Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Finding: Stop work orders will be considered on a case-by-case basis and the extent <br />of their application will be determined at that time. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the <br />rule at this time. <br /> <br />Comment 23: Required vegetative buffer would render most lots unbuildable. <br /> <br />Finding: There is no requirement for a vegetative buffer. There is a definition of <br />a vegetative buffer which relates to Section 6.645-E.2. This section allows a property owner <br />to present evidence that a lot should not be considered a "sensitive area" if existing <br />conditions, such as a "vegetative perimeter buffer" exists. This definition, therefore, <br />provides exceptions to permit requirements. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at <br />this time. <br /> <br />Comment 24: Outcome 1.3 is too extreme as it defines allowable discharge at Y2 <br />cubic foot. <br /> <br />Finding: This outcome was modified from the original version. Current version <br />allows discharge of Y2 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet of lot size. This issue has already <br />been addressed and, therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at this time. <br /> <br />Comment 25: During extreme weather conditions, the program should be <br />suspended. <br /> <br />Finding: Section R-6.645-C3.2 of the rule provides an exemption to remove or <br />alleviate emergency conditions. This section provides authority to address extreme <br />conditions on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at this time. <br /> <br />Comment 26: Program is being weakened. <br /> <br />Finding: While it is true that the allowable discharge standard has increased, other <br />provisions have increased such as requiring all construction activities to address the <br />outcomes. Under State law, only sites greater than five acres in size are subject to erosion <br />requirements. The dedication of two full-time staff resources to this program will increase <br />the program's effectiveness over current levels (State of Oregon). <br /> <br />D. In addition to the specific findings set forth above, I find that adoption of the <br />proposed rule is necessary in order to implement newly enacted provisions of the Eugene Code, <br />1971. <br /> <br />Based on the above findings, which are hereby adopted, I hereby adopt Erosion Prevention <br />and Construction Site Management Practices Administrative Rule R-6.645 to provide: <br /> <br />EROSION PREVENTION AND CONSTRUCTION SITE <br /> <br />Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 6 <br />