Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2002-02-05 AM Of Lk" OS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ' O )14' February 5, 2002 ORCGOM Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:33 a.m. on February 5, 2002, in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Dan Semrad, Fire Chief; Liz Jacob, Associate Planner 3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA Mayor Hammerstad said that she would review the adoption of the Council goals. She noted Councilor Rohde would review the consent agenda. Councilor Hoffman asked to pull Item 4.2.1, the trolley, for further discussion and visibility. He spoke of discussing whether a public relations campaign for the next 5 to 10 years was appropriate in terms of the trolley and the neighbors. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the topic was not germane to the agreement with the Oregon Electric Railway Society. She held that talking about the future of the trolley as a streetcar, especially with the pull back of the transportation funds, and with respect to right-of-way and public relations, seemed to be a larger discussion. Councilor Hoffman conceded the point but asked to still pull it. 4.1.1 Fire Sprinklers Councilor Graham asked for clarification on the expenditure of the grant monies. Dan Semrad, Fire Chief, confirmed that, although the 17 facilities receiving the fire sprinklers would only cost $164,000, the City could spend up to the full grant amount of$258,750. He explained that 10% matching grant from the City was 10% of the total cost. He noted that the $164,000 was only for the contract to put in the sprinklers (page 16); there were other fees that would take more of the grant. Chief Semrad indicated to Councilor Graham that the City did not jeopardize the grant by not spending all of it. He said that staff might use an amendment process to bring the other houses on board, once they finished these 17. He mentioned that they would start with the 10 houses in the city and the 7 houses in the county. Chief Semrad indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that there was one more house in the city. He told Councilor Rohde that he would get a list to him of the 17 houses identified by staff for the project. 4.2.3 Resolution 02-07 Councilor Hoffman asked for clarification on the 'zero cost' listed for this item. David Powell, City Attorney, indicated that, while there was no cost to continue membership in the City Country Insurance Services Trust, the City did pay an annual assessment. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, said that the assessment was $377,000. At Councilor Graham's request, Mr. Powell discussed the definitions of several insurance terms, including risk management services, risk financing and loss control programs. He indicated that risk management assessment provided recommendations on how to minimize liabilities, while risk financing dealt with the underwriting insurance pool. Mr. Schmitz City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 9 February 5, 2002 explained that loss control programs involved consultation with the City on how to improve guardianship of assets, inventory control, etc. Councilor Hoffman clarified that the insurance company worked with public agencies to reduce the types of potential tort liability, such as police pursuits or false arrests or maintenance leaving barricades on the sidewalks. Mr. Powell mentioned that the insurance company met annually with the Finance Department to review ways to lower the City's risks and the claims that have been paid. Mayor Hammerstad noted a correction to the minutes: deletion of the last sentence in the sixth paragraph on page 62 about accommodated traffic. Councilor McPeak commented that she found the minutes of the Arts Downtown discussion unhelpful in terms of what was said. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the Council has thoroughly discussed the Waluga Neighborhood Plan. She indicated that the Councilors had all the information in the packet that they needed to make a decision on the neighborhood notice requirements forwarded from the Planning Commission. She indicated to Councilor Turchi that they would vote on the Zoning Code/Development Code consolidation tonight. 7.4 Density Guidelines Mayor Hammerstad recounted her meeting with Councilor Hoffman and Planning Commissioner Dan Vizzini, who made suggestions about how to get better participation and a closer relationship with the public. She discussed their suggestion of putting some of the comments made by the public at the hearing up on flip charts placed around the room in order to illustrate that the Council did understand what their comments were. Mayor Hammerstad said that, after receiving Mr. Vizzini's e-mail of many of the comments, she perceived a potential problem: if the Council did not provide a verbatim account of the public comments, people would say that the comments as written were incorrect or incomplete or misunderstood. She indicated that she thought it was a good idea for future public hearings. Mayor Hammerstad asked for Council feedback on using PowerPoint to display comments for the audience. Councilor McPeak observed that a public discussion at tonight's meeting would be contentious and consume a great deal of time. Mayor Hammerstad concurred, indicating that the PowerPoint would be for information purposes only. Mayor Hammerstad recalled that, in study sessions, the Council invited those with whom the City has been working on a solution to a particular problem to the table to participate in the discussion. She pointed out that in this case, the Council has not been working with the people in the audience on a solution but rather the Council and the audience held two different points of view. She held that the Council has heard many good comments in the hearing and many comments based on misunderstanding. She spoke to the Council simply deliberating and making the decision tonight. Councilor McPeak held that it was apparent that the Council has been open on this matter to an extreme degree. She indicated that, while she did not want to make this decision, she was as ready to do so now as she could be. She said that repetitive statements of the same arguments would not help her make a better decision. Councilor Hoffman clarified that he and Mr. Vizzini had been thinking about how to engage with the citizens, who had a different perspective of the same problem than the Council did. He mentioned Mr. Vizzini's suggestion that, in the future, the Council try to engage people with different opinions or perspectives in order to get their side and to understand their problem. Councilor Hoffman commented that both he and Mr. Vizzini found last week's public hearing lacking, in that it was neither public nor a hearing. He described it as a limited number of people who had a vested interest in a particular ordinance, which they believed would apply to them City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 February 5, 2002 uniquely. He pointed out that the audience did not believe that the Council was hearing them, despite the Council's assurances that it did hear them. Councilor Hoffman observed that being listened to and being agreed with were two radically different concepts. He explained that that was why they came up with the idea of putting comments up on poster board: it was a means to inform the audience that the Council did hear and understand what they said, even though what they said was based on misunderstandings. Councilor McPeak conceded that Councilor Hoffman made valid points but argued that the Council hearing on this issue was better than other hearings held by the City. She stated that she paid strict attention to the testimony, as did all the Councilors. She reiterated that she thought that putting up one-sentence comments would be contentious, although a list summarizing the testimony might be helpful. She spoke to the Council engaging fully as a group in discussing what it thought were the most important points made. Mayor Hammerstad observed that more than one sentence on a PowerPoint slide tended to blur together, making it hard to read. She asked staff to provide to the Council copies of the summary of comments e-mailed to her by Mr. Vizzini. Councilor Graham commented that many times she has heard from people whose opinion differed from hers that because she did not agree with them, she was not hearing them. She spoke against the use of planning jargon, or `Plannese,' which was technical and unintelligible to the average citizen. She asked to see a plain English paragraph underneath the required technical language in the ordinance explaining what the technical language said. Councilor Graham indicated that the comment charts would be helpful during the next contentious hearing. She concurred with Councilor McPeak that using them at this point for this matter was going too far. Mayor Hammerstad agreed that they would have to set up the use of the charts early on in the process. Mayor Hammerstad discussed the procedure she would like to follow this evening with the two ordinances. She indicated that she would like a motion for the ordinance with the partition language first in order to allow Council discussion of that issue, and then, should that fail, a motion on the subdivision ordinance. She observed that it might be more comfortable to have the discussion first before any motion. She asked the Council which procedure it preferred. The Council discussed the procedure for the evening. Councilor Schoen asked Councilor Hoffman why he had asked for the second ordinance with the partition language, as there had not appeared to be any support for it at the last meeting. Councilor Hoffman said that he felt that the Council owed it to the Planning Commission to discuss publicly the Commission's actual recommendation, which the Council has not done. Mayor Hammerstad commented that that would be a helpful discussion, which might help address the fear factor. Item 8 Information from the Council Councilor Rohde said that he had a brief report on the League of Oregon Cities Board meeting. Councilor Hoffman agreed to provide a summary of the meeting that he and Councilor Rohde attended on the regional industrial land supply. Councilor Rohde presented a request from Don Back for a resolution from Lake Oswego in support of adding a six-mile trail, extending from downtown Lake Oswego to the Hillsdale Transit Center, to the Metro regional master plan of trails. He explained that Mr. Back headed a volunteer organization that worked weekends on improving trails throughout southwest Portland; adding this trail to the Metro list made it eligible for regional pathway development funds. He mentioned that Mr. Back needed resolutions of support from Portland and Lake Oswego to take to the Metro Council; Portland had already provided a resolution. He noted that the request came at no cost to the City. Councilor Graham indicated that she had some announcements. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 February 5, 2002 Item 8.1.1 Resolution 02-09 Mayor Hammerstad asked if the Council was comfortable with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board as a controlling influence on the joint aquatics center task force with West Linn. Councilor Graham asked that the committee include students. Item 8.1.2 Resolution 02-10 Councilor McPeak recalled that the Council had decided to site the art pieces only in the downtown, and to inform the artists during the call for artists of the maximum amount of money that the City had available to purchase a piece. She pointed out that neither of those issues were addressed in the resolution (page 339) or the policy (page 341). She asked to change Step 1 to `identify the downtown site' in order to reflect the Council decision. Mr. Schmitz confirmed to Councilor McPeak that informing the artists about the amount of money that the Council was willing to spend was not in the resolution. He suggested that they meet after the meeting to discuss the Councilor's concerns. Mayor Hammerstad asked to see Exhibit A laid out more clearly. Citizen Comment Mr. Schmitz advised the Council that someone affiliated with Westside Rider might testify tonight about abandoning the City's existing skateboard park and developing a new one in town. He indicated to Councilor Schoen that the group would have to raise private funds. 4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the long-term housing issue was coming back to Council from the Planning Commission with no changes in the way the Planning Commission had sent it to the previous Council. She noted that at least one member of the previous Council had vehemently opposed the item. She spoke to this Council having the option of dealing with or not dealing with these sorts of items (i.e., requested by a different Council and coming back unchanged). Councilor Schoen recalled that the previous Council almost had consensus on the item but had requested the Planning Commission to come back on the issue of the placement of assisted housing. He held that the Commission had an obligation to respond to the Council's request for information, rather than simply sending it back unchanged. He observed that doing so presented the appearance of"The old Council did not like it but maybe the new one will." Councilor Turchi said that he attended a Planning Commission meeting at which the Commission discussed this item in detail. He indicated that the Commission made a good faith effort to look at the Council's concerns but concluded that the original document addressed the Council's concerns. He commented that the Commission had been somewhat frustrated in trying to re-address issues that it felt the material already addressed. Councilor Schoen recalled that the basic issue had been that the Council had felt that someone should be able to retire within his/her existing neighborhood, if the space was available. He indicated that it had ended up looking like the City was being politically correct in responding to select neighborhoods as opposed to applying the placement of assisted living as a citywide issue. Councilor Hoffman concurred that the Council had wanted to look at a person being able to retire in place. He mentioned another concern that retirement homes and long term care houses should not be relegated to arterials. He suggested meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the Council's philosophy and whether the Commission thought that what the Council wanted would work. The Council discussed whether to take the item off the February 19 agenda, pending a study session with the Planning Commission, or to add it to the study session on variances scheduled for February 12. Councilor Rohde spoke against holding another study session on the issue. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9 February 5, 2002 He argued that the history and previous Council's discussions were sufficiently documented to allow this Council to familiarize itself with the prior arguments. He spoke to holding the discussion at the public hearing, along with a Planning Commission representative and a Planning staff member. He referenced the additional staff time involved in a separate study session. Mayor Hammerstad discussed her dislike of bringing an item to the Council, which staff and advisory committees have worked on, only for the Council to vote it down. She described it as disrespectful. She spoke to taking an opportunity to make any changes desired by the Council in order to craft an item for which the Council could vote. Councilor Hoffman commented that he found it useful to talk directly with the Planning Commissioners. He characterized the minutes as an interpretation of what was said, and indicated that he preferred to hear from the individuals directly. Councilor Turchi recalled that the issue had focused on where the potential sites were located, the impact of large facilities in residential neighborhoods, and the accessibility of the facilities to the rest of the community. He reiterated that the Planning Commission gave the matter a thorough review in consideration of the values expressed by the previous Council, and concluded that it could not do much more. Councilor Turchi said that the Commission was not saying that it did not want retired people living in the community. He held that they had tried to find a way to make siting these facilities happen in a compatible manner with the resources in the community. He commented that he thought that they did a nice job. Councilor McPeak indicated that Councilor Turchi gave a fair summary of the previous Council's arguments. She argued that the Council needed to deal with this issue, which was an important issue to the community. She pointed out that the longer they waited, the less opportunity there would be to site these facilities. Councilor Rohde recalled the discussion he had with the Planning Commission at the time. He described the Commission as coming to an `irrational NIMBYism' in the policy it eventually developed and sent to Council. He indicated that what he heard was the Planning Commission setting a direction that avoided taking the heat from the neighborhoods over placing elderly folks in the community, rather than dealing with the issue of whether these facilities were compatible with the neighborhoods or should be relegated to one of the four major arterials in Lake Oswego. Mayor Hammerstad halted the discussion, as it was getting into sustentative argument. She reiterated her contention that a study session was the better way to go. She pointed out that if they did not come out of the study session with something that the Council was willing to adopt, then the item needed more work. Councilor Schoen asked that the Planning Commission address the issues and concerns of the previous Council, rather than simply returning the item unchanged. Mayor Hammerstad asked staff to identify what the need was in the community for assisted living facilities. She mentioned reading that there was currently a glut. The Council agreed by majority consensus to schedule a study session on February 12. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that they would find a place for the neighborhood planning discussion, including plans passed and in progress. Councilor Hoffman asked staff to make sure that all appropriate parties, including the neighborhood association chairs, were notified. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.1 Variances Mayor Hammerstad observed that in the six-year history provided by staff, the majority of the 18 Class 2 variances granted were for commercial buildings, which the Council did not discuss City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 February 5, 2002 at all. She commented that the Class 1 variances appeared to have the greatest impact on the Planning Department workload. She suggested passing the Class 1 variances as a means of streamlining the process, noting that they had no negative impact. Mayor Hammerstad spoke to holding further discussion on the Class 2 variances and the additional associated issues that the Council had yet to discuss. She asked for more information on why the commercial buildings needed variances. She questioned whether there was a way to streamline the process to make it more understandable to the City and the applicant. She hypothesized that when people saw how streamlined the Class 1 variance process was, they might decide to do a lesser modification that would fit under the Class 1 variance criteria. Mayor Hammerstad discussed her preference for breaking down the major changes in land use procedures into manageable pieces. She noted that staff tied the Class 1 and Class 2 variances together under the new rationale but held that it was not impossible to separate them. She held that it was easier to deal with one issue at a time, as opposed to two or three related issues because those tended to taint each other. Mayor Hammerstad asked, especially with respect to Code changes, if they could deal with one issue without dealing with the others that complicated the matter. She cited the minimum density guidelines as an example, in that they could pull apart the partition issue from the subdivisions issue. She commented that if the Council did not pass the partition language, then it might send it to the Infill Task Force because it did have associated compatibility issues, and the Task Force has not looked beyond the individual infill regulations. Councilor McPeak mentioned her concern that changing the variance procedures might aggravate any discrepancy between actuality and the zoning around the lake. She asked if dealing solely with the Class 1 variances would be less of a complication to the existing situation. Mr. Powell clarified the Mayor's proposal as adopting the criteria changes for the Class 1 variances but not for the Class 2 variances. He reviewed the existing Class 2 variances that would remain in place. Mayor Hammerstad contended that changing the Class 1 variances would not impact the zoning around the lake because it included only minor variances; anything major remained a Class 2 variance. Councilor McPeak asked which class most of the variances granted around the lake during the six-year period fell into. Liz Jacob, Associate Planner, confirmed the Mayor's comment that most were Class 1 variances. Mr. Powell commented that he could not tell from the history how many of the variances would fall under the new Class 1 criteria. Ms. Jacob confirmed that the new Class 1 variance allowed a smaller variance (e.g., 2 to 3 feet) than the current Class 1 variance (e.g., 5 to 8 feet). Councilor McPeak asked if the proposed Class 1 effectively made it worse for property owners around the lake by creating narrower limits, which inhibited the use of the expensive land. Ms. Jacob clarified that, if Council adopted the new Class 1 variance criteria, then someone asking for a variance that would have fallen under the old Class 1 criteria but did not meet the new Class 1 criteria would simply fall under the Class 2 variance criteria, which would not change. She indicated that the applicant would still have to go through the current process. Councilor Hoffman discussed his discomfort with this `Band-aid' approach of accepting a new Class 1 but keeping the old Class 2. He indicated that he would not be comfortable until he understood how it fit into the Code. He mentioned his discomfort with making a community wide decision for the benefit of half a dozen lots on the lake. He said that it bothered him that they were trying to solve a specific problem with a community wide procedure and standard. Councilor Hoffman argued that the purpose of the variance was not to make it easier to bend the rules; the purpose was to protect the people who lived in the zone, and who held an expectation that everyone else would follow the rules. He held that they had to be careful about this because they lived in an infill community. He referenced the ongoing discussion of making City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9 February 5, 2002 infill more difficult for large houses on small lots. He said that he was not comfortable with making infill easier by adopting an easier Class 1 variance criteria and keeping the easier Class 2 variance criteria. Councilor Hoffman spoke to the Council taking as many study sessions as needed to understand the big picture in terms of the various land use issues. He indicated that he had no problem with dealing with a specific problem with the zone on the lake, noting that that would take a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mayor Hammerstad reiterated that the new Class 1 variances were minor and had no negative impact on the neighbors. She held that this was not changing the zoning. She concurred that they were likely to see more Class 2 variance requests, as large enough former Class 1 variances crossed over to Class 2. She agreed that looking at the zoning on the lake was a good idea. Councilor Rohde pointed out that this issue was five years old. He recalled that originally staff designed it to reduce the gray area and subjective thinking inherent in the variance criteria, as the City's preference was for objective codes. He commented that he still sensed no urgency on this subject; it was simply an area that staff could clean up in order to produce greater efficiency in Planning. Councilor Rohde spoke to delaying the matter for more discussion. He spoke of philosophical questions concerning whether the Council wanted to reduce the gray area and its involvement (or the Development Review Commission's involvement) in the interpretation of the variances. Mayor Hammerstad commented that her sense from responses she received from other Councilors was that removing this item from the agenda meant that it might not come back for a long time. She commented that doing the Class 1 variances might help Planning and solve some of the minor problems. Councilor McPeak indicated that, while she understood Councilor Rohde's comments, she also understood that Lake Oswego was way off the norm in terms of the numbers of variances it granted; most jurisdictions granted fewer variances. She commented that she has changed her mind from a year ago, and now felt that they should move towards more clarity. She said that she was ready to do a limited Class 1 redefinition. Councilor McPeak spoke to the need for this Council to address the basic zoning problems that existed. She held that it was her duty to see if the present zoning was equitable. She acknowledged that there was a process involved but commented that there were many basic questions also. She agreed that the variance classes were tied together, and that they could deal with them separately. Councilor Turchi recalled that the issue that the Planning Commission had brought up was `creeping zoning.' He described it as a situation in which the City granted a variance, which became the new standard for which another variance was granted, which then became the new standard, resulting in the eventual crumbling of the zoning laws. He indicated that he would like to see that concern addressed. He commented that while he did not feel that he understood the problem sufficiently to vote on it, neither did he want it to disappear for years. He spoke to addressing it if they could. Councilor Rohde disagreed that the variance process resulted in creeping zoning. He argued that the reason Lake Oswego granted more variances than other jurisdictions was its stricter development code. He held that anyone who wanted to exceed their more restrictive planning and code requirements had to want to do so enough to go through the variance process. He contended that other areas, with their less restrictive codes, allowed general development at a level that Lake Oswego was not prepared to allow. Councilor Rohde mentioned the philosophical question of whether the Council wanted more restrictive codes that meant someone wanting to exceed the code really had to want to, or did it want to loosen up the codes to allow an easier process for people to exceed the code. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9 February 5, 2002 Councilor Turchi discussed his thoughts with respect to the earlier discussion on the Planning Commission's recommendation on partitions. He commented that, while he would not vote for the partition language as a further restriction to the density guidelines, he might vote for it as a method to control infill and the volume of houses on properties. He expressed his concern that voting no on the partition amendment, which he intended to do, would send the wrong message because he might vote yes on it in a different context. Ms. Jacob mentioned that the exceptions process used by most other jurisdictions in their development process corresponded to the proposed Class 1 minor variances. She reiterated that the minor variances had no impact. She indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that she thought they could pass something similar to the exceptions process without calling it Class 1 variances, although the Lake Oswego Code already had an Exceptions section, so they would have to find another name. Ms. Jacob observed that it was onerous on an applicant, who needed to increase his/her driveway grade above the 20%, to go through the whole variance process when the variance would only affect his/her property. Mayor Hammerstad reiterated that what she was trying to achieve was a way to make it easier for people to make the minor adjustments that had no negative impact on their neighbors or on the zoning. She argued that people should be able to do a minimal amount of paperwork in getting Planning's blessing on something minor. She commented that it would likely be a common occurrence. Mayor Hammerstad said that she thought that the Council was not interested in encouraging major variances that were outside the allowance of the zone, or if the Council did allow that, it wanted to see it done in a separate process. Ms. Jacob indicated to the Mayor that she thought staff could do that. Councilor Graham mentioned her concern with how these changes would affect infill and the job of the Infill Task Force. She asked staff to rewrite the information in simple English so that she could understand it and explain it to anyone who asked her about it. She indicated that it was fine with her if they needed to separate the Class 1 and Class 2 variances. Councilor Turchi asked why make Class 1 variances a rule at all, if it was merely perfunctory. Mr. Powell explained that it was not perfunctory; it required an analysis of whether there would be a negative impact on the surrounding properties. He observed that the assumption was that there would not be any impact but the ordinance did give the neighbors the opportunity to say whether they saw an impact or not. He summarized the staff position as there were two levels beyond the ideal of the Code: the first was going just a little further beyond the Code (as long as it did not hurt the neighbors), while the second was going through the complete variance process. Mr. Powell referenced the exceptions suggestion. He indicated that the same thing was accomplished by simply keeping the current Class 2 criteria. He said that it would take some work but staff could call Class 1 variances `exceptions' as opposed to variances. He reiterated that essentially the proposed Class 1 variances were exceptions with the added hoop of making sure that the request did not harm a neighbor. Ms. Jacob concurred. Mayor Hammerstad summarized the Council direction as moving forward with the Class 1 variances (or exceptions) and doing the Class 2 variances later and in a more understandable way. She indicated that staff would return to Council on February 12. 5.2 Non-agenda items Mayor Hammerstad referenced the Council's discussion during Mr. Schmitz's evaluation of the Council doing the Big 5 for training purposes. She noted that Ms. Deardorff obtained a cost estimate of$4,000 (less than $500 per Councilor). She recommended that the Council do it. She described it as an excellent training tool to see how the Councilors' styles meshed with each other and how they could more efficiently and understandably work with each other. She held City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 February 5, 2002 that the value they would get out of it for the money spent was equivalent to attending some of the meetings that the Council went to. Councilor Hoffman indicated that he thought it was a good idea and little money but he did have a concern with public perception. He noted that this Council was the best Council in the last 10 years in terms of working well together. He questioned what the public would think of the Council spending $4,000 on leadership training when the City was in a budget crisis and cutting wherever it could. Councilor Schoen discussed his concern with this exercise. He held that they had a fully functioning Council; talking to a psychologist might mess it all up. He said that he saw no purpose to the exercise and would excuse himself, as he would not be returning to the Council next year. Councilor Graham held that it was not appropriate to ask the City to spend $4,000 during a budget crunch. She indicated that she was not that enthusiastic about the exercise. Councilor McPeak commented that it would be an interesting exercise, although she doubted that it would actually change anything. She spoke to spending the money out of the budgeted Council training funds, if there was any left over, but not to spending anything extra. Mayor Hammerstad suggested doing the exercise after the new people came on Council. She confirmed to Councilor McPeak that they would have to budget for it. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the upcoming ESEE analysis for Title 5. Mr. Schmitz indicated that there were eight stream and two tree analyses. Mayor Hammerstad said that they would schedule them on an ongoing basis, a couple at a time, as the state required the City to go through them. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION 7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Chri ie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON March 5, 2002 ii0h/ Jud' ammerstad, Mayor City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9 February 5, 2002