Admin Order 58-96-26-F - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-96-26-F of the CITY MANAGER PRO TEM EROSION PREVENTION AND CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ADMINISTRATIVE RULE 6.645 The City Manager Pro Tem of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 2.019 and 6.645 of the Eugene Code, 1971, on December 5, 1996 I adopted Administrative Order No. 58-96-26 proposing the adoption of an Administrative Rule establishing a program for managing erosion and other negative water quality impacts associated with construction activities. The rule provides procedures, definitions, outcomes, approval criteria, management measures, design standards, enforcement provisions, and appeal procedures for implementing the program established by newly enacted provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971. B. Notice of the proposed adoption of the Erosion Prevention and Construction Site Management Practices Administrative Rule was published in the Register Guard, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of five consecutive days, to-wit, on Dec 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1996. The Notice was also provided to persons who had requested notice, and made available for inspection by interested persons at the City's Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 858 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401 during normal business hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, exclusive of holidays), and made available to the general public through Eugene's Home Page on the Internet. C. The Notice provided that written comments would be received thereon for a period ending at midnight, January 3, 1997. Written comments were received from 16 respondents, as identified in Exhibit A hereto, to which I make the following findings: Comment 1: The cost factor ($0.50 per square foot of disturbed lot area) in the proposed definition of Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) is too high. There were two recommendations for changing the cost factor: 1) 10 cents per square foot, and 2) 40 cents per square foot. Finding: The MEP concept is not a required amount of money to be spent on erosion control measures. The MEP represents a maximum effort that the rule requires a property owner to undertake in order to meet the outcomes of the program within established limitations. The limitations include technological feasibility and costs, and together they define "practicable." The cost limitation provides certainty to the property owner that costs will not exceed a certain amount in a worst-case scenario. The property owner will make Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 1