New Search
MAR2O.DOC Page 4 <br /> 3. Mr. Bjorklund agreed to schedule an additional meeting, if necessary, to give the Wetheads <br /> an opportunity to review the staff analysis for the WEWP plan amendments and formulate a <br /> recommendation to the City's executive management team. <br /> The Wetheads noted that the item was a main agenda item. <br /> 4. The Wetheads reviewed and revised a list of activities scheduled for National Wetlands <br /> Month and discussed publicizing program- related events in the StreamTeam newsletter. Ms. <br /> Koenig agreed to provide Mr. Gordon with her publication schedule so that the Wetheads <br /> were aware of publication deadlines. Mr. Gordon asked the Wetheads to contact Kim <br /> Musser or Denise Kalakay of LCOG with information about other program- related events. <br /> Mr. Gordon reported that Ms. Koenig had been able to include the Wetheads' events in the StreamTeam newsletter. <br /> II. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION <br /> A. WEWP Amendment Process Update /Responses to Comments <br /> Mr. Bjorklund provided an overview of the review process for the amendments package, and asked the Wetheads <br /> to prepare a recommendation on several elements of the package for the City's executive managers, who would <br /> meet on March 31. He said that the issue before the Wetheads was whether any of the new material submitted into <br /> the record warranted a change in the planning commissions' recommendation. <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Gordon, Mr. Bjorklund said that he had not yet received comment from the <br /> TAC on the new materials. Responding to a question from Ms. Evans, he said that it was possible the issues would <br /> be addressed in separate ordinances so that one decision did not hold up the entire amendments package. Ms. <br /> Evans inquired about the status of the approval order. Mr. Bjorklund responded that Janet Morlan had suggested <br /> some open -ended language be included in the approval order to address the delay. <br /> Mr. Bjorklund reviewed the format of the staff report. <br /> The Wetheads reviewed and discussed the new information regarding the Hyundai site proposed for the third phase <br /> of the manufacturing facility as it related to the plan criteria for protection, restoration, and development. Mr. <br /> Bjorklund noted that Hyundai had not submitted surveys for the presence of two other rare plants, Horkelia <br /> congesta or Cicendia quadrangularius, had not submitted maps showing what areas of the site were not surveyed <br /> for rare species, plant species or plant community surveys for the site in general collected during spring or early <br /> summer when most herbaceous plants were identifiable. In addition, there were discrepancies between recent data <br /> in the Phase 3 area for the wet prairie and wetlands delineations. <br /> Mr. Bjorklund reported that his analysis indicated that the wetlands on the Phase 3 site met five of the protection <br /> criteria; two of the six development criteria; and four of the five restoration criteria. He said that there was some <br /> subjectivity in the criteria regarding rare plants; he had made a finding that there was not sufficient proximity to <br /> nearby plant populations or sufficient numbers of plants to meet the criteria. Mr. Alverson indicated his <br /> disagreement with Mr. Bjorklund's interpretation, saying that the presence of suitable habitat argued that the <br /> protection criteria were met. <br /> The Wetheads briefly discussed the criteria for development as it related to the Hyundai site. Mr. Bjorklund noted <br /> concurrence with the criteria related to proximity to adjacent development and frontage on a major street. <br /> The Wetheads concurred with a statement by Mr. Bjorklund that the relationship of the restoration criteria to the <br />