for many of the reasons already stated. He mentioned that he owned property in Portland and has watched the development of various light rail and trolley systems in Portland. He reported that his experience found that these projects usually vastly overstated the rider ship estimates and vastly understated the cost estimates. He speculated that something similar was going on here, as he doubted that they would see that kind of rider ship from Lake Oswego. He cited examples of other promised development around light rail and trolley systems that did not happen, such as the Round in Beaverton. He commented that he did not think that visions were something that happened in fact.

55. Shannon Berlant, 14088 Goodall Road Ms. Berlant spoke against the streetcar. She said that if there were a two vehicular lane expansion of Hwy 43 option, she would encourage the Council to pick that option. She agreed with the points made earlier about the inflexibility of railroad lines, both in their routes and the type of vehicles that could use them. She observed that roads were interconnected and used by a variety of transportation modes. She disagreed that this project would add a usable lane of traffic to Hwy 43. She referenced the comments on visioning and the long view. She observed that the development around NW 23rd in Portland built up long before the streetcar came in. She doubted that the Foothills development and the streetcar necessarily went hand in hand. She argued that if the City loosened the zoning regulations, then the developers would find a way to make that development happen. She described utilizing government funds for private development as a taxpayer giveaway. She contended that tax subsidies, deferments, and abatements in exchange for development should also be off the table as forms of corporate welfare that shifted the cost burden from the developers to the rest of the taxpayers. She encouraged the Council to consider the no build option, and to put the question to a vote of the people.

56. Paul Lyons, 2250 Wembley Park Road Mr. Lyons stated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 40 years and supported the streetcar because of the future needs of the city. He advocated for thinking 20 to 40 years out and leaving this legacy. He mentioned that he has studied streetcars around the nation, most of which have been successful. He argued that waiting five to twenty years would enormously increase the costs. He observed that Lake Oswego would grow, whether people liked it or not, and that this would be a growth area. He described the streetcar as an economic development tool. He agreed that it would help the developers because that was how these projects worked all over the country. He asked the Council to consider moving forward with the next step of the study.

57. Christina West, 3042 Tolkien Lane (p.46, StreetcarEmail0411) Ms. West asked the Council to vote no on the streetcar, which she described as an impractical, inflexible, and expensive means of providing public transportation to Lake Oswego. She stated that she did not oppose public transportation, having taken the bus into Portland. She indicated that she would do so again if it were a fast and efficient system. She spoke in support of the “Ford”

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 31 April 12, 2011 enhanced bus system, which would be flexible and changeable as needed, including switching to electric buses in the future. She observed that if they built the streetcar, they were stuck with it. She argued that the City needed to live within its means. She commented that she did not want Lake Oswego to become more expensive, as its expensiveness already drove away families with young children.

58. Bob Brown, 17917 Kelock Road Mr. Brown stated that he supported the streetcar. He argued that cities either grew, were dynamic, and accepted change or they stagnated and died. He commented that he did not want to live in a dying and stagnant community. He urged the Council to vote for the streetcar and to make Lake Oswego like all great cities that had a dedicated transportation corridor.

59. Bob Edison, 14825 Rainbow Drive Mr. Edison mentioned his experience in managing large projects, such as the streetcar project. He explained that there were two components to any project: trust and performance. He clarified that the developer had to get what he wanted in the project and he had to trust the management of the project. He commented that he has never run across a project managed by a government entity that came in on budget and on time. He cited the examples of the Big Dig in Boston, which was four times over budget and still had problems, and the OHSU tram, which he described as a financial catastrophe. He argued that building a streetcar from Lake Oswego to Portland set the region up for West Linn to suggest extending it, which would be another half a billion dollars that they did not need to be on the hook for. He cited the demographics showing that 40% of the Lake Oswego population was either retired, unemployed, or in some phase of house repossession. He contended that they could not afford to put this huge debt on top of 40% of their population, but rather they needed to take care of these people.

60. Gary Buford, 415 N State Street Mr. Buford stated that he and his wife owned a building on the east side of State Street between State Street and the railroad tracks. He indicated that, as a civil engineer, he has been involved with land development projects for over 40 years. He mentioned the City’s current promotion of a Foothills District development on the basis of streetcar service to Portland, and the LOPTP’s promotion of itself as a transit service provider to a high-density development in the Foothills District. He observed that the Foothills District and the streetcar project went hand in hand. He cited his experience in arguing that it would be some time before the time was right for either of these projects, which should both stand on their own two feet. He raised the question of who in Lake Oswego would pay the bill. He expressed his concern as a property owner adjacent to the Foothills District that the City would create a local improvement district to pay for the District. He indicated that his concern over that possibility, especially in these economic times, was a large part of his opposition to the streetcar and to the Foothills District. He reiterated that it was not the right time for either of these projects. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:47 p.m. He reconvened the meeting 9:01 p.m.

61. Elizabeth English, 11639 SW Riverwood Road, Portland Ms. English stated that, as a member of the Lake Oswego CAC, she saw from the beginning that the committee was clearly stacked in favor of the streetcar from its inception. She reported that, over the 18 months that she served on the committee, she had found it impossible to get firm and reliable facts and figures about the costs of the streetcar and its impact on the Lake Oswego community that she needed in order to make an informed decision. She commented that the CAC

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 31 April 12, 2011 vote reflected the self-interests of the majority of its members and clearly did not represent the majority of Lake Oswego residents, the Council’s constituents. She said that she was a proponent of rapid mass transit in high-density areas with the potential for economic development. She held that taxpayer dollars should be spent where the maximum benefit to the public would be realized. She argued that the transit corridor between the South Waterfront and Lake Oswego did not merit a $458 million luxury trolley. She suggested taking the broad view of investing public dollars with the best interests of the region in mind. She spoke of investing in area transit corridors that did have the potential for significant high-density growth. She described enhanced bus service as a sensible and reasonable transportation option for all transit riders between Lake Oswego and the South Waterfront both now and in 2040. She pointed out that the federal matching funds for rapid mass transit were predicated on broad community support, which the Council’s constituents have made clear did not exist. She asked the Council to vote no on the streetcar.

62. Kathe Worsley, 1877Woodland Terrace (p.63, StreetcarEmail0418) Ms. Worsley indicated that she has lived in the community for over 21 years. She stated her opposition to the streetcar. She shared her and her husband’s philosophy on living a sustainable life. She described the many and varied ways they have found to walk the sustainable walk, as opposed to the City and what the streetcar represented. She contended that the streetcar was environmentally damaging to wildlife and its habitat and waterways. She noted that it would use enormous amounts of resources to get 100 cars off the roads by 2035, arguing that it would take 170 years to recoup the construction resources alone. She described the streetcar as an obscene example of overgrown egos demanding legacies with conflicting interest developers who had their hands on the citizens’ wallets.

63. Gerald Fox, 01607 SW Greenwood Road, Dunthorpe Mr. Fox mentioned that he has talked with his neighbors, most of whom were happy that the streetcar project was under consideration. He observed that they were not happy enough to feud with the zealous people who lived down by the tracks. He spoke of an orchestrated campaign to undermine the streetcar project by spreading alarm and misinformation. He discussed the information around congestion as an example of finding something in the 500 page DEIS to misinterpret. He noted that the capacity of Hwy 43 was around 3000 people in cars and buses with a projected 300% increase by 2030. Since the facility could not absorb the projected increase, the result would be peak hour congestion on Hwy 43. He noted that the streetcar was projected to carry 1,000 trips during the peak hour, which represented a 25% increase in capacity. However, there would not be a significant drop in congestion because only some of the projected 300% increase trips would divert to the streetcar; more would come on to the highway. He cited the Banfield and the West Line as evidence of the light rail system now carrying 25% of the peak hour traffic, without which capacity, the freeways would be in gridlock.

64. John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliff Terrace, LONAC Chair Mr. Surrett indicated that he has lived in Lake Oswego of 37 years and opposed the streetcar. He read the resolution adopted by the whole membership of LONAC with no dissenting votes at their April 2 regular meeting. LONAC opposed the streetcar as the LPA over the enhanced bus or no build options because the members did not believe that the project benefits were commensurate with the estimated $450 million project cost. He cited their reasons as no significant reduction in congestion, overstated and unrealistic economic and development benefits, irreversible environmental damage, placement of a significant further financial burden on Lake Oswego

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 31 April 12, 2011 taxpayers, and diversion of financial resources away from important new projects supported by the whole community and other City functions.

65. Suresh Paranjbe, 11150 SW Riverwood Road, Portland Mr. Paranjbe mentioned that the traffic study in the DEIS found that bus would also adequately serve the projected transportation needs in the future, just as the streetcar would. He agreed that buses would eventually be powered by electricity just like the streetcar, noting that battery- operated buses were already being manufactured. He stated that he opposed the streetcar as a waste of their tax dollars.

66. Ralph Tahran, 13741 Knauss Road Mr. Tahran argued that the streetcar offered a critical transportation component that they could leverage in many ways to make Lake Oswego a multi-dimensional, vibrant, and lively community. He spoke of the need for more housing choices, including those appropriate to a walkable riverfront community. He mentioned connections to other regional employment centers. He observed that the only development and job creation currently being developed was in areas with good transit and transportation. He commented that he would not spend money on an enhanced bus system because that only led to more buses sitting in greater congestion more frequently. He argued that rail transit had to be a component of a growing community, as no metro area could build its way out of congestion. He recalled that, over the past 20 years, he has heard Foothills mentioned as the place of one of Lake Oswego’s greatest densities, a comment with which he thought all neighborhoods agreed. He contended that Foothills would not happen without the streetcar as a catalyst, and would remain an underutilized and missed opportunity. He asked the Council to support the streetcar.

67. Steve Schopp, 10475 SW Helenius, Tualatin Mr. Schopp indicated that he opposed the streetcar. He commented that he saw no difference in the proponents’ rhetoric for the streetcar than he heard from the WES proponents and the Round proponents at hearings like this. He described the allegation that all the opponents were opposed to change as the kind of rhetoric that was supposed to substitute for sound judgment and due diligence. He commented that only 600 people rode WES. He contended that the WES stations have functioned as the catalysts for nothing. He argued that Airport MAX was not a catalyst for Cascade Station, which remained vacant land until Portland allowed a big box strip mall to go in. He commented that the strip mall had needed no subsidy, yet Portland gave them all the infrastructure and the land for free. He alleged that the money has been increasingly raided from essential services, such as public safety and schools, over decades. He mentioned that the Clackamas County Commissioners have committed $204 million in Metro flex funds to the Milwaukie light rail. He spoke of it cost $70 million to retire the $40 million of debt for the Green Line. He alleged that the construction excise tax, ODOT flex funds, and lottery proceeds were all being raided to promote the Portland plan for everything.

68. Mary Jo Avery, 1575 Viewlake Court Ms. Avery mentioned that her family had a long history in Lake Oswego, a town that she dearly loved. She indicated that she opposed the streetcar because she did not know what she was getting inside this ‘box of chocolates.’ She cited her experience as a realtor for 30 years in stating that it was becoming harder for young families to move to Lake Oswego with their children because of the affordability issues. She commented that she did not see the advantage of the

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 31 April 12, 2011 streetcar, either now or in the future. She argued that they had a fiscal responsibility to vote for what people wanted. She mentioned that the majority of people with whom she talked on a daily basis did not want the streetcar. They could not support spending money for a rail line that could stop road traffic moving as the streetcar crossed the road. She argued that they needed to spend less money, utilize what they had, and make smart decisions. She contended that this was not the direction to take. She thanked the Council for its time and energy regarding this issue.

69. Greg Nelson, 62 Wheatherstone (p.30, StreetcarEmail0411; pp.4-5, StreetcarEmail0418) Mr. Nelson commented that A Streetcar Named Desire seemed an appropriate name for the Lake Oswego streetcar. He presented his reasons for firmly opposing the streetcar. He argued that it did not make sense from a practical standpoint because it was a transportation solution that did not solve a transportation problem. He contended that a properly configured express bus would be a better solution to traffic congestion. He argued that it did not make sense form an economic standpoint, citing its expense without a cost benefit justification. He commented that the ultimate cost to the City to build and operate the streetcar was an unknown, yet the Council wanted to commit Lake Oswegans to fund it without a vote of the people. He contended that it did not make sense form an environmental standpoint because it would do extensive damage to the environment. He alleged that the City has tried to mitigate that damage by seizing property rights from homeowners without any compensation or without an honest explanation about why their rights were taken. He argued that it would change the character of Lake Oswego by bringing more people and traffic to an already crowded area. He held that the small town feel would disappear forever. He contended that the project was really a property development scheme in the guise of a transportation project, which benefited only developers and the Foothills property owners. He referenced the City’s claim that it wanted affordable housing for seniors and young families. He argued that they already had that type of housing, but it would be replaced with more expensive housing less affordable to those it purported to serve. He commented that if anyone on the Council wanted the streetcar as his/her legacy, it would be, just as Judie Hammerstad wanted the Safeco property to be her legacy, a property now known as the Dead End Building. He contended that this property has become a black hole that two Councils have failed to address and cost the City well over $20 million. He urged the Council not to endorse the streetcar, which had the prospect of becoming a legacy 20 times worse than the West End Building.

70. Mike McCulloh, 1198 Boca Raton Street Mr. McCulloh disagreed that this issue was not about finances, as stated at the outset. He commented that most business people, in considering where to spend limited City funds, would dismiss the streetcar and related projects as unaffordable folly. He argued that funding the streetcar project would prohibit Lake Oswego from providing many essential services to the community and bury the City in unavoidable debt. He stated that he and his wife adamantly opposed the streetcar. He indicated that, based on tonight’s testimony, they believed that the Council should put the issue to a vote of the people.

71. Dick Reamer, 398 Furnace Street Mr. Reamer reviewed the reasons for which he supported the streetcar option. He cited the environmental impact of reducing the number of vehicles on the roadways and the dependency on roadways, which were increasingly more expensive and environmentally damaging. He agreed with taking a regional transit point of view in terms of the connections that the streetcar would

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 31 April 12, 2011 provide. He observed that, without a streetcar, Lake Oswego stood no chance of getting a connection to the Milwaukie or WES lines. He commented that the project was as affordable right now as it ever was going to be. He argued that if they did not do this now, then they would lose their investment in the right-of-way. He concurred with Mr. Sack that this project has been as open as it could possibly be. He contended that spending two minutes on the Internet would return every piece of data presented to the CACs, one of which he had sat on. He agreed that people could come and testify at the CACs. He asked how the City would fix its revenue shortfall. He contended that the neighborhoods would never stand for increased density but the Foothills District offered a solution to that problem.

72. Kay Kerr, 4 Gershwin Ms. Kerr noted that Kruse Way and Kerr Parkway also carried large daily traffic loads, which came from I-5. She said that she did not want the streetcar because it would only serve the northeastern tip of the city and probably cost between $30 million to $50 million. She conjectured that the parking structure at Albertson’s would eliminate bus service to that area and to the commercial area across from the Lakewood Center and cost the City significant tax revenue. She argued that the streetcar would be another fiasco similar to the WEB, on which the City has lost much money that could have gone into street maintenance, the Adult Community Center, and the schools. She contended that they did not need another legacy that would not be used but rather be a money pit with no benefits. She held that the current bus service was adequate, but indicated that express bus service was a possible option, such as those that used the I-5 freeway. She suggested asking TriMet for ideas on improving bus service to Lake Oswego and West Linn. She contended that the federal government needed to save money, and not throw it away on projects like the streetcar. She held that the streetcar would have low use and need a subsidy from increased taxes on Lake Oswego taxpayers, as TriMet could not afford to cover the cost. She emphasized that the Lake Oswego taxpayers would pay for this. She argued that those who would not pay taxes for this project should have no voice in the decision. She stated that she liked Lake Oswego the way it was. She suggested that those wanting a Pearl District move to it. She commented that when their forefathers planned Oswego, there were no sidewalks because they wanted to keep it a village.

73. Brad Kerr, 4 Gershwin Mr. Kerr said that he was a professional fishery biologist with a company that designed and built lakes and streams and did environmental analyses. He observed that, whatever happened with this project, a company like his or other consultants stood to profit. He indicated that they could take either side and make it work. He mentioned the six-mile light rail route proposed at half a billion dollars, a bridge to Milwaukie, and another possible one and a half mile to two mile light rail route that has not been discussed. He said that he could not get any answers out of Lake Oswego’s consultants about that line, but he speculated a possible cost of 25% to 30% of the cost of the LPA. He compared the history of the analysis work done in Lake Oswego to the cons in the movie The Sting. He described the alleged wetlands project done on 10th Street (with 5,000 square feet of affected wetlands) in Lake Oswego for $2 million as the little con that the City pulled off. He indicated that a firm like his could have given the City a 15-acre wetland project for $2 million. He cited the West End Building as the medium-sized con. He argued that they were now set up for the big con of the light rail, which the Council would push through. He said that he did not see the logical analysis but he did see politics.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 31 April 12, 2011 He contended that when they developed an urban center in a town that was never intended to be an urban center, they would skew the social/political fabric of the town and change it. He commented that the consultants have not analyzed in their impact statements the social/political effect of the light rail or the Foothills development. He strongly suggested that they do so because this change would make Lake Oswego more like Portland. He pointed out that the residents did not move to Portland, they moved to Lake Oswego. He spoke in support of a water taxi as a viable option. He indicated that he saw no analysis of this option either and he could not get the same answer from the City’s consultants. He commented that, as with most municipalities, the City needed to learn what the word ‘analysis’ actually meant.

74. Diane Cassidy, 18280 Indian Creek Drive Ms. Cassidy indicated that she has lived in Lake Oswego for 35 years. She commented that the only reason to approve the streetcar was that the Mayor and City Council believed that it was essential for developing Foothills because that development could not occur without a streetcar to Portland as an amenity. She remarked that there were many reasons to reject the streetcar, including its failure to relieve congestion on Hwy 43 and its failure to benefit most Lake Oswegans. She argued that there was only one group that would benefit from the streetcar development and its associated Foothills development: the transit industrial complex comprised of consultants, engineers, developers, bureaucrats, and construction and manufacturing companies. She contended that this group fed off the federal and local dollars brought by these projects, and that it would not exist without federal grants. She held that the damage that the streetcar and the Foothills development would do to their small town was a given, citing more congestion, reduced bus service, subsidized development, and the loss of valuable local services. She argued that a streetcar was neither needed nor wanted, as well as being prohibitively expensive and ushering in another set of expenditures to make the development happen. She commented that there were better and less expensive alternatives. She contended that there was no good reason to build a streetcar; it only satisfied the appetite of the transit industrial complex that needed another project in the pipeline, and of the bureaucrats who believed it was a way to make themselves relevant. She expressed her disappointment that key members of the Steering Committee did not bother to show up in January to listen to the citizens. She commented that, while that might have been because they did not care what the citizens had to say, most people believed that it was because the streetcar approval was already a done deal. She said that she and her husband urged the Council to reject the streetcar option in favor of an express bus or no build option, as the streetcar was the wrong project at the wrong time.

75. John Beau, 2051 Greentree Road Mr. Beau mentioned the flyer he received this weekend from the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project. He quoted the Steering Committee’s comment that it needed an analysis of the legal status of the Willamette Shoreline. He expressed his disbelief that they did not know what the legal status was. He argued that they needed to know the legal status because they did not want to buy into long and expensive litigation. He mentioned the value of the property. He referenced earlier testimony this evening that the 2008 assessment was flawed and needed to be corrected. He contended that there was a tendency towards bias, given that there were 147 who approved the streetcar and 196 who did not approve it.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 31 April 12, 2011 76. Paden Pritchard, 204 Sixth Street Mr. Pritchard spoke from his written comments (pp.12-17, writtentestimony). He commented that he took the perspective of what it would cost the City if it did not build the streetcar option. He compared Lake Oswego’s situation today to the suburbs in Southern Marin County, California, in the 1960s when the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system was approved by all Bay Area counties except Marin County. He argued that Lake Oswego would face the same fate as those suburbs in becoming the least diversified community in the region if the community did not accept the streetcar.

77. Norma Heiser, 890 F Avenue Ms. Heiser stated that she was a lifelong Lake Oswego resident. She indicated that she respected citizens who thoughtfully called attention to how the City spent money and where it went. She remarked that she also respected the Council for trying to mediate community consensus and to represent the diverse views in the community. She mentioned that she has listened to people who visited Portland from other states and countries to study the transit system because it modeled what worked. She questioned excluding Lake Oswego or West Linn from the local rail system. She explained that, as an elder, she now needed another transportation method besides the car. She commented that cars and buses wrecked highways and roads, which constantly needed repairs. She speculated that the costs associated with cars and buses were more than those associated with maintaining an efficient rail system. She pointed out that the old systems and infrastructure were crumbling and they were leaving their children with an infrastructure mess that they would have to clean up. She commented that a new rail system was clean, manageable, and would help move their children into a hopeful future that they would have to create.

78. David Streif, 18335 Lothlorien Way, Citizens for Stewardship of Lake Oswego Lands Mr. Streif indicated that he has been a resident for 20 years. Speaking on behalf of the LO Stewards, he strongly encouraged the Council to vote against the streetcar as the LPA. He commented that, since the financial problems with the project were well known, he would focus on the environmental problems. He stated that he had training and a degree in wildlife biology. Consequently the DEIS section on the ecosystem and wildlife habitat had been most interesting to him. He cited the DEIS conclusion (based on the information provided by the project partners) that the streetcar was the most environmentally damaging option. He mentioned the negative effects of the proposed construction on a number of bird and fish species, on water quality through the permanent loss of riparian vegetation, in stream work, and increased impervious surfaces. He indicated that the necessary retaining walls and fences up to 15 feet high would prevent wildlife passage, causing habitat fragmentation. He noted the federal EPA and Department of Interior’s reservations about the streetcar, as expressed in the DEIS, because of the environmental damage. He contended that the City of Lake Oswego has been working over the last two years to control citizen backyards as sensitive lands and prevent common uses in order to protect the environment. He indicated that the streetcar construction project would involve building 25,000 linear feet, almost five miles of retaining walls, and move 80,000 cubic yards of soil He described the land proposed for the streetcar as lying in the 100 year flood plain near a geological fault, which provided important wildlife habitat within the urban environment. He argued that these were the true sensitive lands, and the LO Stewards found that the streetcar alternative would cause a completely unacceptable destructive effect on the environment.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 31 April 12, 2011 79. Tom Coffee, 4183 Fruitwood Court Mr. Coffee referenced his e-mail and its attachment that he sent earlier today (p.129, StreetcarEmail0418). He indicated that he attached the testimony that he gave before the Steering Committee in January because he found it still relevant. He cited his 31 years of experience in local government planning in stating that, unless planning and visioning were tempered by reality, then even the best planning efforts in the world often failed. He observed that this was fundamentally a political issue with the facts argued back and forth. He stated his personal opinion that the facts suggested that the streetcar was the wrong solution. He commented that he was not certain that they knew what problem the streetcar was trying to solve. He held that, without a reality check on the planning and visioning, the project would have a problem. He described it as a project in search of a problem, as there was no major need currently to redevelop Foothills and no need for a streetcar to make that development work. He read a quote from a review of The Life and Death of American Cities by Jane Jacobs, a New York activist who stopped the Westside Freeway from coming through Greenwich Village and destroying Washington Park, which described Ms. Jacobs’ teachings. He indicated that the message here was that Lake Oswego was unique in its urban design and physical setting. He argued that the more they chased after examples of other places, the less Lake Oswego would retain of that character, which it would eventually lose. He reiterated that the streetcar was not what they needed right now.

80. Chris Foster, 13612 SW Knauss Road Mr. Foster read from his written testimony (p.2, writtentestimony). He indicated that he was a 60- year plus resident of Lake Oswego. He asked the Council to stop all efforts on the streetcar at this time. He presented his concerns with the potential for an increase in criminal activity because of the streetcar, which he described as a ‘Conduit for Crime.’ He observed that once the streetcar was installed, it would not be easily removed. He held that the best option for increased transportation service from Portland was enhanced bus service or express bus. He asked the Council to vote no on the streetcar.

81. Bill Mathers, 717 Eighth Street Mr. Mathers commented that he saw this situation not so much as about today as it was about tomorrow. He contended that people would not understand that until oil prices skyrocketed, as they would do soon, which would change everything. He commented that the City’s contribution of $10 to $20 million amortized over 30 years came to about $500,000 a year, which was a small amount of money per person in this kind of town. He gave an example of how light rail could potentially save $10 million a year in gas costs by providing 20,000 trips a day by rail instead of by car. He argued that diversification was a good thing in transportation, as putting all their eggs in the petroleum bucket has not worked. He reiterated that the public would only get behind the streetcar when gas prices increased significantly. However, if they waited to do something until gas was $20 a gallon, then it would be too late. He recalled his experience during the 1973 oil embargo when he could not buy gas. He argued that, with world oil production having already peaked, availability of gas, as opposed to cost only, would be an issue again.

82. Dr. Jonathan Stoehr, 17350 Blue Heron Road Dr. Stoehr mentioned the many for sale and rental signs that he has seen in front of Lake Oswego properties. He speculated that if one asked Lake Oswegans what the town could use, they would say that the town could use more people wanting to buy their properties or more families with children to attend the schools. He observed that transportation was a major factor in a decision to

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 31 April 12, 2011 move. He recalled that, although he moved to Lake Oswego in spite of its isolation, he did factor transportation into his decision. He argued that not building the streetcar represented significant government waste because the community would then see no return on this great $90 million asset of the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way, which could not be used for any other mode of transportation. He pointed out that $90 million was 11 times the School District’s current budget gap. He contended that, in building the streetcar, Lake Oswego would gain an asset that would create demand for existing houses, draw working professional families into the community, bring retail customers to the downtown, create opportunities for local entrepreneurs, and provide alternative transportation for the elderly to get to Portland. He urged the Council to adopt the streetcar alternative.

83. R.A. Fontes, 310 Second Street Mr. Fontes indicated that some trips that he and his wife took by bus would be impossible by streetcar because it was too slow and meant longer walking distances and forced transfers. He speculated that there were other riders who, when faced with the streetcar realities, would find themselves using cars more and transit less. He commented that a streetcar would increase congestion by moving the park and rides to Albertson’s, while the Foothills development would add thousands of cars to State Street, thus increasing its traffic volume up to the levels of Canyon Road in Beaverton or 99W in Tigard. He asked if those were the models for free flowing traffic, town center ambience, and pedestrian friendliness that they wanted for their town. He argued that, even though the MAX lines had an 85% reliability compared to 80% for TriMet buses, the minimal difference did not make up for the streetcar’s liabilities. He pointed out that the no build option included the Regional Transportation Plan’s allocation of $3.6 million in 2007 dollars to improve the bus service of Line 35. He described the enhanced bus proposal as a disgrace. He argued that the no build alternative was the cheapest to build and operate (requiring no City funding), minimized congestion, provided the fastest trips for the majority of riders, and improved transit service for each rider.

84. Bill Ward, 4301 Upper Drive Mr. Ward stated that he was skeptical of the streetcar plan. He wondered whether it was a case of civic hedonism, such as the West End Building, which has not served the community well. He wondered whether the streetcar was a real estate development promotion scheme designed for the benefit of Foothills. He indicated that, even so, he understood that planning would continue to move forward. He asked the Council to pledge to insure that future studies for the streetcar were honest, logical, transparent, and not driven by an unspoken agenda.

85. Rob LeChevallier, 1570 Bonnie Brae Mr. LeChevallier stated that he has lived in Lake Oswego since 1964, and that he supported the streetcar. He submitted a document (p.3, writtentestimony) from their streetcar committee, which listed over 250 Lake Oswego and Southwest Portland residents in favor of the streetcar. He referenced his testimony, which he submitted via e-mail earlier today (p.13, StreetcarEmail0412). He observed that, while citizens have spoken of express bus service, no one has addressed the cost of widening Hwy 43 in order to get the buses through to downtown Portland. He indicated that he would like to hear some alternatives from the streetcar opponents in light of the obstacles to widening Hwy 43.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 31 April 12, 2011 86. Lisa Vopel, 5655 SW Kinney Street Ms. Vopel indicated that she has lived in Lake Oswego for over 50 years, but was temporarily residing in Aloha. She expressed her concern that this issue was not so much about transportation as it was with the change of zoning in Foothills away from industrial and the loss of living wage jobs. She described Foothills as the historic heart of Lake Oswego. She pointed out that Lake Oswego has already lost two of its four largest private employers, with the City taking over the properties rather than private industry providing more jobs. She argued that they needed more family wage jobs, which would allow families with children to live and work in Lake Oswego rather than having to commute to a living wage job in Portland or Tualatin from a Lake Oswego bedroom community. She mentioned that she would like to see WES connected across the river to Milwaukie and to connect Lake Oswego with the rest of Clackamas County.

87. David Reinhart, 12700 Fielding Road Mr. Reinhart indicated that he commuted to work in downtown Portland on Hwy 43 every day. He stated that he was also the co-chair of the original CAC that Metro put together in 2006, also known as the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Advisory Committee (LOPAC). He reported that LOPAC worked hard for two years and presented two recommendations to the Metro Steering Committee. The minority opinion (nine members) recommended studying the streetcar to Lake Oswego option. The majority opinion (ten members) recommended the streetcar only to John’s Landing, thus keeping it as the Portland circulatory transit option that it was now, and converting the right-of-way from the Sellwood Bridge south to a pedestrian and bike path and providing enhanced bus service. He explained that LOPAC specifically defined what it meant by enhanced bus service because at the time, Metro was pushing rapid bus transit and the majority opposed bus rapid transit. He indicated that enhanced bus service meant more frequent service, more and improved bus shelters, peak hour express service, bus traffic signal pre-emption, and bus passing queues where possible. He stated that, after two years of work by this dedicated group of citizens, their preferred option not only was not studied as a stand alone alternative, but their vision for enhanced bus service was distorted into the expensive monster of bus rapid transit, which the group had not wanted at all. He commented that not only did the Steering Committee choose not to study the preferred alternative of their own CAC, but when formulating the new CAC, it allowed only three of the minority LOPAC members to sit on it and none of the majority members. He mentioned that he had contacted several of the majority members and they had expressed interest in serving. He commented that, as the Council has heard from other people, it appeared to him that this was a decision made a long time ago with staff and decision-makers doing their best to put the people on the committees who would give them they answer that they wanted. He spoke in support of putting the question to a vote of the citizens as quickly as possible in order to get a real answer on what people wanted.

88. David Zeir, 17220 Robb Place Mr. Zeir indicated that he has lived 35 years in Lake Oswego, and was speaking as an individual and not as a representative of his company or any of his investments. He mentioned that he owned land on the Macadam Avenue route. He commented that, in making real estate investments, he looked at costs and benefits as part of the analysis. He pointed out that having $86 million out of a $458 million budget undefined as to where it would come from represented a gigantic cavity in the budget. He observed that the benefits noted in the DEIS of 100 less cars on Hwy 43 for $458 million meant $4.56 million per car.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 31 April 12, 2011 The projected rider ship estimate of an additional 570 transit riders using the streetcar meant $803,000 per rider. The projected 13 additional FTE jobs meant $35 million per new job. He commented that there was an operating deficit already planned in the budget because TriMet did not have the resources to fund the streetcar, which he believed Lake Oswego would have to do. He indicated that he thought that TriMet has clearly not committed to this project. He discussed the development opportunity, which he described as extremely high risk in the project construction budget. He noted the scant mention of the cost and hurdles of relocating the PGE substation and the two sewage treatment plants. He emphasized that the issues of developing this property into housing (the slope and poor soils, the topography, and the flood plain) would be extremely expensive. He argued that it would fall to the City to subsidize the developers. He remarked that the typical modus operandi of development in transit corridors was to get the local jurisdiction to subsidize adjacent development. He rated the transit project as pathetic with the costs and benefits not meshing at all. He commented that it was grossly expensive, and suspected that it also grossly underestimated the building costs for the rail line, as that has been the history in Portland. He acknowledged the Council’s temptation to simply move the project planning along. He argued that the next step of planning would obligate Lake Oswego to $2.5 million. He urged the Council to stop the streetcar project now as the fiscally responsible thing to do. He suggested dedicating the $2.5 million to essential services. He advocated for stopping the project now or letting the citizens of Lake Oswego vote on it.

89. Bob Thompson, 2390 Palisades Crest Drive, representing the Lake Oswego Stewards Political Action Committee Mr. Thompson indicated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 26 years. He read a statement on behalf of the Lake Oswego Stewards PAC. He referenced the fight over the past two years by Lake Oswego citizens to preserve their private property backyards against unfair, arbitrary, and unsupported environmental regulation placed on them by the Lake Oswego City Council and Metro under the Sensitive Lands program. He contended that these private backyards were a trade of trees for water with some properties regulated by these onerous property use restrictions and others escaping them completely. He indicated that the DEIS called this trading of property rights of some to allow development in other environmentally sensitive areas ‘compensatory mitigation.’ He referenced the reservations expressed by both the EPA and the Department of the Interior regarding the streetcar alternative because of the environmental damage it would cause to aquatic resources, wetlands, wildlife, fisheries, and threatened and endangered species. He noted that these two agencies indicated that if sufficient compensatory mitigation were employed, then the streetcar option could be pursued. He commented that the City was poised to add more properties to the sensitive lands inventory just in time for the streetcar/Foothills project that would result in significant damage to the Willamette riverfront. He described this as a growing inventory of properties, mostly private backyards, with significant use restrictions in the name of environmentalism and with no property owner consent or compensation. He contended that if the current Council approved the streetcar and Foothills projects, then hundreds more private backyards would be traded for the City’s right to destroy the community’s true sensitive lands, which were the riverfront. He argued that no matter how much compensatory mitigation the City did, the riverfront would never be the same. He observed that environmental pundits turned out to testify at the hearings of the absolute need to restrict private backyards in order to protect the environment for future generations. He described their silence on the permanent environmental damage caused by the streetcar and Foothills as deafening.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 29 of 31 April 12, 2011 He contended that support for the streetcar option was inconsistent with the claims made by the Council and the community regarding environmental stewardship. He argued that whether one called it a trade, offsite mitigation, compensatory mitigation, or sensitive lands, Lake Oswego citizens’ existing private backyards could not be used as environmental penance.

90. Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way Ms. Jones stated that she opposed the streetcar. She spoke from her written comments (p.9, written testimony). She read a quote from the DEIS regarding indirect effects of water quality mitigation, contending that the statement was deceptive because of the Metro mandate for high density development along the Hwy 43 corridor with the streetcar alternative. She read further quotes regarding the effect of development on previously disturbed existing impervious surfaces on watershed health. She pointed out that the City applied its sensitive lands regulations primarily to properties with previously disturbed existing impervious surfaces. She described this situation as hypocrisy. She described the Hwy 43 corridor as the most environmentally sensitive area in Lake Oswego. She asked the Council if it would approve this environmentally destructive project for profit or if it would adhere to the strict environmental regulations that it imposed discriminately on selected Lake Oswego citizens.

91. John Sorenson, 250 Stampher Road Mr. Sorenson recalled that he and his family chose to live in Lake Oswego 17 years ago because of its village feel, lack of development, nice environment, and outstanding school system. He indicated that he had not been interested in a streetcar or four to seven-story buildings. He argued that the proposed plan to develop three to four story dense housing in Foothills in conjunction with the streetcar, along with a 400-car parking garage in the Albertson’s area, would only increase the congestion on State Street. He commented that he was not even considering his own personal standpoint of the streetcar passing eight times an hour 300 feet from his house. He spoke of the bigger picture of what it would do to Lake Oswego. Citing what he heard tonight, he urged the Council to do the right thing and vote no on the project; but if not, then at least put it up the citizens to decide whether to proceed with this project.

92. Charles “Skip” Ormsby, 170 SW Birdshill Road, Clackamas County, Acting Chair, Birdshill CPO/Neighborhood Association (pp.63-71, StreetcarEmail0411; pp.10-15, pp.27- 33, StreetcarEmail0418) Mr. Ormsby reported that the preliminary results of the survey he developed and has been conducting of his neighborhood (pp.36-46, writtentestimony) found that the Lake Oswego residents on Fielding Road did not want the streetcar option by a 10 to 1 ratio. He indicated that the Clackamas County residents opposed it by an 8 to 1 ratio. He said that his survey found that residents wanted to continue with the existing bus service and to place the issues of Foothills redevelopment and transit finance to a public vote. He commented that the concept of concentrated benefits with costs distributed over time and population did not play well today. He said that people wanted to vote on the large project issues in order to control finances along with tax and fee-based encumbrances, rather than continuing with the present practice of only committees and local government representatives voting.

93. Deborah Lopardo, 48 Hillshire Drive Ms. Lopardo encouraged the Council to vote yes on the streetcar. She stated her belief that the future generations not represented tonight would want this project. She said that she welcomed the possibility of more development and thought it necessary to keep the downtown valid. She

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 30 of 31 April 12, 2011 commented that she did not like to hear all the negative comments of the naysayers, which she alleged made Lake Oswego look like a losing town and was an untrue representation of the town. She contended that the truth was that Lake Oswego had $20 million in reserves, a Triple A bond rating, and paid its bills. It had major downtown redevelopment that brought in taxes, jobs, a sense of community, and outside shoppers. She indicated that she believed in the vision of a vibrant downtown, which she contended former Mayor Hammerstad did much to bring about with good fiscal management and successful results with Lakeview Village. She contended that the problem with the West End Building did not happen due to Lake Oswego fiscal mismanagement, but rather to the economic downturn and sinking property values. She spoke of her sense that the naysayers in her generation did not care about the future because they were already taken care of.

94. Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denny Court Ms. Krebs asked the Council to reject the streetcar project. She indicated that her concerns related to the costs exceeding the perceived benefits. She said that, as a resident of the west side of town, she questioned moving forward with a streetcar that would seriously undermine the future availability of funds for other transportation projects in the city, such as the planned improvements to Boones Ferry Road, consistent with the Lake Grove Village Center Plan and needed to support the Lake Grove’s current and future economic vitality. She argued that it was critical that any decision made on the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project not hamstring other infrastructure investments in the City. She asked the Council to recognize the limited opportunity of this project to Lake Oswegans on the west side of town, with the limited west side transit to downtown Lake Oswego. She remarked that she did not see how this project would benefit the west side of town in any way. She stated her concern that the expense of this project would be the rationale for limited investment in Lake Grove in the future. She commented that she did not believe this project was a good use of limited financial resources.

95. Timothy Keenen, 2177 Summit Drive Mr. Keenen observed, based on the testimony he heard tonight, that an inarguable fact regarding the streetcar was that there were two very distinct groups: Yes and No. He noted that he did not hear one ‘maybe.’ He commented that another inarguable fact was that there were conflicting interpretations of the facts. He contended that the handwriting on the wall read that there was an energized schism on this issue in Lake Oswego and a political risk to the Mayor and City Council. He argued that there was a clear call for the Council to refer the streetcar decision to a vote of the people. He conjectured that how the Council handled this issue would strongly influence who would next sit on the Council and influence the future of Lake Oswego. He stated that he opposed the streetcar for all the reasons already stated. He asked the Council to refer this to a vote of the Lake Oswego citizens. Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony.

4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:39 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON June 7, 2011 Robyn Christie /s/ Robyn Christie Jack D. Hoffman /s/ City Recorder Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor

City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 31 of 31 April 12, 2011