01/12/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A: Q: A: Jim Farah Cynth ia Wooten Steve Gordon These are recommendations -to the Council from Eugene Planning Commission concerning Goal 5, which the Commission voted on last week as additions to the Confluence heronry recommendation. Recommendation 4 states that the periphery of the island should be preserved. It recognizes that the staff cannot define the width of the periphery and that there are specific points the periphery should be addressing -- erosion and the scenic and wildlife habitat. It is attempting to take the thrust of the text of the Confluence heronry discussion and put it into recommendation form. This was a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. Recommendation 5 addresses th~- -Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife review of the sand and gravel operations as part of the permit process. This recommendation also took comments from the text and included them formally in recommendation form. This too was a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. Regarding the undetermined periphery width (recommendation 4), who will determine this, when will it be done, what will it need and how will this take effect? There are a couple of ways that might happen: I 1. Lane County has to comply with LCDC Greenway requirements as part of its Rural Plan and the Metropolitan Plan. One of the requirements is that the County identifies the width of the vegetative fringe of the island, or 2. through the Mining Permit Process; I.e., condition #6 of the Wildish Sand and Gravel Company permit at Pudding Creek reads, "natural vegetation shall remain intact between the operation and the river for a distance of at least 100 feet, where possible, and an effort should be made to preserve existing vegetation elsewhere at the operation. " These two mechanisms maintenance of the Confluence Island. will help vegetative ensure fringe the on IV-A-2