HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 9: Ordinance Concerning Stormwater Development Standards
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Action: An Ordinance Concerning Stormwater Provisions; Amending Sections
9.0500, 9.6420, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8090, 9.8100, 9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8320, 9.8325,
9.8440, 9.8445, 9.8515, and 9.8520 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Section
9.6520 of that Code; Adding Sections 9.6790, 9.6791, 9.6792, 9.6793, 9.6794, 9.6795,
9.6796, and 9.6797 to that Code; and Providing an Effective Date
Meeting Date: June 12, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 9
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Peggy Keppler
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-2869
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City Council is scheduled to take action on the proposed code amendments to Chapter 9 (see
Attachment A) implementing post-construction standards for stormwater management.
BACKGROUND
Proposed Ordinance and Implementation
Stormwater development standards are regulations for locating, designing, constructing, and
maintaining stormwater facilities, applicable to new development. The existing land use code
addresses only stormwater destination (flood control). The proposed ordinance amends the land use
code to also address stormwater quality from new development via pollution reduction, headwater
flow control, oil control, and source control requirements as well as operation and maintenance
standards for stormwater facilities.
A companion design manual, the Eugene Stormwater Management Manual will be adopted
administratively. A public hearing on the manual is scheduled for June 8, 2006. Several comments
made during the City Council public hearing for the ordinance that pertain to the Stormwater
Management Manual have been forwarded for consideration at the public hearing on the Stormwater
Management Manual.
Public Comments
A City Council public hearing on this item was held Monday, May 8, 2006. The council raised
several questions regarding the applicability of the standards, the River Road - Santa Clara
Stormwater Basin Plan, and open drainage systems.
Nine persons testified at the public hearing and five pieces of written testimony were presented to
the council. The council moved to keep the public record open until May 22, 2006, to allow
submittal of additional written testimony. Following the close of the public hearing, ten additional
pieces of testimony were received. Staff responses to the council and public testimony are provided
in Attachment B. A staff memo clarifying the relationship between the River Road – Santa Clara
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129.doc
Basin Plan and the proposed stormwater development standards ordinance is provided as Attachment
C. Copies of all written testimony submitted prior to the close of the record are provided in
Attachment D.
Proposed Ordinance Revision Based Upon Comments Received
Staff proposes one change to the ordinance based upon City Council and public comment that
exempting infill development (e.g. “minor partitions”) would allow too much new impervious
surface area to go unaddressed by the proposed standards. Staff agrees that the program would be
more effective if minor partitions are required to address the proposed standards, and recommends
that the ordinance be amended to include all partitions in the types of development required to meet
the proposed standards. This change is represented as “Option 2” in this AIS and affects the
applicability section for pollution reduction (EC 9.6792(2)(a)3) and the applicability section for
headwater flow controls (EC 9.6793(2)(a)3). Instead of stating that the ordinance would apply to “A
partition – tentative plan that includes the creation or construction of a street,” the amended
ordinance would state “A partition – a tentative plan,” which, in effect, incorporates all partitions.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The proposed code amendments are intended to implement stormwater development standards as a
component of the City’s Stormwater Program initiated with the adoption of the Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan (CSWMP) and as required through the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ)’s issuance of the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council may:
1.Adopt the Stormwater Ordinance as written.
2.Amend the Stormwater Ordinance to include all partitions (i.e. eliminate applicability to
partitions only with streets).
3.Direct staff on additional amendments of the Stormwater Ordinance.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends Option #2: Amend the proposed ordinance to include all partitions
and adopt the proposed ordinance as amended.
SUGGESTED MOTION(s)
Move to amend the proposed ordinance 9.6792 (2) (a) 3 to read “A partition – tentative plan (EC
9.8215 or 9.8220)” and 9.6793 (2) (a) 3 to read “A partition – tentative plan (EC 9.8215 or 9.8220).”
Move to adopt an ordinance concerning stormwater provisions; amending sections 9.0500, 9.6420,
9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8090, 9.8100, 9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8320, 9.8325, 9.8440, 9.8445, 9.8515, and 9.8520
of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Section 9.6520 of that code; adding sections 9.6790, 9.6791,
9.6792, 9.6793, 9.6794, 9.6795, 9.6796, and 9.6797 to that code; and providing an effective date.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129.doc
ATTACHMENTS
A.Proposed Ordinance Concerning Stormwater Provisions
a.Exhibit A to the Proposed Ordinance (findings proposed for adoption in support of the
ordinance)
B.Staff Responses to City Council and Public Testimony
C.Staff Memorandum to City Council, May 22, 2006
D.Written Public Testimony
Additional Information
The following documents have been bound into notebooks labeled “Stormwater Development
Standards Materials” and are available for review at the City Manager’s Office and are hereby
expressly incorporated into the record:
1.Eugene Planning Commission Packets of February, 13, 2006, January 10, 2006, and January 6, 2006
2.Notice of Public Hearing of the Planning Commission, January 10, 2006
3.Public comment on Proposed Stormwater Development Standards, December 29, 2005
4.Notice of Open House on Proposed Stormwater Development Standards, December 20, 2005
5.Notice of Open House for Stormwater Development Standards, November 16, 2005
6.Agendas, packets and meeting notes for Eugene Water Quality Implementation Subcommittee of
the Public Works Department Stormwater Advisory Committee meetings held on August 11,
2005, August 18, 2005, August 31, 2005, October 3, 2005, October 25, 2005, October 31, 2005,
and November 10, 2005
7.Eugene City Council Work Session Minutes and AIS, October 10, 2005
8.City of Eugene, Second Annual Report and Stormwater Management Plan Evaluation, December 1,
2005
9.City of Eugene NPDES Permit, March 2, 2004.
10.Agendas, packets and minutes for Eugene Public Works Stormwater Department Advisory
Committee meetings held on February 25, 1999, March 16, 1999, April 20, 1999, May 27, 1999,
June 22, 1999, July 15, 1999, August 24, 1999, September 23, 1999, October 14, 1999,
November 18, 1999, December 14, 1999, January 26, 2000, March 21, 2000, April 12, 2000,
May 5, 2000, and June 8, 2000.
11.Memorandum to DevCore from COE Basin Planning Project Team, December 3, 1999.
12.City of Portland, Stormwater Management Manual, September 1, 2004
13.City of Eugene, Stormwater Basin Master Plan, Volume I of VII, August, 2002
14.City of Eugene, Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan, November, 1993
15.City of Eugene, Draft Stormwater Management Manual, March, 2006
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Peggy Keppler
Telephone: 682-2869
Staff E-Mail: peggy.a.keppler@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING STORMWATER PROVISIONS;
AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0500, 9.6420, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8090, 9.8100,
9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8320, 9.8325, 9.8440, 9.8445, 9.8515, AND 9.8520 OF
THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; REPEALING SECTION 9.6520 OF THAT
CODE; ADDING SECTIONS 9.6790, 9.6791, 9.6792, 9.6793, 9.6794,
9.6795, 9.6796, AND 9.6797 TO THAT CODE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 9.0500 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is amended by adding the
following definitions in alphabetical order to the existing definitions, to provide:
9.0500 Definitions
. As used in this land use code, unless the context requires
otherwise, the following words and phrases mean:
Destination.
The ultimate discharge point for the stormwater runoff from a
particular site. Destination can include on-site infiltration such as surface
infiltration facilities, drywells and sumps, and soakage trenches, and off-site
flow to ditches, drainage ways, rivers and streams, and off-site storm pipes.
Equivalent on-site area.
An area of existing impervious surface that: (1)
does not have facilities or structures to treat stormwater runoff; (2) is of equal
or greater square footage to the area of proposed new impervious surface on
the same site; and, (3) is of equal use.
Flood control design storm.
A theoretical storm for evaluating the capacity
of the storm drainage system and designing improvements for the required
level of protection, in accordance with the Stormwater Management Manual.
Flow control facility.
Any structure or drainage device that is designed,
constructed, and maintained to collect, retain, infiltrate, or detain surface
water runoff during and after a storm event for the purpose of controlling
post-development water quantity leaving the development site.
Ordinance - 1
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
Headwaters Area.
The area within Eugene city limits that is above 500 feet.
Headwater streams.
Streams that: (1) are identified on the Headwater
Streams Map (an Appendix to the Stormwater Management Manual) as
having all or a portion of their length located on slopes greater than 10%; (2)
are identified on the Sensitive Areas Map as having all or a portion of their
length located in areas with highly erodible soils; (3) are at least 500 feet or
longer; and, (4) drain at least 10 acres.
Impervious surface/area.
Any surface area that causes water to run off the
surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from conditions
pre-existing to development. Types of impervious surface include, but are not
limited to, rooftops, asphalt and concrete parking lots, driveways, roads,
sidewalks, and pedestrian plazas. Note: Slatted decks are considered
pervious. Gravel surfaces are considered pervious unless they cover
impervious surfaces or are compacted to a degree that causes their runoff
coefficient to exceed 0.8.
Oil control facility.
Any structure or drainage device that is designed,
constructed, and maintained to remove oil and grease from storm runoff.
Pollution reduction facility.
Any structure or drainage device that is
designed, constructed, and maintained to collect and filter, retain, or detain
surface water runoff during and after a storm event for the purpose of
maintaining or improving surface and/or groundwater quality.
Property suspected or known to contain contaminants in the soil or
groundwater.
Any real property where the presence of any hazardous
substance or petroleum product indicates an existing release, past release,
or threatened release of a hazardous substance or petroleum product into
the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property.
Source control
. Any structure, device, or design that is used to eliminate or
reduce pollution from a source.
Stormwater Management Manual.
The City of Eugene Stormwater
Management Manual adopted by the city in the manner set forth in EC 2.019,
City Manager – Administrative and Rulemaking Authority and Procedures. .
Stormwater Management Facility.
Any structure or configuration of the
ground that is used or, by its location, becomes a place where stormwater
flows or is accumulated, including but not limited to, pipes, sewers, curbs,
gutters, manholes, catch basins, ponds, open drainage ways, runoff
control facilities, wetlands, and their accessories.
Ordinance - 2
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
Water Quality Design Storm.
A theoretical storm for estimating the amount
of stormwater runoff to be treated. Facilities designed to store and treat a
volume of stormwater shall be sized in accordance with the Stormwater
Management Manual.
Section 2.
Subsection (2) of Section 9.6420 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended as follows.
9.6420 Parking Area Standards.
(2) Drainage.
All parking areas, except those in conjunction with a single
family or two family dwelling, shall be graded so as not to drain storm
water over the public sidewalk or onto any abutting property. Drainage
improvements shall be provided as required by the stormwater
provisions of EC [9.6510 Stormwater Drainage] 9.6790 to 9.6797.
Section 3.
Section 9.6510 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is repealed.
9.6510Stormwater Drainage
[ . An applicant proposing a new development must
submit documentation to the City showing the stormwater drainage facilities
into which the proposed development will drain. The documentation must
establish that the new development will drain into existing stormwater
drainage facilities that, considering all developments that have received
tentative or final plan approval as of the date the developer submits a
complete application, have the capacity to handle the stormwater drainage
that will be generated by the proposed new development, or, if the applicant
cannot establish that existing stormwater drainage facilities have such
capacity, the applicant must construct storm drainage facilities to
accommodate the stormwater draining from the proposed development. The
applicant must dedicate public easements approved by the city over the
stormwater drainage facilities provided the city makes findings to
demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. Stormwater
drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed according to adopted
plans and policies, and in accordance with standards in Chapters 6 and 7 of
this code. The conveyance of ownership or dedication of easements may be
required in any of the following circumstances:
(1)
(a) Except for areas on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5
inventory, where the subject property in the proposed
development is or will be periodically subject to accumulations of
surface water or is traversed by any open drainage way,
headwater, stream, creek, wetland, spring, or pond, including
Ordinance - 3
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
those not maintained by the city which drain onto or from city-
owned property or into city maintained facilities.
(b) For areas on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, where the
subject property in the proposed development is or will be
periodically subject to accumulations of surface water or is
traversed by any water course or channel.
(2)
Where necessary to extend public drainage facilities and services to
adjoining undeveloped property.
(3)
To provide necessary drainage from the public right-of-way.]
Section 4
. Sections 9.6790, 9.6791, 9.6792, 9.6793, 9.6794, 9.6795, 9.6796,
and 9.6797 are added to the Eugene Code, 1971, to provide:
9.6790 Stormwater Management Manual.
In order to implement Section 9.6791
through 9.6797 of this code, the City Manager shall adopt in accordance
with EC 2.019, City Manager – Administrative and Rulemaking Authority
and Procedures, a Stormwater Management Manual. The Stormwater
Management Manual may contain forms, maps and facility agreements
and shall include requirements that are consistent with the following goals:
(1) Reduce runoff pollution from development by reducing impervious
surfaces and capturing and treating approximately 80% of the average
annual rainfall.
(2) Control and minimize flows from development in the Headwater Areas
using a variety of techniques to release water to downstream conveyance
systems at a slower rate and lower volume, thereby reducing the potential
for further aggravation of instream erosion problems.
(3) Emphasize stormwater management facilities that incorporate vegetation
as a key element, and include design and construction requirements that
ensure landscape plant survival and overall stormwater facility functional
success.
(4) Operate and maintain stormwater management facilities in accordance
with facility-specific O & M Plans.
(5) Reduce pollutants of concern that are generated by identified site uses
and site characteristics that are not addressed solely through the pollution
reduction measures by implementing additional specific source control
methods including reducing or eliminating pathways that may introduce
pollutants into stormwater, capturing acute releases, directing wastewater
discharges and areas with the potential for relatively consistent
wastewater discharges to the wastewater system, containing spills on site,
and avoiding preventable discharges to wastewater facilities, surface
waters or ground waters.
Ordinance - 4
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
9.6791 Stormwater Destination.
(1) Purpose.
The purpose of EC 9.6791 is to protect life and property from
flood and drainage hazards by maintaining the capacity of the city’s
stormwater conveyance system through the establishment of
destination regulations for stormwater runoff from development.
(2) Applicability.
Destination standards apply to all development.
(3)Standards.
Stormwater drainage facilities shall be designed and
constructed according to adopted plans and policies, and in accordance
with standards in EC Chapters 6 and 7, and the stormwater destination
provisions and the facility design requirements set forth in the
Stormwater Management Manual. An applicant proposing a new
development must submit documentation to the city showing the
stormwater destination into which the proposed development will be
disposed. The documentation must establish that the new development
will be disposed of into existing stormwater drainage facilities that,
considering all developments that have received tentative or final plan
approval as of the date the developer submits a complete application,
have the capacity to handle the stormwater runoff that will be generated
by the proposed new development for the flood control design storm,
or, if the applicant cannot establish that existing stormwater drainage
facilities have such capacity, the applicant must construct storm
drainage facilities to accommodate the stormwater draining from the
proposed development.
(4)Underground Injecton Control Systems.
iStormwater runoff
disposed of in underground systems is also regulated through the
federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) program under Part C of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. § 300, Chapter 6A, Subchapter
XII) and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 340, Section 044.
9.6792 Stormwater Pollution Reduction.
(1)Purpose.
The purpose of EC 9.6792 is to reduce the impacts that
urbanization is having on the city’s water quality by providing standards
for the capture and treatment of stormwater runoff from development.
(2)Applicability and Exemptions.
(a) Except as exempt under EC 9.6792(2)(c), the standards in EC
9.6792(3) apply to all land use applications submitted after
[effective date of this ordinance] requesting approval of one or
more of the following:
1. A cluster subdivision - tentative plan (EC 9.8055);
2. A conditional use (EC 9.8090 or 9.8100);
3. A partition - tentative plan that includes the creation or
construction of a street (EC 9.8215 or 9.8220);
4. A planned unit development - tentative plan (EC 9.8320 or
9.8325);
Ordinance - 5
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
5. Site review (EC 9.8440 or 9.8445);
6. A subdivision tentative plan (EC 9.8515 or 9.8520).
(b) Except as exempt under EC 9.6792(2)(c), the standards in EC
9.6792(3) apply to all applications for development permits
submitted after [effective date of this ordinance].
(c) The standards in EC 9.6792(3) do not apply to:
1. A land use application that will result in the construction or
creation of less than 3,000 square feet of new or replaced
impervious surface at full buildout of the development.
2. A development permit application for any of the following:
a. Development of a lot or parcel included in a land use
application that was determined by the city to comply
with the standards in EC 9.6792(3). For such a
development permit, the approved land use plan shall
control.
b. Development of a lot or parcel that was not included
in a land use application that was determined by the
city to comply with the standards in EC 9.6792(3) and:
(1) Will result in less than 3,000 square feet of new
or replaced impervious surface within a 12
month period; or
(2) Is to construct or alter a one or two family
dwelling; or
(3) The replacement of more than 3,000 square
feet of impervious surface for purposes of
maintenance or repair for the continuance of
the current function, providing that as part of
such maintenance and repair the applicant is
replacing less than 50% of the length of the
stormwater drainage system (including pipes,
drainageway catch basins and drywells) on the
development site.
(3)Standards.
(a) Applications shall include pollution reduction facilities selected
from the Stormwater Management Manual as follows:
1. For land use applications listed in EC 9.6792(2)(a) for
undeveloped land, the selected pollution reduction facilities
shall treat all the stormwater runoff from the development
site that will result from the water quality design storm;
2. For land use applications listed in EC 9.6792(2)(a) that
change or add development to an already developed site,
the selected pollution reduction facilities shall treat the
stormwater runoff from all added and replaced impervious
surface that will result from the water quality design storm;
Ordinance - 6
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
3. For development permit applications, the selected pollution
reduction facilities shall treat all stormwater runoff from all
new or replaced impervious surface, or an equivalent on-site
area, that will result from the water quality design storm.
(b) All pollution reduction facilities shall be sited, designed and
constructed according to the pollution reduction provisions and
the facility design requirements set forth in the Stormwater
Management Manual. Pollution reduction facilities must be
designed using one of the three methodologies outlined in the
Stormwater Management Manual.
(c) The standards in EC 9.6792(3) may be adjusted pursuant to EC
9.8030(24).
9.6793 Stormwater Flow Control (Headwaters).
(1)Purpose.
The purpose of EC 9.6793 is to protect waterways in the
headwaters area from the erosive affects of increases in stormwater
runoff peak flow rates and volumes resulting from development.
(2)Applicability and Exemptions
.
(a) Except as exempt under EC 9.6793(2)(c), the standards in EC
9.6793(3) apply to all land use applications for development sites
in the headwaters area that drain directly into a headwater stream
or drain into a pipe that discharges into a headwater stream that
are submitted after [effective date of this ordinance,] requesting
approval of one or more of the following:
1. A cluster subdivision - tentative plan (EC 9.8055);
2. A conditional use (EC 9.8090 or 9.8100);
3. A partition - tentative plan that includes the creation or
construction of a street (EC 9.8215 or 9.8220);
4. A planned unit development - tentative plan (EC 9.8320 or
9.8325);
5. Site review (EC 9.8440 or 9.8445);
6. A subdivision tentative plan (EC 9.8515 or 9.8520).
(b) Except as exempt under EC 9.6793(2)(c), the standards in EC
9.6793(3) apply to all applications for development permits for
development sites in a headwaters area that drain directly into a
headwater stream or drain into a pipe that discharges into a
headwater stream that are submitted after [effective date of this
ordinance].
(c) The standards in EC 9.6793(3) do not apply to:
1. A land use application that will result in the construction or
creation of less than 3,000 square feet of new or replaced
impervious surface at full buildout of the development.
2. A development permit application for any of the following:
a. Development of a lot or parcel included in a land use
Ordinance -
7
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
application that was determined by the city to comply
with the standards in EC 9.6793(3). For such a
development permit, the approved land use plan shall
control.
b. Development of a lot or parcel that was not included
in a land use application that was determined by the
city to comply with the standards in EC 9.6793(3)and:
(1) Will result in less than 3,000 square feet of new
or replaced impervious surface within a 12
month period; or
(2) Is to construct or alter a one or two family
dwelling; or
(3) Is for the replacement of more than 3,000
square feet of impervious surface for purposes
of maintenance or repair for the continuance of
the current function, providing that as part of
such maintenance and repair the applicant is
replacing less than 50% of the length of the
stormwater drainage system (including pipes,
drainageway catch basins and drywells) on the
development site.
3. Development sites within a drainage basin for which the city
has constructed or approved a project to restore the
receiving waterway, and the entire downstream system has
been designed to accommodate full build-out conditions
within the drainage basin.
(3) Standards.
(a) Applications shall demonstrate, using methodology in the
Stormwater Management Manual, that peak rates of flow
delivered to an existing open waterway at a point above 500 feet
in elevation will not increase during storms larger than the water
quality design storm and smaller than the flood control design
storm as a result of the development that is the subject of the
application;
(b) For purposes of designing the system as required by the
standards in this section, the amount of impervious surface per lot
is assumed to be the maximum lot coverage allowed for the use
in the zone in which it is located, unless the applicant
demonstrates otherwise.
(c) All facilities to control the rate of stormwater runoff shall be sited,
designed and constructed according to the flow control provisions
and the facility design requirements set forth in the Stormwater
Management Manual. Flow control facilities must be designed
Ordinance -
8
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
using one of the methodologies outlined in the Stormwater
Management Manual.
(d) The standards in EC 9.6793(3) may be adjusted pursuant to EC
9.8030(24).
9.6794 Stormwater Oil Control.
(1) Purpose.
The purpose of EC 9.6794 is to protect the city’s stormwater
system from oil and grease from stormwater runoff of impervious
surface areas on properties that produce high concentrations of these
pollutants.
(2)Applicability.
Oil control standards set forth in EC 9.6794(3) apply to:
(a) All new commercial and industrial development with parking lots
that store wrecked or impounded vehicles; or
(b) Any development that would result in an expected daily traffic
count greater than one hundred vehicles per 1,000 square feet of
gross building area, based on the most recent version of The
Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual; or
(c) Any development that would result in 100 or more off-street
parking spaces; or
(d) Any commercial or industrial development that receives an
adjustment approving the installation of 125 percent or more of
the minimum off-street parking spaces required by EC 9.6410(3),
Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces and that
adjustment will result in, at least, a total of 10 parking spaces.
(3)Standards.
Unless adjusted pursuant to EC 9.8030(24), all oil control
facilities shall be sited, designed and constructed according to the oil
control provisions and the facility design requirements set forth in the
Stormwater Management Manual.
Ordinance -
9
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
9.6795 Stormwater Source Controls.
(1)Purpose.
The purpose of EC 9.6795 is to prevent stormwater pollution
by eliminating pathways that may introduce pollutants into stormwater.
(2)Applicability and Exemptions.
Except as exempted below and
except when the source control would duplicate source controls
required by a state or federal permit obtained by the applicant, source
control standards set forth in EC 9.6795(3), apply to all land use
applications, development permits and tenant improvements that result
in any of the defined site uses or characteristics listed in EC
9.6795(2)(a)–(h).
(a) Fuel dispensing facilities and surrounding traffic areas where
vehicles, equipment, or tanks are refueled on the premises. A
fuel dispensing facility is the area where fuel is transferred from
bulk storage tanks to vehicles, equipment, and/or mobile
containers. Exempt from this subsection are:
1. Propane tanks.
2. Fuel dispensing areas generally used to service oversized
equipment, for example cranes, that cannot maneuver under
a roof or canopy.
3. Existing fueling areas where scope of work is limited to a
new canopy installation over an existing fuel pad that is not
being upgraded, an underground tank replacement for
compliance with state regulations, or the replacement of a
fuel pump on an existing fuel pad that is not being upgraded.
(b) Exterior storage of liquid materials, for example chemicals, food
products, waste oils, solvents, process wastewaters, or petroleum
products in aboveground containers, in quantities of 50 gallons or
more, including permanent and temporary storage areas. Exempt
from this subsection are underground storage tanks or
installations requiring a Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF)
permit and containers with internal protections (such as double-
walled containers).
(c) All facilities that store solid waste. A solid waste storage area is a
place where solid waste containers, including compactors,
dumpsters, and garbage cans, are collectively stored. Solid
waste storage areas include, areas used to collect and store
refuse or recyclable materials collection areas. Exempt from this
subsection are solid waste storage areas for one and two family
dwelling and areas used for the temporary storage of wood pallets
or cardboard.
(d) Developments that stockpile or store high-risk or low-risk bulk
materials in outdoor containers, as the terms “high risk” and “low
Ordinance -
10
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
risk” are in the Stormwater Management Manual. Exempt from
this subsection are:
1. Materials which have no measurable solubility or mobility in
water and no hazardous, toxic or flammable properties.
2. Materials which exist in a gaseous form at ambient
temperature.
3. Materials, except for pesticides and fertilizers, that are
contained in a manner that prevents contact with
stormwater.
(e) Developments proposing the installation of new material transfer
areas as defined in the Stormwater Management Manual, or
structural alterations to existing material transfer areas, such as
access ramp re-grading and leveler installations.
Exempt from this subsection are areas used only for mid-sized to
small-sized passenger vehicles and restricted by lease
agreements or other regulatory requirements to storing,
transporting or using materials that are classified as domestic
use, for example, primary educational facilities (elementary,
middle or high schools), buildings used for temporary storage
and churches.
(f) All development with a designated equipment or vehicle washing
or steam cleaning area, including smaller activity areas such as
wheel-washing stations. Exempt from this subsection are:
1. Washing activity areas generally used to service oversized
equipment than cannot maneuver under a roof or canopy, for
example cranes and sail boats.
2. Evaporation unit installed as part of a wash recycling system
are exempt from the wastewater connection requirement.
3. One and two family dwelling sites.
Development that is intended for the storage of 10 or more fleet
vehicles shall include a designated vehicle washing area.
(g) All development projects that disturb property suspected or known
to contain contaminants in the soil or groundwater.
(h) All development with new covered vehicle parking areas, or
existing parking structures that are being developed. Exempt
from this subsection are single-level canopies, overhangs and
carports.
(3)Standards.
Unless adjusted pursuant to EC 9.8030(24), all source
controls shall be designed and constructed according to the source
control provisions set forth in the Stormwater Management Manual.
(4) Enforcement
. Failure to construct, operate and maintain source
controls when a land use application, development permit or tenant
improvement has resulted in a defined site use or characteristic listed in
Ordinance -
11
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
EC 9.6795(1)(a)-(h) is subject to enforcement in accordance with EC
Chapter 6.
9.6796 Dedication of Stormwater Easements.
(1) Purpose.
The purpose of EC 9.6796 is to ensure that city maintained
stormwater management facilities designed and constructed in
accordance with EC 9.6791-9.6795 and the Stormwater Management
Manual can be accessed by the city for routine and/or emergency
maintenance to protect life and property from flood and drainage
hazards, ensure that water quality is protected, and to ensure that
waterways in the headwaters area are protected from the erosive
effects of runoff.
(2) Applicability.
Stormwater easement standards set forth in EC 9.6791
apply to all land use applications and development permits that result in
the construction of a city maintained stormwater management facility.
(3) Standards.
The applicant must dedicate public easements approved
by the city over city maintained stormwater management facilities
provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with
constitutional requirements. The conveyance of ownership or
dedication of easements may be required in any of the following
circumstances:
(a) Except for areas on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory,
where the subject property in the proposed development is or will
be periodically subject to accumulations of surface water or is
traversed by any open drainage way, headwater, stream, creek,
wetland, spring, or pond, including those not maintained by the city
which drain onto or from city-owned property or into city maintained
facilities.
(b) For areas on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, where the
subject property in the proposed development is or will be
periodically subject to accumulations of surface water or is
traversed by any water course or channel.
(c)Where necessary to extend public drainage facilities and services
to adjoining undeveloped property.
(d) To provide necessary drainage from the public right-of-way.
(e) Where the City has accepted functional maintenance responsibility
for pollution reduction and/or flow control facilities in accordance
with EC 9.6797(4)(b).
9.6797 Stormwater Operation and Maintenance.
(1)Purpose.
The purpose of EC 9.6797 is to ensure that stormwater
management facilities designed and constructed in accordance with EC
9.6791-9.6796 and the Stormwater Management Manual are operated
and maintained in a manner that protects life and property from flood
Ordinance -
12
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
and drainage hazards, protects water quality, and protects the
waterways in the headwaters area from the erosive effects of runoff.
(2)Applicability.
Operation and maintenance standards apply to all
facilities designed and constructed in accordance with EC 9.6792
through EC 9.6795 and the Stormwater Management Manual.
(3)Standards.
(a) Unless the city accepts the responsibility to operate and maintain
a stormwater facility, all stormwater management facilities shall
be privately operated and maintained.
(b) All stormwater facilities shall be operated and maintained in
accordance with EC Chapters 6 and 7, and the Stormwater
Management Manual.
(c) Privately maintained facilities. Applications proposing private
operation and maintenance of all or part of the stormwater facility
shall include an Operations and Maintenance Plan in accordance
with the forms adopted as a part of the Stormwater Management
Manual.
(d) Publicly maintained facilities. Applications proposing city
operation and maintenance of all or part of the stormwater facility
shall include an Operations and Maintenance Agreement in
accordance with the facility agreements adopted as a part of the
Stormwater Management Manual.
(4) City Maintenance.
(a) If the conditions of EC 9.6797(4)(b) are satisfied, the city will
accept functional maintenance responsibility of the
following facilities:
1. A facility designed and constructed to provide treatment
solely for runoff from the public right-of-way;
2. A facility designed and constructed to provide treatment
solely for runoff from 4 or more one and two family residential
properties that are not under common ownership;
3. A facility designed and constructed to provide treatment
solely for runoff that is a combination of one and two family
residential properties not under common ownership and the
public right-of-way.
(b) The city will accept functional maintenance responsibility of a
facility listed in EC 9.6797(4)(a) if all of the following conditions
are met:
1. The city has approved the dedication of the easement or
public way to the city the property on which the facility is
located or the city has approved plans allowing the facility to
be placed within the public right-of-way; and
Ordinance -
13
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
2. The city has approved plans dedicating the drainage system
conveying runoff from the residential properties to the
stormwater facility as a public drainage system; and
3. The stormwater facility access routes have been located
within a dedicated public easement on private or commonly
held property, within the public right-of-way or on city owned
property; and
4. Sufficient easement area, right-of-way width or property
have been provided to accommodate the construction and
maintenance of all existing and proposed utilities and public
infrastructure; and
5. The facility is designed and constructed in accordance with
the city’s Stormwater Management Manual; and
6. Access to the proposed facility allows maintenance to be
performed using city owned maintenance equipment; and
7. As-construct plans of the drainage system shall be submitted
designating all facilities that are proposed for public
maintenance within 30 days of the city accepting
maintenance responsibilities; and
8. The facility is designed and constructed in compliance with
the city’s Public Improvement Design Standards Manual.
(c) Notwithstanding EC 9.6797(4)(a) and (b), the city will not accept
operation and maintenance responsibility of eco-roofs, roof
gardens, pervious pavement, contained planters, tree credits,
rainwater harvesting or private drywells.
(5)Private Operation and Maintenance.
All privately operated and
maintained stormwater management facilities shall be operated and
maintained in accordance with EC Chapter 6.
Section 5
. Subsection (24) is added to Section 9.8030 of the Eugene Code,
1971, to provide:
9.8030 Adjustment Review - Approval Criteria.
The planning director shall
approve, conditionally approve, or deny an adjustment review application.
Approval or conditional approval shall be based on compliance with the
following applicable criteria.
(24) Stormwater Pollution Reduction, Flow Control, Oil Control and Source
Control Standards Adjustment.
(a) The requirement in EC 9.6792(3)(a)1 and EC 9.6792(3)(a)3 that
selected pollution reduction facilities shall treat all the stormwater
runoff that will result from the water quality design storm may be
adjusted upon a finding that the selected pollution reduction
facility will treat as much of the runoff as possible and one of the
Ordinance -
14
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
following applies:
1. The area generating untreated runoff is less than 500 square
feet of impervious surface and is isolated from the pollution
reduction facility;
2. The area generating untreated runoff is less than 500 square
feet of impervious surface and it is not technically feasible to
drain the untreated runoff to the pollution reduction facility;
3. Constructing pollution reduction facilities to treat the runoff
from the area at issue would require removal of trees or
damage to other natural resources; or
4. The area generating untreated runoff is less than 500 square
feet of impervious surface and limited access to the area
would prevent regular maintenance of the pollution reduction
facility.
(b) The requirement in EC 9.6792(3)(b) that all pollution reduction
facilities be selected from and sited, designed, and constructed
according to the pollution reduction provisions and the facility
design requirements set forth in the Stormwater Management
Manual and that pollution reduction facilities must be designed
using one of the methodologies outlined in the Stormwater
Management Manual may be adjusted upon finding that all of the
following requirements are met:
1. The proposed alternative design will achieve equal, or
superior, results for function (reducing pollution),
maintainability and safety, and the proposed siting does not
adversely affect structures or other properties.
2. The applicant’s written description of the proposed
alternative design has been reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer. The description of the proposed design
submitted for review must include all of the following
information for each component of the proposed alternative
design:
a. Size, technical description, capacity, capital cost,
design life, construction process and costs,
consequences of improper construction, operation
and maintenance requirements and costs;
b. Data on the effectiveness of proposed alternative
technologies, if available, including data from
laboratory testing and pilot/full-scale operations, and
information regarding the operations of any full-scale
installations;
c. Any other available information about the proposed
design, including peer review articles, scientific or
engineering journals, and approvals from other
Ordinance -
15
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
jurisdictions.
3. The applicant has submitted a method and schedule for
monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed design once
constructed, and a schedule for its maintenance.
4. The applicant has submitted a signed statement that the
applicant will replace the alternative pollution reduction
facility if the facility does not function as proposed.
(c) The requirement in EC 9.6793(3)(a) and EC 9.6793(3)(b) may be
adjusted upon a finding that the flow control facility will control flow
rates as much as possible and one of the following applies:
1. The area at issue generating runoff is less than 500 square
feet of impervious surface and is isolated from the flow
control facility;
2. The area at issue generating runoff is less than 500 square
feet of impervious surface and it is not technically feasible to
drain the untreated runoff to the flow control facility;
3. Constructing facilities to control the flow of runoff from the
area at issue would require removal of trees or damage to
other natural resources;
4. The area at issue generating runoff is less than 500 square
feet of impervious surface and limited access to the area
would prevent regular maintenance of the flow control
facility.
(d) The requirements in EC 9.6793(3)(d) that all flow control facilities
be selected from and sited, designed, and constructed according
to the flow control provisions and the facility design requirements
set forth in the Stormwater Management Manual may be adjusted
upon finding that all of the following requirements are met:
1. The proposed alternative design will achieve equal, or
superior, results for function (maintaining flow or restricting
flow or both), maintainability and safety, and the proposed
siting does not adversely affect structures or other
properties;
2. The applicant’s written description of the proposed
alternative design has been reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer. The description of the proposed design
submitted for review must include all of the following
information for each component of the proposed alternative
design:
a. Size, technical description, capacity, capital cost,
design life, construction process and costs,
consequences of improper construction, operation
and maintenance requirements and costs;
b. Data on the effectiveness of proposed alternative
Ordinance -
16
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
design, if available, including data from laboratory
testing and pilot/full-scale operations, and information
regarding the operations of any full-scale installations;
c. Any other available information about the proposed
design, including peer review articles, scientific or
engineering journals, and approvals from other
jurisdictions.
3. The applicant has submitted a method and schedule for
monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed design once
constructed, and a schedule for its maintenance;
4. The applicant has submitted a signed statement that the
applicant will replace the alternative flow control facility if the
facility does not function as proposed.
(e) The requirement in EC 9.6795(3) that oil control facilities be sited,
designed and constructed according to the oil control provisions and the
facility design requirements set forth in the Stormwater
Management
Manual may be adjusted if the applicant can demonstrate that the
selected oil control facility will achieve the same result as those
listed in the Stormwater Management Manual.
(f) The requirement in EC 9.6796(3) that source controls be sited,
designed and constructed according to source control provisions
set forth in the Stormwater Management Manual may be adjusted
if the applicant can demonstrate that the selected source control
will achieve the same result as those listed in the Stormwater
Management Manual. Applicants seeking an adjustment to EC
9.6796(3) must submit a completed authorization request form
adopted as part of the Stormwater Management Manual.
Section 6
. Subsection (1) of Section 9.8055 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is
amended as follows:
9.8055 Cluster Subdivision- Approval Criteria - General.
The planning director
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed cluster
subdivision. Approval or approval with conditions shall be based on the
following:
(1)
The proposed subdivision complies with:
(a) EC 9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General
except for the standards related to EC 9.2760 Residential Zone
Lot Standards;
(b) EC 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards;
(c) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions, solar
Ordinance -
17
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
standards, and density requirements for the subject zone;
(d) EC 9.6500 through EC [9.6510] 9.6505 Public Improvement
Standards; [and]
(e) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Streets, Alleys, and Other Public
Ways Standards[.]; and
(f) EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater destination,
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance.
The residential lot and development standards may be relaxed based
on compliance with the remainder of the cluster subdivision criteria. An
approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning
at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the
standard.
Section 7
. Subsection (8) of Section 9.8090 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended as follows:
9.8090Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - General.
A conditional use
permit shall be granted only if the proposal conforms to all of the following
criteria:
(8)
The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including but not
limited to:
(a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions, solar
standards, and density requirements for the subject zone;
(b) EC 9.6500 through EC [9.6510] 9.6505 Public Improvement
Standards; [and]
(c) EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater destination,
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance; and
([c]d) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6870 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and
other Public Ways;
([d]e) Where the proposal is to establish non-residential uses subject to
residential density requirements on development sites in the
residential zone category, it shall achieve the minimum and
maximum density requirements in accordance with Table 9.2750
Residential Zone Development Standards, unless specifically
exempted elsewhere in this code or granted a modification
through an approved conditional use permit. For purposes of
calculating “net density,” the acreage of land considered shall
include the entire development site and exclude public property,
Ordinance -
18
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
such as public streets, parks, and other public facilities. In
considering whether to grant a modification to the density
requirements, the hearings official shall evaluate the following
factors:
1. The availability of the development site for residential use on
August 1, 2001. The term “availability” in this section shall
include consideration of whether the site was already
developed with non-residential uses or had other site
constraints impacting its suitability for residential use.
2. The necessity of the development site to be developed with
residential uses to be able to achieve the minimum
residential density for the area designated on the Metro Plan
Land Use Diagram for either medium- or high-density
residential use.
3. Adopted plan policies indicate the suitability and
appropriateness of the site for non-residential use.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions
beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance
with the standard. Additional criteria may also be required based on the
applicability of other sections of this land use code.
Section 8
. Subsection (4) of Section 9.8100 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is
amended as follows:
9.8100 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria- Needed Housing.
The
hearings official shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the conditional
use permit application. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria
contained in EC 9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - General,
where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State
statutes, the hearings official shall approve or approve with conditions a
conditional use based on compliance with the following criteria:
(4)
The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including, but not
limited to:
(a) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709
Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards.
(b) EC 9.6710(6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
(c) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site.
(d) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(e) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards.
(f) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities.
(g) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area.
(h) EC 9.6791 through 9.6796 regarding stormwater destination,
Ordinance -
19
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance.
([h]i) An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions
beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes
compliance with the standard.
Section 9
. Subsection (1) of Section 9.8215 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is
amended as follows:
9.8215 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General.
The planning
director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a partition, with
findings and conclusions. Approval, or approval with conditions, shall be
based on compliance with the following criteria:
(1)
The proposed partition complies with all of the following:
(a) Lot standards of EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding applicable
parcel dimensions and density requirements.
(b) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6870 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and
Other Public Ways.
(c) EC 9.6500 through EC [9.6510] 9.6505 Public Improvement
Standards.
(d) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709
Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards.
(e) EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
(f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards.
(h) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities.
(i) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area.
(j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6796 regarding stormwater destination,
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance.
([j]k) All other applicable development standards for features explicitly
included in the application.
([k]l) The applicable adopted plan policies beginning at EC 9.9500.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions
beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance
with the standard.
Section 10
. Subsection (2) of Section 9.8220 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is
Ordinance -
20
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
amended as follows:
9.8220 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- Needed Housing.
The
planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the partition
application. Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained
in EC 9.8215 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General, where the
applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the
planning director shall approve or approve with conditions a partition based
on compliance with the following criteria:
(2)
The proposed partition complies with all of the following:
(a) Lot standards of EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding applicable
parcel dimensions and density requirements.
(b) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6870 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and
Other Public Ways.
(c) EC 9.6500 through EC [9.6510] 9.6505 Public Improvement
Standards.
(d) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709
Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards.
(e) EC 9.6710(6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
(f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards.
(h) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities.
(i) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area.
(j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6796 regarding stormwater destination,
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance.
([j]k) EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal
Standards.
([k]l) All other applicable development standards for features explicitly
included in the application.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions
beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance
with the standard.
Section 11
. Subsection (11) of Section 9.8320 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is
amended as follows:
9.8320Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria- General
. The
hearings official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tentative
PUD application with findings and conclusions. Decisions approving an
application, or approving with conditions shall be based on compliance with
Ordinance -
21
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
the following criteria:
(11)
The PUD complies with all of the following:
(a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density
requirements for the subject zone.
(b) EC 9.6500 through EC [9.6510] 9.6505 Public Improvement
Standards.
(c) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709
Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards.
(d) EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
(e) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site.
(f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards.
(h) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities.
(i) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area.
(j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6796 regarding stormwater destination,
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance.
([j]k) All other applicable development standards for features explicitly
included in the application except where the applicant has shown
that a proposed noncompliance is consistent with the purposes
set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions
beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance
with the standard.
Section 12
. Subsection (7) of Section 9.8325 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is
amended as follows:
9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria - Needed
Housing.
The hearings official shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny
the PUD application with findings and conclusions. Unless the applicant
elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned
Unit Development Approval Criteria - General, where the applicant proposes
needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the hearings official shall
approve or approve with conditions a PUD based on compliance with the
following criteria:
(7)
The PUD complies with all of the following:
(a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density
requirements for the subject zone.
(b) EC 9.6500 through [9.6510] 9.6505 Public Improvement
Standards.
Ordinance -
22
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
(c) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709
Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards.
(d) EC 9.6710(6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
(e) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site.
(f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards.
(h) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities.
(i) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area.
(j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6796 regarding stormwater destination,
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions
beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance
with the standard.
Section 13
. Subsection (5) of Section 9.8440 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is
amended as follows:
9.8440Site Review Approval Criteria-General
. The planning director shall
approve, conditionally approve, or deny the site review application. Approval
or conditional approval shall be based on compliance with the following
criteria:
(5)
The proposal complies with all of the following standards:
(a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density
requirements for the subject zone.
(b) EC 9.6500 through [9.6510] 9.6505 Public Improvement
Standards.
(c) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709
Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards.
(d) EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
(e) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site.
(f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards.
(h) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities.
(i) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area.
(j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6796 regarding stormwater destination,
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance.
([j]k) All other applicable development standards for features explicitly
included in the application.
Ordinance -
23
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions
beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance
with the standard.
Section 14
. Subsection (4) of Section 9.8445 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is
amended as follows:
9.8445 Site Review Approval Criteria- Needed Housing.
The planning director
shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the site review application.
Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8440
Site Review Approval Criteria - General, where the applicant proposes
needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the planning director shall
approve or approve with conditions a site review based on compliance with
the following criteria:
(4)
The proposal complies with all of the following standards:
(a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density
requirements for the subject zone.
(b) EC 9.6500 through [9.6510] 9.6505 Public Improvement
Standards.
(c) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709
Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards.
(d) EC 9.6710 (6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
(e) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site.
(f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards.
(h) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities.
(i) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area.
(j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6796 regarding stormwater destination,
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance.
([j]k) All other applicable development standards for features explicitly
included in the application.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions
beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance
with the standard.
Section 15
. Subsections (1) and (10) of Section 9.8515 of the Eugene Code,
1971 are amended as follows:
9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria - General.
The planning
director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed
Ordinance -
24
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
subdivision. Approval, or approval with conditions shall be based on
compliance with the following criteria:
(1)
The proposed subdivision complies with the following:
(a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density
requirements for the subject zone;
(b) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6870 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other
Public Ways; and
(c) EC 9.6500 through EC [9.6510] 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards.
(10)
The proposed subdivision complies with all of the following:
(a) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709
Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards.
(b) EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
(c) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site.
(d) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(e) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards.
(f) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities.
(g) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area.
(h) EC 9.6791 through 9.6796 regarding stormwater destination,
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance.
([h]i) The proposed subdivision complies with other applicable
development standards for features explicitly included in the
application.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions
beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance
with the standard.
Section 16
. Subsection (3) of Section 9. 8520 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is
amended as follows:
9.8520 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- Needed Housing.
The
planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
subdivision application. Unless the applicant elects to use the general
criteria contained in EC 9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria-
General, where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the
State statutes, the planning director shall approve or approve with conditions
a subdivision based on compliance with the following criteria:
(3)
The proposed subdivision complies with all of the following:
(a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density
requirements for the subject zone.
(b) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6870 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and
Other Public Ways.
Ordinance -
25
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
(c) EC 9.6500 through EC [9.6510] 9.6505 Public Improvement
Standards.
(d) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709
Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards.
(e) EC 9.6710(6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
(f) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site.
(g) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(h) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards.
(i) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities.
(j) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area.
(k) EC 9.6791 through 9.6796 regarding stormwater destination,
pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil
control, source control, easements, and operation and
maintenance.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions
beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance
with the standard.
Section 17.
The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the
City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained
herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added,
amended, or repealed herein.
Section 18.
Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the
Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of
its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
___ day of _____________, 2006. ___ day of ____________, 2006.
___________________________ __________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance -
26
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606129-attA.doc
4/3/06 - Ordinance includes changes made pursuant to the 1/9/06, 1/10/06 and 2/13/06 PC meetings and the 3/13/06
City Council Work Session.
27
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. _____
Adoption of Code Amendments:Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following
criteria be applied to a code amendment:
(1) The amendments are consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that insure the opportunity for citizens
to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement.
The action taken did not amend the citizen involvement program.
Throughout the stormwater development standards drafting process, the City provided numerous
opportunities for citizen involvement. The City initiated the public involvement in 1999 when it
convened a fourteen-member Stormwater Department Advisory Committee (DAC) to provide
feedback to Eugene Public Works on the results of the Stormwater Basin Planning efforts. The 1999
DAC met from February 1999 through June 2000. The result of this long-term planning effort was
called the proposed “stormwater management strategy,” and included a capital project list, waterway
protection measures and stormwater development standards. The 1999 DAC approved, with some
modification, city staff’s proposed stormwater management strategy. This stormwater management
strategy served as the starting point for the Water Quality Implementation DAC Subcommittee (the
2005 DAC).
City staff conducted broader public outreach from October 2000 through May 2001 on the proposed
stormwater management strategy (i.e., capital projects list and proposed stormwater development
standards) to receive further community feedback. This outreach included presentations to 10
neighborhood groups, as well as the Neighborhood Leaders Council, Long Tom Watershed Council,
League of Women Voters, American Society of Landscape Architects and Oregon Landscape
Contractors.
The 2005 DAC was initiated in August 2005. The membership of the 2005 DAC included
representatives of special interests (Chamber of Commerce, Lane County Home Builders
=
Association, Citizens for Public Accountability); technical expertise in architecture, engineering, site
design, land use and the environment; and a neighborhood representative.The Committee met six
times between August and November 2005 to review and provide input on the draft Stormwater
Development Standards ordinance (August 8, August 25, October 3, October 25, October 31 and
November 10).
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
28
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
In an effort to solicit citizen involvement and input, presentations on the proposed Stormwater
Development Standards have been made to several interest groups. Power Point presentations have
been given to the Lane County Home Builders Association with members of the Eugene Chamber of
Commerce in attendance (October 4, 2005); American Society of Landscape Architects (October 20,
2005); Friends of Eugene (October 27, 2005); Design Engineers, Surveyors, and Developers
(November 16, 2005) and Neighborhood Leaders Coalition (November 22, 2005). Additionally,
various newsletter articles have been sent to the City Council and posted on the internet.
The City of Eugene’s land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of
the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration of
this ordinance will begin with a Eugene Planning Commission work session on January 9, 2006. On
January 10, 2006, a public hearing will be held before the Eugene Planning Commission on the
proposed amendments. Department of Lane Conservation and Development notice, notice to
interested parties and newspaper publication will be provided for that hearing.
The process for adopting this ordinance complies with Goal 1 because it complies with, and
surpasses, the requirements of the State’s citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for
such decisions and actions.
The Eugene Land Use Code specifies the procedure and criteria that were used in considering these
amendments to the code. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base for the
amendments.
Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that
opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. The Goal 2
coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an exchange,
between the City and any affected governmental unit and when the City uses the information obtained
in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. These amendments do not affect any other
governmental units.
There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore, the amendments are
consistent with Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
The amendments apply to property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any
land designated for agricultural use. Therefore, Goal 3 does not apply.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
29
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
Goal 4 - Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect
the state’s forest economy
The amendments apply to property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any
land designated for forest use. Therefore, Goal 4 does not apply.
Goal 5 - Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. To protect natural
resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
The amendments do not create or amend the City’s list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a code
provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements
of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant Goal 5 resource site
and do not amend the acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore, Goal 5 does not apply.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts of those discharges. This goal requires local comprehensive plans and
implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations on matters such as
groundwater pollution.
The proposed amendment to provide Stormwater Development Standards is one component of the
larger Stormwater Program initiated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)’s
approval of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City’s
NPDES Stormwater permit, first issued by DEQ in 1994, and subsequently re-issued in March 2004,
includes measures which in total fulfill the applicable federal Clean Water Act requirements for large
municipalities over 100,000 in population.
The proposed amendments will regulate the location, design, construction, and maintenance of
stormwater facilities that capture and treat stormwater runoff from new development and significant
re-development to reduce impacts that urbanization has on water quality; protect waterways in
headwater areas from the erosive effects of increased stormwater runoff peak flow rates and volumes
resulting from development; restrict the discharge of oil and grease from land uses that produce high
concentrations of these pollutants; and prevent stormwater pollution by eliminating pathways that
may introduce pollutants. These amendments are consistent with the City’s existing measure to
provide for clean air, water and land resources; therefore, these amendments are consistent with Goal
6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect people and property from
natural hazards.
The amendments do not affect the City’s restrictions on development in areas subject to natural
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
30
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
hazards. Further, the amendments do not allow for new development that could result in a natural
hazard. Therefore, Goal 7 does not apply.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors
and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
The amendments do not affect the Citys provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational
=
opportunities. Therefore, Goal 8 does not apply.
Goal 9 - Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregons citizens.
=
The amendments do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Goal 9. The stormwater development standards do not render any
property unusable for commercial or industrial uses. In fact, specific provisions in the stormwater
development standards ensure that the regulations do not have such an effect on a property. Those
provisions are:
1. The pollution reduction and flow control regulations do not apply to: (1) land use applications that
will result in the construction or creation of less than 3,000 square feet of new or replaced impervious
surface at full buildout of the development; (2) development permit applications that will result in less
than 3,000 square feet of new or replaced impervious surface within a 12-month period; (3)
development permit applications to construct or alter one- or two-family dwellings; or, (4)
development permit applications to replace more than 3,000 square feet of impervious surface for
purposes of maintenance or repair for the continuance of the current function, providing that as part
of such maintenance and repair the applicant is replacing less than 50% of the length of the
stormwater drainage system on the development site.
2. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that the selected pollution reduction
facilities treat all of the stormwater runoff that will result from the water quality design storm if the
selected pollution reduction facility will treat as much of the runoff as possible and one of the
following applies: (1) the area generating untreated runoff is less than 500 square feet of impervious
surface and is isolated from the pollution reduction facility; (2) the area generating untreated runoff is
less than 500 square feet of impervious surface and it is not technically feasible to drain the untreated
runoff to the pollution reduction facility; (3) constructing pollution reduction facilities to treat the
runoff from the area at issue would require removal of trees or damage other natural resources; or,
(4) the area generating untreated runoff is less than 500 square feet of impervious surface and limited
access to the area would prevent regular maintenance of the pollution reduction facility. EC
9.8030(22)(a).
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
31
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
3. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that all pollution reduction facilities must
be selected, sited and constructed in accordance with the Stormwater Management Manual and that
all facilities must be designed using one of the three methodologies outlined in the Manual if all of the
following requirements are met: (1) the proposed alternative design will achieve equal, or superior,
results for reducing pollution, maintainability and safety and the proposed siting does not adversely
affect structures or other properties; (2) the applicant’s written description of the proposed alternative
design has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer; (3) the applicant has submitted a
method and schedule for monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed design; and, (4) the applicant
has submitted a signed statement that the applicant will replace the alternative facility if the facility
does not function as proposed.
4. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that the applicant demonstrate that peak
rates of flow delivered to an existing open waterway at a point above 500 feet will not increase during
storms larger than the water quality design storm and smaller than the flood control design storm as a
result of the subject development if the proposed flow control facility will control flow rates as much
as possible and one of the following applies: (1) the area generating untreated runoff is less than 500
square feet of impervious surface and is isolated from the flow control facility; (2) the area generating
runoff is less than 500 square feet of impervious surface and it is not technically feasible to drain the
untreated runoff to the pollution reduction facility; (3) constructing pollution reduction facilities to
treat the runoff from the area at issue would require removal of trees or damage other natural
resources; or, (4) the area generating untreated runoff is less than 500 square feet of impervious
surface and limited access to the area would prevent regular maintenance of the flow control facility.
5. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that all flow control facilities must be
selected from and sited, designed and constructed according to the Stormwater Management Manual
if all of the following requirements are met: (1) the proposed alternative design will achieve equal, or
superior, results for reducing pollution, maintainability and safety and the proposed siting does not
adversely affect structures or other properties; (2) the applicant’s written description of the proposed
alternative design has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer; (3) the applicant has
submitted a method and schedule for monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed design; and, (4) the
applicant has submitted a signed statement that the applicant will replace the alternative facility if the
facility does not function as proposed.
6. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that all oil control facilities be sited,
designed and constructed according to the Stormwater Management Manual if the applicant can
demonstrate that the selected oil control facility will achieve the same result as those listed in the
Manual.
7. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that all source controls be sited, designed
and constructed according to the Stormwater Management Manual if the applicant can demonstrate
that the selected source control will achieve the same result as those listed in the Manual.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
32
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
Considering the above-listed provisions in the stormwater development standards, the application of
these regulations to a property zoned and designated for commercial or industrial use does not result
in a diminution in the area’s supply of commercial or industrial land. Therefore, this ordinance is
consistent with Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
The amendments do not impact the supply of residential lands. Therefore, the amendments are
consistent with Goal 10. The stormwater development standards do not render any property unusable
for residential uses. In fact, specific provisions in the stormwater development standards ensure that
the regulations do not have such an effect on a property. Those provisions are:
1. The pollution reduction and flow control regulations do not apply to: (1) land use applications that
will result in the construction or creation of less than 3,000 square feet of new or replaced impervious
surface at full buildout of the development; (2) development permit applications that will result in less
than 3,000 square feet of new or replaced impervious surface within a 12-month period; (3)
development permit applications to construct or alter one- or two-family dwellings; or, (4)
development permit applications to replace more than 3,000 square feet of impervious surface for
purposes of maintenance or repair for the continuance of the current function, providing that as part
of such maintenance and repair the applicant is replacing less than 50% of the length of the
stormwater drainage system on the development site.
2. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that the selected pollution reduction
facilities treat all of the stormwater runoff that will result from the water quality design storm if the
selected pollution reduction facility will treat as much of the runoff as possible and one of the
following applies: (1) the area generating untreated runoff is less than 500 square feet of impervious
surface and is isolated from the pollution reduction facility; (2) the area generating untreated runoff is
less than 500 square feet of impervious surface and it is not technically feasible to drain the untreated
runoff to the pollution reduction facility; (3) constructing pollution reduction facilities to treat the
runoff from the area at issue would require removal of trees or damage other natural resources; or,
(4) the area generating untreated runoff is less than 500 square feet of impervious surface and limited
access to the area would prevent regular maintenance of the pollution reduction facility. EC
9.8030(22)(a).
3. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that all pollution reduction facilities must
be selected, sited and constructed in accordance with the Stormwater Management Manual and that
all facilities must be designed using one of the three methodologies outlined in the Manual if all of the
following requirements are met: (1) the proposed alternative design will achieve equal, or superior,
results for reducing pollution, maintainability and safety and the proposed siting does not adversely
affect structures or other properties; (2) the applicant’s written description of the proposed alternative
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
33
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
design has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer; (3) the applicant has submitted a
method and schedule for monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed design; and, (4) the applicant
has submitted a signed statement that the applicant will replace the alternative facility if the facility
does not function as proposed.
4. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that the applicant demonstrate that peak
rates of flow delivered to an existing open waterway at a point above 500 feet will not increase during
storms larger than the water quality design storm and smaller than the flood control design storm as a
result of the subject development if the proposed flow control facility will control flow rates as much
as possible and one of the following applies: (1) the area generating untreated runoff is less than 500
square feet of impervious surface and is isolated from the flow control facility; (2) the area generating
runoff is less than 500 square feet of impervious surface and it is not technically feasible to drain the
untreated runoff to the pollution reduction facility; (3) constructing pollution reduction facilities to
treat the runoff from the area at issue would require removal of trees or damage other natural
resources; or, (4) the area generating untreated runoff is less than 500 square feet of impervious
surface and limited access to the area would prevent regular maintenance of the flow control facility.
5. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that all flow control facilities must be
selected from and sited, designed and constructed according to the Stormwater Management Manual
if all of the following requirements are met: (1) the proposed alternative design will achieve equal, or
superior, results for reducing pollution, maintainability and safety and the proposed siting does not
adversely affect structures or other properties; (2) the applicant’s written description of the proposed
alternative design has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer; (3) the applicant has
submitted a method and schedule for monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed design; and, (4) the
applicant has submitted a signed statement that the applicant will replace the alternative facility if the
facility does not function as proposed.
6. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that all oil control facilities be sited,
designed and constructed according to the Stormwater Management Manual if the applicant can
demonstrate that the selected oil control facility will achieve the same result as those listed in the
Manual.
7. An applicant can seek an adjustment to the requirement that all source controls be sited, designed
and constructed according to the Stormwater Management Manual if the applicant can demonstrate
that the selected source control will achieve the same result as those listed in the Manual.
Considering the above-listed provisions in the stormwater development standards, the application of
these regulations to a property zoned and designated for residential use does not result in a
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
34
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
diminution in the area’s supply of residential land. Therefore, this ordinance is consistent with Goal
10.
Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area has an acknowledged Public Facilities and Services Plan
(PFSP). The PFSP describes the public stormwater facilities necessary to support the land uses
designated in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) within the urban
growth boundary. These amendments are consistent with the adopted Eugene-Springfield Metro
Area PFSP. Further, these amendments do not affect the City’s provision of any public facilities and
services, including stormwater facilities and services. Therefore, Goal 11 does not apply.
Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through
which the TPR is enacted at the local level.
The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) states that land use changes that significantly
affect a transportation facility shall require mitigation measures to address the anticipated impacts.
The rule states that:
(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations
which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are
consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of
service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either:
(a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity, and
performance standards of the transportation facility;
(b) Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities to support the proposed land
uses consistent with the requirements of this division.
(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce
demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes; or
(d) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity and performance standards,
as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle congestion to promote mixed use, pedestrian-
friendly development where multi modal travel choices are provided.
(2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
35
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or access that are
inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or
(d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable
level identified in the TSP.
Adoption of these amendments will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility. Nor will it change standards implementing a functional classification system.
Further, it will not allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access
which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility or reduce the
performance standards of any facility. Therefore, Goal 12 is not implicated by these amendments.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation. To conserve energy.
The amendments do not impact energy conservation. Therefore, Goal 13 does not apply.
Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land
use.
The amendments do not affect the Citys provisions regarding the transition of land from rural to
=
urban uses. Therefore, Goal 14 does not apply.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette
River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The Willamette River Greenway area within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary is governed by
existing local provisions that have been acknowledged as complying with Goal 15. Those provisions
are unchanged by these amendments. Therefore, Goal 15 does not apply.
Goals 16 - 19. Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources.
These Statewide Planning Goals do not apply to the actions taken.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
36
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
(2) The amendments are consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable
adopted refinement plans.
The proposed code amendments add regulations to the Land Use Code with the intent of protecting
life and property from flood and drainage hazards, reducing the impacts that urbanization is having on
the City’s water quality, protecting waterways in the headwater areas from erosive effects of increases
in stormwater runoff, protecting the City’s stormwater system from oil and grease from stormwater
runoff , and preventing stormwater pollution by eliminating pathways that may introduce pollutants
into stormwater. Generally, the stormwater development standards fall into the following five
categories:
1. EC 9.6790, Stormwater Destination
, applies to all new development and redevelopment and is
intended to protect life and property from flood and drainage hazards by maintaining the capacity of
the City’s stormwater conveyance system through the establishment of destination regulations for
stormwater runoff from development. This provision requires applicants proposing new development
to submit documentation showing the stormwater destination into which the development will be
disposed. The documentation must establish that the existing stormwater drainage facilities into
which the stormwater from the proposed development will dispose has the capacity to handle the
stormwater runoff that will be generated by the proposed new development for the flood control
design storm. If the applicant cannot establish that existing stormwater drainage facilities have such
capacity, the applicant must construct new storm drainage facilities to accommodate the stormwater
draining from the proposed development.
2. EC 9.6791, Stormwater Pollution Reduction
, applies to land use applicants requesting approval
of a cluster subdivision, a conditional use, a partition, a planned used development, site review, or a
subdivision tentative plan and is intended to reduce the impacts that urbanization is having on the
City’s water quality by providing standards for the capture and treatment of stormwater runoff from
development. This provision requires that applicants include pollution reduction facilities selected
from the Stormwater Management Manual that treat all of the stormwater runoff from the
development site that will result from the water quality design storm. The pollution reduction
facilities must be sited, designed and constructed according to the Manual and must be designed using
one of the three methodologies outlined in the Manual.
3. EC 9.6792, Stormwater Flow Control
, applies to all land use applications for development sites
in the headwaters area requesting approval of a cluster subdivision, a conditional use, a partition, a
planned used development, site review, or a subdivision tentative plan and is intended to protect
waterways in the headwaters area from the erosive effects of increases in stormwater runoff peak flow
rates and volumes resulting from development. The provision requires that applicants demonstrate,
using methodology in the Stormwater Management Manual, that peak rates of flow delivered to an
existing open waterway at a point above 500 feet in elevation will not increase during storms larger
than the water quality design storm and smaller than the flood control design storm as a result of the
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
37
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
development. The facilities to control the rate of stormwater runoff must be sited, designed and
constructed according to the Manual.
4. EC 9.6793, Stormwater Oil Control
, applies to all new commercial and industrial development
with parking lots that store wrecked vehicles, all development and redevelopment that would result in
an expected daily traffic count greater than 100 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross building area,
that would result in 100 or more off-street parking spaces or that receives an adjustment approving
installation of 125 percent or more of the minimum off-street parking spaces and is intended to
protect the City’s stormwater system from oil and grease from stormwater runoff of impervious
surface areas on properties that produce high concentrations of these pollutants. Applicants must
site, design and construct oil control facilities in accordance with the Stormwater Management
Manual.
5. EC 9.6794, Stormwater Source Controls
, applies to fuel dispensing facilities and surrounding
traffic areas where vehicles, equipment, or tanks are refueled on the premises, exterior storage of
liquid materials in quantities of 50 gallons or more, all facilities that store solid waste, developments
that stockpile or store high-risk or low-risk bulk materials in outdoor containers, developments
proposing the installation of new material transfer areas or structural alterations to existing material
transfer areas, all development with a designated equipment or vehicle washing or steam cleaning
areas, all development projects that disturb property suspected or known to contain contaminants in
the soil or groundwater, and all development with new covered vehicle parking areas or existing
parking structures that are being redeveloped. This provision is intended to prevent stormwater
pollution by eliminating pathways that may introduce pollutants into stormwater . This provision
requires applicants to design and construct source control measure in accordance with the
Stormwater Management Manual.
?
Metro Plan Policies - The above-described stormwater development standards are consistent with
the following Metro Plan Policies:
Environmental Resources Element:
18. Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development on
hillsides and in water bodies, and restrict development in wetlands in order to protect the scenic
quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values, vegetation, and wildlife values of
those areas.
21. Local government shall continue to monitor, to plan for, and to enforce applicable air and
water quality standards and shall cooperate in meeting applicable federal, state, and local air and
water quality standards.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
38
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
25. Eugene shall maintain and improve and Springfield shall adopt hillside development
regulations.
Public Facilities and Services Element Services to Development Within the Urban Growth
-
Boundary: Stormwater
G.13 Improve surface and ground water quality and quantity in the metropolitan area by
developing regulations or instituting programs for stormwater to:
a. Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individuals can employ to
help correct water quality and quantity problems;
b. Improve management of industrial and commercial operations to reduce negative water
quality and quantity impacts;
c. Regulate site planning for new development and construction to better manage pre- and
post-construction storm runoff, including erosion, velocity, pollutant loading, and drainage;
d. Increase storage and retention and natural infiltration of storm runoff to lower and delay
peak storm flows and to settle out pollutants prior to discharge into regulated waterways;
e. Require on-site contracts and development standards, as practical, to reduce off-site
impacts from stormwater runoff;
f. Use natural and simple mechanical treatment systems to provide treatment for potentially
contaminated runoff waters;
g. Reduce street-related water quality and quantity problems;
h. Regulate use and require containment and/or pretreatment of toxic substances;
i. Include containment measures in site review standards to minimize the effects of chemical
and petroleum spills; and
j. Consider impacts to ground water quality in the design and location of dry well.
G.14 Implement changes to stormwater facilities and management practices to reduce the presence
of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to address the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act.
G.15 Consider wellhead protection areas and surface water supplies when planning stormwater
facilities.
G.16 Manage or enhance waterways and open stormwater systems to reduce water quality impacts
from runoff to improve stormwater conveyance.
G.17 Include measures in local land development regulations that minimize the amount of
impervious surface in new development in a manner that reduces stormwater pollution, reduces the
negative effects from increases in runoff, and is compatible with Metro Plan policies.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
39
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
?
Refinement Plan Policies: The above-described stormwater development standards are consistent
with following refinement plan policies:
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Policies:
1.1 Incorporate the beneficial functions (flood control, stormwater conveyance, water quality
treatment) of natural resources into the City’s storm drainage system.
1.2 Maintain flood control, drainage, and water quality treatment capacities along the City’s
stormwater conveyance corridors while protecting and enhancing the health, diversity and
continuity for wildlife habitat, native vegetation, and endangered species.
1.4 Amend existing regulations and administrative policies and practices to be consistent with
the goals and policies of the Stormwater Plan.
1.5 Develop new design standards and maintenance practices that meet the multiple objectives
of the Stormwater Plan.
1.8 Evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of a variety of surface water management
facilities for meeting the multiple objectives of this plan.
2.1 Meet or exceed federal flood hazard requirements.
2.2 Protect adjoining land uses from flood and drainage hazards.
2.3 Maximize the capacity of existing stormwater facilities especially where deficiencies exist by
encouraging the use of techniques that lower and slow the rate of stormwater runoff.
3.1 Meet or exceed federal and state stormwater quality requirements especially where they
conform with existing local policy.
3.3 Reduce stormwater pollution associated with new construction and development, soil
erosion, improper use of stormwater facilities, and city operations and maintenance practices.
3.4 Evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater quality management measures.
4.1 Maintain the stormwater system through techniques and practices that balance flood control,
drainage services, water quality, and natural resource protection needs.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
40
ATTACHMENT A:
page of 40
Willakenzie Area Plan Policies,
Public Facilities and Services Element – Natural Drainage:
1 Encourage development practices that reduce the need for construction of an extensive
subsurface storm sewer system.
2. Encourage growth and development patterns that are compatible with natural features and
discourage the alteration of natural features. Relocation of natural drainage features may be
considered as an alternative to replacement with a closed pipe system.
3. Encourage measures that will improve the quality of the storm-water runoff discharge into
local waterways.
(3) The amendment is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special
Area Zone, in the case of establishment of a special area zone.
The proposed amendments do not establish a special area zone. Therefore, this criterion does not
apply to these amendments.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Findings of Consistency
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Responses to City Council and Public Testimony
Comments and questions from the May 8, 2006, City Council public hearing and
written comments received through May 22, 2006, fell roughly into six categories.
The six categories are as follows: 1) the impervious surface area threshold; 2)
applicability of the ordinance to infill type development; 3) applicability of the
ordinance to subdivisions implementing an approved PUD; 4) clarification of the
relationship between the River Road – Santa Clara Basin Plan and the
Stormwater Development Standards; 5) preservation of the natural drainage
system; and 6) design and construction of stormwater management facilities
including the promotion of rainwater harvesting. Staff responses are provided
herein for each category of comments.
1.Explain the justification for the 3,000 square foot impervious surface area
threshold. Reduce the threshold.
:
Staff Response
A number of citizens testified requesting that the Council reduce
the impervious surface threshold for applicability to a level in-line with Gresham
(2,500 square feet ) or Portland (500 square feet) for example.
While all new areas of impervious surface have some impact on stormwater
quality and the volume of stormwater runoff, a threshold of 3,000 square feet of
impervious surface area is recommended for applicability of the proposed
standards in order to balance pollution reduction with other considerations. Of
the jurisdictions surveyed using this stormwater management approach, the
threshold size of total impervious surface area ranged widely, from 500 square
feet to 9,000 square feet. The lower end of this range, 500 square feet, would
potentially be the most effective, but could result in many small stormwater
management facilities and significantly more cost to the City because of the
increase in permitting, administration, inspection, maintenance and enforcement.
The upper end of this range (9,000 square feet) would likely be much less
effective since it would exempt significantly larger areas of new impervious
surfaces.
The 3,000 square foot threshold was unanimously recommended by the Public
Works Stormwater Department Advisory Committee in June 2000. Once an
application is subject to the standards, all of the impervious surface area must be
addressed by an approved facility ( not just the amount of impervious surface
i.e.
area in excess of 3,000 square feet). It is expected that decreasing the threshold
below 3,000 square feet would not significantly increase the overall effectiveness
of the program in Eugene given that there are few permit applications for multi-
family residential, commercial or industrial developments that fall within the
less-than-3,000 square foot category, and slightly fewer that would fall within the
less-than-2,500 square foot category. With the proposed threshold of 3,000
square feet, staff is comfortable that it can assure there will be adequate resources
for permitting, maintenance, inspections, and enforcement, while still
maintaining broad coverage of the new standards.
2.Too much development is exempted from the proposed standards
Staff Response: Councilor Bettman and public testimony indicated that
exempting infill development ( “minor partitions”), of the type that is
e.g.
occurring in the River Road area for example, is allowing too much new
impervious surface area to go unaddressed by the proposed standards. Staff
agrees that the program could be more effective if minor partitions were required
to address the proposed standards, and recommends that the ordinance be
amended to include minor partitions in the types of development required to
meet the proposed standards. Option 2 in the Council AIS addresses this
proposed change.
3.Can the Stormwater Development Standards Ordinance be amended to apply
to a subdivision that implements an approved PUD?
Staff Response: Councilor Kelly asked staff whether the ordinance could be
amended so that the adopted Stormwater Development Standards would apply
to a subdivision application submitted after the effective date of the ordinance
that implements a PUD that was approved prior to the effective date of the
ordinance. For the reasons discussed below, the ordinance does not need to be
changed in order for the Stormwater Development Standards to apply to a
subdivision application that implements an approved PUD, even if the PUD was
approved prior to adoption of the ordinance.
Under the Eugene Code, developing a site as a PUD requires the developer to
first get City approval of a PUD plan and then get City approval of, at least, one
subdivision plan to implement the approved PUD plan. Under existing code
provisions, a subdivision application that implements an approved PUD must
satisfy all of the Citys subdivision criteria, except to the extent that compliance
=
with a particular criterion would cause the subdivision plan to be inconsistent
with the approved PUD. EC 9.8515(12). In the case of such an inconsistency,
See
the City “shall require compliance with that subdivision criterion only to the
extent that it can do so without creating an inconsistency.” The proposed
ordinance does not change those existing code provisions.
The proposed ordinance does amend EC 9.8515 and 9.8520 (Subdivision,
Tentative Plan Approval Criteria - General and Subdivision, Tentative Plan
Approval Criteria - Needed Housing) to require that subdivision applications
comply with the new Stormwater Development Standards. Ordinance
See
Sections 15 and 16. Therefore, unless compliance with the Stormwater
Development Standards will cause the subdivision plan to be inconsistent with
the approved PUD, once the stormwater standards are in effect, a subdivision
that implements a PUD will have to comply with the new standards, regardless
of when the PUD was approved. If compliance with the stormwater standards
does cause an inconsistency, the subdivision developer will be relieved of the
standards only to the extent necessary to eliminate the inconsistency.
4.Clarify the relationship between the Stormwater Development Standards
and the Stormwater Basin Plans. Postpone adoption of the proposed
standards until after completion of the River Road – Santa Clara Basin Plan.
Staff Response: Council requested clarification of the relationship between the
Stormwater Basin Plans, and the River Road – Santa Clara Basin Plan in
particular. A number of citizens that testified at the public hearing urged the
Council to delay adoption of the Stormwater Development Standards until after
the River Road – Santa Clara Basin Plan is completed.
Updated Stormwater Basin Plans were completed in August 2002 for six of
Eugene’s seven stormwater basins: Amazon, Willow Creek, Bethel-Danebo,
Willakenzie, Willamette River, and Laurel Hill (see Attachment C for basin
locations and approximate boundaries). Also in August 2002, an initial study
towards the development of a basin plan had been drafted, but not completed,
for the River Road – Santa Clara basin, pending collaboration with Lane County
on addressing inter-jurisdictional issues and the need for additional stormwater
system information in that area. Enabled by a 2004 City-Lane County
Stormwater IGA, work is underway to complete the River Road – Santa Clara
Basin Plan by December 2006.
The Stormwater Basin Plans guide the management of stormwater throughout
the study area. They are used by City staff for background/contextual
information, for development of the City’s biennial Capital Improvement
Program, for contextual support for proposed development standards and
waterway protections, and for evaluating technical information about the
stormwater system. The Basin Plans are not used to regulate conduct or
activities of the public.
The proposed Stormwater Development Standards ordinance and the River
Road - Santa Clara Stormwater Basin Plan are complimentary but independent of
each other. Given the in-depth analysis and comparison of options for
addressing runoff from new development that was done in the earlier basin
planning process, the consistent outcome for all of the other six basins, and the
benefits of applying consistent stormwater quality development standards city-
wide, additional analysis on that point is not a part of the current work plan.
The draft River Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan reflects that implementing on-site
Stormwater Development Standards city-wide is the most appropriate strategy
for addressing the water quality impacts associated with future development
and it is not expected that the River Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan will result in
any changes to the Stormwater Development Standards ordinance.
Delaying adoption of the Stormwater Development Standards ordinance
pending completion of the River Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan is not warranted
given the independence of the two efforts. Delaying ordinance adoption would
also be counterproductive because the delay would result in lost opportunities to
address the water quality of runoff from sites proposed for development over the
next six months, including those in the River Road - Santa Clara area.
All of the information set forth above is provided in more detail in Attachment C
to this AIS (the May 22, 2006 Memorandum from Therese Walch to the Mayor
and Council).
5.Preserve natural drainage systems.
Staff Response: A number of citizens that testified at the public hearing
expressed concern that the proposed Stormwater Development Standards would
compromise the existing natural drainage systems that are prevalent throughout
the River Road/Santa Clara area. Concern was expressed that, upon
development, roadside swales and open waterways are being replaced with
engineered (piped) systems for conveying stormwater. Residents stated that,
given their multiple benefits, roadside ditches, swales and open waterways
should be preserved and utilized rather than replaced by piped systems. The
citizens urged Council to take steps to preserve these natural drainage systems.
This issue will not be addressed by the Stormwater Development Standards
ordinance. As described in Attachment C, the type of system used to convey
stormwater is not dictated by the proposed ordinance, existing City Code, or
administratively adopted design standards, but rather is decided based upon
feasibility, cost, and preference.
There is also nothing in the proposed ordinance, existing City Code or in the
proposed design standards manual that prohibits the use of natural drainage
systems for stormwater.
Given the unique nature of the River Road - Santa Clara basin and the prevalence
of existing roadside ditches/swales, this issue could be addressed in the context
of the River Road - Santa Clara basin planning and follow-up implementation.
The River Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan would be an appropriate venue for
analyzing this as an element of an integrated stormwater management strategy
for flood control and water quality.
6.Comments pertaining to the Stormwater Management Manual, including the
promotion of rainwater harvesting.
Staff Response: Several comments were received regarding the ordinance that
pertain to the design and construction of the stormwater management facilities.
Comments specific to the design and construction of stormwater facilities will be
presented at the public hearing on the Stormwater Management Manual on June
8, 2006 and considered for inclusion in the adoption of the manual.
A number of citizens testified at the public hearing and submitted written
testimony requesting that the city encourage and support rainwater harvesting.
Rainwater harvesting is one of the approved stormwater facilities listed in the
Stormwater Management Manual. The ordinance neither requires nor disallows
applicants from using any of the approved facilities. Specific comments
pertaining to the design and construction of rainwater harvesting facilities will
be presented at the public hearing on the Stormwater Management Manual and
considered for inclusion in the adoption of the manual.
ATTACHMENT C
c
Public Works
Wastewater
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
410 River Ave.
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-8600
(541) 682-8601 FAX
www.cLeugene.or.us
Date:
May 22, 2006
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Therese Walch, Water Resources Manager (682-8647)
Subject: Proposed Stormwater Development Standards and the River Road - Santa Clara
Basin Plan
The purpose of this memo is to clarify the connection between the proposed stormwater
development standards ordinance and the stormwater basin plans, including the River Road -
Santa Clara Basin Plan. Information is also provided in response to concerns raised at the May
8, 2006 public hearing on the proposed stormwater development standards ordinance related to
the preservation of natural drainage systems in the River Road - Santa Clara area.
Stormwater Basin Planning Process
The earlier stormwater basin planning process was precipitated by the adoption in 1993 of the
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSWMP) and the City of Eugene's 1994
NPDES permit. These actions marked a significant shift in the City's approach to stormwater
management. In addition to drainage and flood control services, the City's stormwater program
was expanded to include the protection and enhancement of stormwater quality and related
natural resources. Since the City's previous Storm Drainage Master Plan (OTAK, 1990) was
developed solely for the purpose of addressing drainage and flood control issues, an update of
the 1990 Storm Drainage Master Plan was necessary to bring it into compliance with current
City policy and new regulations. The City initiated a project to develop multiple objective
Stormwater Basin Master Plans (Basin Plans). The objective for the new Basin Plans was to
develop stormwater management strategies, primarily capital projects and development
standards, that, along with the other activities in the stormwater program:
. Minimize flooding associated with existing andfuture development conditions;
. Prevent and/or reduce stormwater runoff pollution associated with new development and
existing development;
. Protect and enhance stormwater-related natural resources for their beneficial stormwater
functions.
. Maximize cost-effectiveness through coordination with other City programs.
The basin planning process included a comparison, in terms of feasibility and cost-effectiveness
of two options for addressing predicted flooding and water quality problems fromfuture
development: public capital facilities (capital proj ects) vs. private on-site controls (development
standards). To address predicted flooding problems from future development, the conclusion for
all six stormwater basins was that public capital facilities at specific locations would be the most
appropriate and cost-effective option. To address predicted water quality problems related to
development, the conclusion for all six stormwater basins was that private on-site controls would
be the most appropriate option. Public capital facilities would not fully address the
development-related water quality problem given the limited nature and location of vacant land
to site public water quality facilities. The public cost to maintain large capital facilities was also
a consideration. The basin planning analysis confirmed the appropriateness of on-site controls
for development and provided justification for pursuing the recommended course of action:
adoption of city-wide stormwater quality development standards. The basic elements of a future
stormwater development standards ordinance were established during the basin planning process
including what the standards would be, where and how they would apply, and what the public
and private maintenance responsibilities would be. Specific elements of a future stormwater
development standards ordinance were assigned to a separate process.
The basin planning stormwater management strategies were reviewed by the Public Works
Stormwater Department Advisory Committee from February 1999 through June 2000, and
subsequently presented to neighborhood and interest groups. By August 2002, updated Basin
Plans had been completed for six of Eugene's seven stormwater basins: Amazon, Willow Creek,
Bethel-Danebo, Willakenzie, Willamette River, and Laurel Hill (see attached figure for basin
locations and approximate boundaries). An initial study towards the development of a River
Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan was also drafted by August 2002 but was not completed pending
collaboration with Lane County on addressing inter-jurisdictional issues and the need for
additional stormwater system information in that area.
The new Basin Plans, adopted administratively in 2003, guide the management of stormwater
throughout the study area. They are used by City staff for background/contextual information,
for development of the City's biennial Capital Improvement Program,for contextual support for
proposed development standards and waterway protections, and for evaluating technical
information about the stormwater system. The Basin Plans are not used to regulate conduct or
activities of the public.
Stormwater Development Standards
Subsequent to the completion of the six new Basin Plans, separate implementation processes
were initiated including the development of a proposed stormwater development standards
ordinance and associated design manual. A subcommittee of the Stormwater Department
Advisory Committee volunteered to review the implementing ordinance for consistency with the
basin planning context, and for appropriateness in implementation at the higher level of detail
reflected in the ordinance. The stormwater development standards ordinance now under
consideration by City Council primarily addresses the destination (i.e. conveyance) of
stormwater for flood control and the quality of stormwater from developing sites.
The destination provisions in the ordinance (Section 9.6791) are not new code requirements, but
already exist in City code (Section 9.6510). The ordinance moves the destination provisions so
that stormwater standards related to development are in one location of City code for clarity.
The destination requirements ensure that there is adequate capacity in the system to convey
stormwater from the developing site and those stormwater conveyance systems for developing
sites meet a certain level of flood protection. The destination provisions of the ordinance provide
the basic design standards but do not require that stormwater be conveyed by any particular
means (pipe, open drainage system, drywell), nor do they preclude conveyance by any particular
means.
The water quality provisions of the ordinance include pollution reduction, flow controls for
headwater sites, oil controls, and source controls (Sections 9.6792 through 9.6795). These are
new requirements for development in Eugene and are being implemented in direct response to
the new Basin Plans and the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit that requires the establishment of "controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the
municipal stormwater system from areas of new development and significant redevelopment."
The water quality provisions of the ordinance do not dictate the type of water quality facilities
that must be used, but provides the basic design standard that must be met and references the
Stormwater Management Manual for detailed design requirements.
River Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan
Status
In April 2004, the City of Eugene and Lane County entered into an agreement for stormwater
services, including collaborating to complete the draft River Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan.
Work to finalize the plan is underway, involving City of Eugene and Lane County staff and
consultants, and the plan is scheduled for completion by December 2006. The final plan will
include a stormwater management strategy for the River Road - Santa Clara basin, including
capital projects and development standards.
Relationship of River Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan to Stormwater Development Standards
The proposed stormwater development standards ordinance and the River Road - Santa Clara
Stormwater Basin Plan are complimentary but independent of each other. Given the in-depth
analysis and comparison of options for addressing runoff from new development that was done
in the earlier basin planning process, the consistent outcome for all of the other six basins, and
the benefits of applying consistent stormwater quality development standards city-wide,
additional analysis on that point is not a part of the current work plan. The draft River Road -
Santa Clara Basin Plan reflects that implementing on-site stormwater development standards
city-wide is the most appropriate strategy for addressing the water quality impacts associated
with future development and it is not expected that the River Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan will
result in any changes to the stormwater development standards ordinance.
Delaying adoption of the stormwater development standards ordinance pending completion of
the River Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan is not warranted given the independence of the two
efforts. Delaying ordinance adoption would also be counterproductive in that opportunities to
address the water quality of runoff from sites proposed for development over the next six months
would be lost, including those in the River Road - Santa Clara area.
The River Road - Santa Clara Basin and the Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems
Concern was expressed at the public hearing on May 8, 2006 that the more natural stormwater
systems that exist in River Road and Santa Clara including roadside swales are being replaced
with engineered (piped) systems for conveying stormwater upon development. Residents
expressed that, given their multiple benefits, roadside ditches and open waterways should be
preserved and utilized rather than replaced by piped systems. This issue will not be addressed by
the stormwater development standards ordinance. As indicated above, the type of system used
to convey stormwater is not dictated by the proposed ordinance, existing City Code, or
administratively adopted design standards, but rather is decided based upon feasibility, cost, and
preference.
There is also nothing in the proposed ordinance, existing City Code or administratively adopted
design standards that prohibits the use of natural drainage systems for stormwater, however the
use of more natural systems such as roadside ditches or swales is often not chosen due to the:
. lack of a continuous roadside ditch or swale system to reliably convey stormwater runoff;
. lack of grade and/or capacity in an existing roadside ditch or swale; and
· advantages of curbs/gutters including physical stability for the street, a barrier from vehicles
for pedestrian protection, efficient stormwater conveyance, and an edge to assist with street
sweepmg.
Given the unique nature of the River Road - Santa Clara basin and the prevalence of existing
roadside ditches/swales, this issue could be addressed in the context of the River Road - Santa
Clara basin planning and follow-up implementation. The River Road - Santa Clara Basin Plan
would be an appropriate venue for analyzing this as an element of an integrated stormwater
management strategy for flood control and water quality.
The earlier basin planning efforts identified the preservation of waterways as another element of
the stormwater management strategies for implementing CSWMP and responding to Clean
Water Act regulations. In October 2006, Council will consider whether to adopt protection
measures (i.e. setbacks and prohibitions on piping/filling) for Eugene's waterways that are not
meeting state water quality standards, and their tributaries. Waterways that meet criteria for
potential protection in the River Road - Santa Clara area include Flat Creek, Spring Creek, the
East Santa Clara Waterway, and the Al Channel and their direct tributaries.
Preservation of waterways city-wide is being accomplished in other ways as well. In November
2005, the City Council adopted Goal 5 natural resource protection measures along certain
waterways including Flat Creek, Spring Creek, the East Santa Clara Waterway, and the Al
Channel in the River Road - Santa Clara area. In January 2006, Council approved a rate increase
to fund an enhanced stream corridor acquisition program. The acquisition program has
purchased over 40 acres of stream corridors to date including a portion of the East Santa Clara
Waterway corridor through what is now called Wendover Park.
For More Information
Please contact Therese Walch at 682-8647 or therese.walch@cLeugene.or.us for any additional
information.
Attachment
Stormwater Basin Map
City of Eugene
Major Stormwater Basins
May 22, 2006
KEPPLER Peggy A
ATTACHMENTD
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
HANDY Rob (SMTP)
Monday, April 10, 2006 7:04 PM
*Eugene Mayor and City Council
KEPPLER Peggy A; WALCH Therese
Testimony: Stormwater Ordinance
(Please include in the public record...thanks, Rob)
April 10, 2006
To: Mayor Piercy and Eugene City Council
cc" Peggy Keppler
Therese Walch
Re: Ordinance Concerning Stormwater Development Standards
Comments made at the March 13 work session by Councilors were appreciated by
the public. Having an integrated approach to stormwater policy and
implementation across City departments will be helpful. One Councilor
suggested that the community's values and important details were yet missing
from the draft ordinance. The City attorney explained that the ordinance is
the place where explicit goals of the community should be incorporated.
I ask that the hearing be kept open for a week to allow more comments to be
made to the record. Additionally, I ask you to postpone enacting this
ordinance until after completion of the River Road! Santa Clara Stormwater
Basin Plan. My understanding is that this ordinance is a key part of the
implementation of the comprehensive set of Basin Master Plans. Along with
the capital projects lists in each of the individual Basin documents, the
ordinance is supposed to be the main vehicle for implementing the Basin Plan
provisions that apply to private property under development around the City,
including in our neighborhood. Without the River Road! Santa Clara Basin
Plan being complete, enacting this ordinance before you is putting the cart
before the horse.
Although the ordinance appears to be heading in a "green" direction, the
devil is in the details, and this ordinance stops short of including the
natural stormwater conveyance systems important to water quality and flood
control.
In River Road and Santa Clara~ the bottom line to me is this: Large areas
of our neighborhood have a very characteristic and different drainage system
than other areas of the city. Natural swales and roadside ditches,
drywells, no storm sewers. Without our Basin Plan being complete, how will
you incorporate our_values and the devil in the details that will preserve
~nd enhance the characteristics and natural drai~age systems in our area?
Since the plan for our area is not yet done, and we've not had formal public
comment on it, does this means that any special aspects of our neighborhood
drainage that might later be identified as needing to be addressed via this
ordinance or other implementing devices ---will NOT be, because the
implementing ordinance is being adopted BEFORE our plan is done. It is a
"cart before the horse" situation for our neighborhood, though not for the
others whose Basin Plans are done.
Eugene's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan says "through an
interconnected system of constructed and natural facilities, provide
multiple stormwater benefits to the community..."
Also, according to the Stormwater manual,: "The purpose of this manual is
to provide stormwater management principles and techniques that help
preserve or mimic the natural hydrologic cycle and achieve water quality
1
goals."
Yet, mainly this ordinance requires construction of artificial stormwater
management facilities. I don't see where "preservation" of natural
facilities and the "natural hydrologic cycle" comes in to play with honoring
or protecting the River Road and Santa Clara Basin.
Without finishing a RR/SC Basin Plan, without meaningful language to
incentivize natural drainage outcomes, this ordinance becomes "faux green"
is some ways...allowing obliteration of natural drainage and its replacement
with constructed 'facilities' --and it has too many exceptions. At the
least, can we get codifiable assurance that the City will be open to
amending this ordinance if any issues are raised later in our neighborhood
basin plan that would logically be addressed in this ordinance?
What about including reasonable aspects of the recent Open Waterways
ordinance into these development standards? In the Final River Road/
Santa Clara Basin Plan there will be an inventory of drainageways/waterways
for our area. We would like to incorporate language into the ordinance
that refers to and protects those waterways.
The ordinance mostly assumes technical design requirements for engineered
.solutions, so there is not much mention or even focus on natural solutions.
'Why not divide up the definition of "Stormwater Management Facility" into
"Engineered" and "Natural Facilities (say with (a) and (b) subsections of
that definition in 9.0500), and do the same for "Pollution Reduction
Facility"? Can an open waterway function as both a stormwater management
facility and a pollution reduction facility? It would seem so, but it's not
clear from the language of this ordinance.
Also, the exemption for the 3000 square foot minimum is meaningless, it
needs to be reduced to closer to 1000.
Lastly, it is not often you have a direct opportunity to positively
influence policy implementation toward our neighbors in River Road and Santa
Clara. Please don't put the cart before the horse. Incorporate language that
will make our Basin Plan whole.
Thank you,
Rob Handy
455 1/2 River Road
Eugene, OR. 97404
689 6372
2
Page 1 of 1
KEPPLER Peggy A
From: Teresa Damron [teresa@sperrytreecare.com]
Sent: Monday, April 1 0, 2006 7:49 PM
To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council
Cc: KEPPLER Peggy A; WALCH Therese
Subject: Stormwater ordinance
Dear Mayor Piercy, Council and City Staff,
I am unexpectedly unable to attend the Council meeting this evening and speak to you in person, so I am sending
my comments via email instead.
First off, a concern:
The River Road/Santa Clara Basin Master Plan is close to completion, but not yet complete. This is an
important piece of work that should be considered first. We have an extensive natural stormwater drainage
system that works here in River Road and it should be preserved. I know this ordinance talks about bioswale
design and other natural sounding systems, but my experience is they tend to be expensive, artificial, over-
engineered, and generally overbuilt reproductions of the real thing we have in our neighborhood. We like our
natural drainage system that was created in the same geologic event that created the Willamette River, and
believe it will be threatened by the Storm water ordinance as written.
But, if you must move on this ordinance before our plan is complete:
Please fold the Open Waterways ordinance into this current Stormwater ordinance. That ordinance
spoke well to the water quality values important to all of us. GoalS is complete and the language from that
ordinance belongs in this Stormwater ordinance.
Thank you for your hard work and consideration,
Teresa Damron
605 Howard Ave.
Eugene, OR 97404
4/12/2006
~... '"
Rainwater Harvesting Policy Ta M t1\ ,-e Sln y,L
tatvlm,t:@c:03etle r/\ "1 wev\u .. ~
Executive Summary
The intent of this work is to encourage rainwater harvesting throughout the community at all
scales & to nurture guidelines & code that support that goal. The proposed guidelines will
encourage maintenance, decrease insect breeding grounds & provide our community with a safe
alternate water source to increase community water security.
This document provides contemporary background of the policy situation around rainwater
harvesting; discusses water quality; explains rainwater harvesting; examines the proposed'
rainwater harvesting codes; & proposes an alternate policy approach. I offer connections to
existing education opportunities that will leverage city resources, reaching a larger audience at
lower cost. The alternate policy approach (Design & Maintenance of Rainwater Harvesting
Systems) is based on extensive literature review & actual local rainwater harvesting experience.
These outlined strategies combined with the innovative Stormwater Plan provide significant
community opportunities to address water quality, quantity & timing issues to promote health &
sustainability. While it is acknowledged that guidelines for rainwater harvesting, especially as a
source of potable water, are needed, the code as presented is needlessly restrictive & will
decrease rainwater harvesting activities (or folks will skip permit process). Potable rainwater
harvesting systems really require only three rules: 1) filter & purify rainwater to meet drinking
water standards, 2) test the water & 3) avoid cross contamination or backflow.
Background
The City of Eugene, in the soon to be adopted Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) adapted
from Portland's award winning plan, is proposing rainwater harvesting (RWH) code. While the
stormwater plan is innovative & will undoubtedly increase the -sustainability of our region,
the proposed rainwater code is needlessly restrictive, creates barriers & will decrease
rainwater harvesting activities. (The Portland Code Guide is relied upon to supplement the
brief 2-page Eugene plan.) Or, folks will ignore the regulations altogether. As a professional
rainwater harvesting consultant & a rainwater quality researcher at the graduate level, I have
found balance between regulation & lack of guidance, meeting both goals.
This paper draws upon a vast body of academic literature specifically about harvested rainwater
quality as well as system design & maintenance from around the world. A brief list of sources
may be found at the end, while the bibliography in "Harvested Rainwater Quality," Stark,T.
(2004) provides further data (paper available upon request from tammie@eugenerainwater.com).
A Note on Appropriate Water Quality
Water quality varies greatly. Furthermore, one definition of "pure" water is not to be found.
Although drinking water must be high quality to ensure health, lower quality water can safely be
used for other uses such as latrine flushing or irrigation. The actual use of rainwater should drive
system size, type, filtration & purification required. Policy that guides people toward water
quality appropriate to actual uses should be promoted.
Tammie Stark, M.A. @
Page 1 of 8
5/312006 11 :53:57 AM
Rainwater Harvesting Policy
Because water picks up contaminants that can cause illness or even death, publie health is a
concern. The Texas Guide provides a sensible approach:
if the rainwater is intended for use inside the household, ... appropriate filtration
and disinfection practices should be employed. If the rainwater is to be used
outside for landscape irrigation, .... treatment requirements can be less stringent
or not required at all.
What is Rainwater Harvesting?
The collection, storage & use of rain is rainwater harvesting (RWH). RWH from roofs & other
hard surfaces has commonly been used around the world for centuries. Rainwater harvesting
systems can be used as a stormwater mitigation tool since the systems can achieve stormwater
management goals. Some of those goals include reducing contaminants, decreasing water
velocity, maintaining low water temperature, decreasing flood risk & increasing water
infiltration to recharge aquifers. Decreased water quality from stormwater contaminants has
become so large an issue, that stormwater management plans have been federally mandated.
RWH can help.
Policy & Policy Support Suggestions
The following policy & education suggestions are low cost or free, realistic, achievable &
provide measurable results.
· Outcome based policy. Outcome based policy fosters innovation while achieving goals.
This policy is restrictive & unnecessary. An example of outcome based policy: "In potable
RWH systems; total coliform or E. Coli should be tested & absent."
· Policy must be user friendly, easy to read, understand & implement. Water insecurity
affects low-income, minority & less educated citizens more than others. Lack of
opportunities must not equate to lack of water.
· Create reward system rather than punitive policy. It is human nature to respond more
favorably to rewards than punishment. Rewards may include free education opportunities,
economic incentives, free testing.
· Ensure public health by providing free or low cost water quality testing for potable RWH
system owners.
· Leverage existing guidance & educational materials. Providing how-to information will
ensure that code is followed. Possibilities include:
o Provide free how-to assistance in designing, building & maintaining RWH
systems (like "Design & Maintenance of Rainwater Harvesting Systems" below).
Other education materials may include hands-on workshops, literature, video &
other outreach methods.
o Demonstration RWH systems for experiential public education. (Use the
existing Lce demo system.)
o Support existing education programs at EWEB & LCC to reach a larger
audience at lower cost to deliver education. (Like the LeC RWH DesignlBuild
Workshop or the Water & Society class.) These classes could be used to create
Tammie Stark, M.A. @
Page 2 of 8
5/3/200611:53:57 AM
Rainwater Harvesting Policy
educational videos, brochures, public radio & TV programs, etc at very low
cost.
· Provide economic & other incentives to design & build new appropriate technology that
supports RWH & stormwater management to further the Mayor's Sustainable Business
Initiative.
· Provide economic incentives. Eliminate City of Eugene Stormwater fees for those using
rainwater harvesting (this would win you big points & goodwill).
· Leverage existing information: collaboration opportunities
o Collaborate & align goals with Department of Health drinking water standards.
o Collaborate with current rainwater harvesting studies such as the EWEB
Rainwater Catchment Pilot Project that includes quantitative & qualitative data to
test the feasibility of RWH. Useful datainc1udes rainwater quality testing (like E.
Coli), while the qualitative study outlines eight systems that have been studied for
2 years. With approval, this info may be used for educational purposes also.
· Benefits of these strategies include: increased water security, community self-reliance,
improved water quality, conservation of purified drinking water & flow control. A
multiplier effect of the benefits will greatly enhance the commonwealth (e.g. If 10% of the
population used a 3,000 gallon system once a year, the cumulative water conservation would
be 45 million gallons!)
· Prepare for the future of alternative water sources. Include guidance on how to safely use
creek water or greywater for irrigation for example. Filtration appropriate to use covers the
water quality & safety requirements of using such water.
Specific Improvements to Eugene & Portland Rainwater Code
Needed
· Policy as proposed is restrictive & unnecessary. Specific examples follow:
o Delete roof washer & fIrst flush requirement. Add filtration & purification
appropriate for use. A wide variety of fIltration & purification methods &
products are available to achieve appropriate quality. One design for a roof
washer is not appropriate for all situations.
o Delete continuous leaf screen requirements (p. 5) that are unnecessary, expensive
& proven less effective than other screening methods. Appropriate fIltration
guidelines will suffIce.
o Suggest shade. Delete "sun barrier" requirement (p. 4, 7). Requiring a "structure
erected specifIcally to shelter a cistern" is unnecessary, expensive, elitist &
unsustainable. Shade should be suggested, but foliage is certainly adequate.
. Delete "reclaimed" (p. 4). Rainwater is a primary water source like ground & surface water.
It should not be characterized as "reclaimed" water that has been used once & claimed to be
used again. Elimination of the term will avoid inappropriate rules that are applied to
reclaimed water by the DEQ, water utilities, & other agencies.
. One permit. Three separate plumbing, building & electric permit requirements should be
streamlined. One permit for indoor use of rainwater should be created instead. An inspector
with experience in RWH should be required.
· Allow all types & scales of rainwater harvesting. Non-residential, multi-family,
commercial, industrial & community rainwater harvesting will provide great community
Tammie Stark, M.A. @
Page 3 of 8
5/3/2006 11:53:57 AM
Rainwater Harvesting Policy
benefits that residential harvesting will not achieve. The Code Guide discourages some types
by requiring case by case permits that are generally too complicated to be carned out by
anyone other than professional rainwater harvesting experts, of which there are simply too
few. The cost also is needlessly escalated.
· Allow all potable & nonpotable uses (with appropriate filtration/purification). "Harvested
rainwater may only be used for water closets, urinals, hose bibs and irrigation purposes"
(Code Guide, p. 3). Rainwater has been & is safely used the world over for every water use.
Restricting the use of rainwater to specific tasks is unnecessary.
· Allow a variety of cistern sizes. Requiring a 1,500 gallon cistern or height/width ratio (p.7)
is excessive. It is not necessary to dictate storage site, shape, type or pipe type.
· Implement the folloWing rather than adopting the Code Guide. Adopt the following
guidelines, Design & Maintenance of Rainwater Harvesting Systems. If you wish to
encourage rainwater use, it must be easy to follow your rules.
· Bottom line is - Only three rules are necessary for potable systems: 1) Filtration &
purification must meet local, state & federal drinking water quality standards, 2) Periodic
water quality testing is needed & 3) avoid cross contamination or backflow.
· No rules are necessary for nonpotable outdoor systems. .
Tammie Stark, M.A. @
Page 4 of 8
5/3/2006 11:53:57 AM
De~ign & Maintenance of Rainwater Harvesting
Systems
· Introduction: Rainwater may contain biological, physical or aesthetic
contaminants. System maintenance is the fIrst & best step to attaining
clean water. However, rainwater should not be consumed unless
appropriate purification & testing are utilized. The following rainwater
harvesting system design & maintenance procedures should be applied
to nonpotable & potable systems alike. Additional requirements for potable systems are
outlined at the end.
· If foliage overhangs roof, roof surface, gutters and system components
should be cleaned regularly & designed to reduce debris and animal
droppings from entering cistern. Clean all surfaces including gutters
and downspouts bi-annually or as needed keeping them free of debris and
blockages. Also check the piping network periodically for leaks, bulges & breaks.
· Chemical roof cleaners should be avoided altogether as the chemicals degrade
collected water and nearby water bodies. Some powdered biodegradable soaps
may be neutral enough to use as moss removers for roofs.
· Light should be prevented from entering the cistern to avoid
algae buildup. Likewise, clear or transparent water tanks should
be avoided.
· Because high water temperatures are harmful to plant & aquatic
life and may increase the likelihood of human infection, shade
should be provided for cisterns.
. Some type of filtration of water before it enters the cistern is
advised. Ideally, test your water to determine the type required. The
filtration & purification used should be appropriate for the water use.
A first flush device, roof washer, coarse filter, particulate filter,
microbiological or other filters are options. Inspect this device
regularly to ensure proper functioning. Clean sediment, debris and
leaves from fl1trationscreens or device every 3 to 6 months or as needed. A sophisticated &
expensive filter (like pictured left) mayor may not be necessary.
· All openings should be covered with wire or nylon meshing to prevent insect breeding and
eliminate animal or human entry. Efforts must be taken to ensure child safety around open
water stora e devices.
Rainwater Harvesting Policy
c(D
..~
/./ .~/ I i
l,f,4iJt8
· An air vent (shown at left) is advised & may be necessary
to allow air to escape as water enters the system. This is
required if the system is water &/or air tight.
. Water tap or spigot (at right) should be at least 3-4 inches
from the bottom of the tank. This
prevents accumulated sediments from
entering water supply line.
· Inspect and clean the cistern of
sedimentation and other buildup using a clean out valve, tap or other
access. (This step is easiest to do at the end of the dry season.) Inspect
Tammie Stark, M.A. @
Page 5 of 8
5/312006 11 :53:57 AM
Rainwater Harvesting Policy
cisterns every 2 years for accumulated sludge and remove it each 5-10 years as needed. Make
sure that proper ventilation and assistance are in place before attempting to clean a cistern.
Do NOT enter a cistern alone; it's dangerous & suffocation
hazards exist.
· An overflow (pictured left), at least the same size than the inflow, is
needed to direct excess water to a storm drain or other appropriate
area.
· Overflow: Typically in Eugene, using the same stormwater drain that
existed before the RWH system was installed or using a pennitted
drywellare methods that don't require additional permits (if the
water use is nonpotable outdoor). However, your city, health
department, plumbing &Ior land use codes followed to be certain
you are upholding the law & avoiding hazardous situations.
· Label hose bibs or other water outlets, "Unpurified rainwater, do not drink" as needed.
· If rainwater falls in areas with high industrial, agricultural or volcanic air pollution, water
~C30-' .... ';'.''''.''....''...... quality will be decreased. Acid rain is one example. Oregon rarely
~ ~_ . . experiences such poor air quality.
, ~. .
. '.. . · Insulation for cold weather may be required for
pipes. Insulate as needed (pictured at right).
· If desired, check with your local fire department for
suggestions on fittings for the water tank that would allow
easy access.for fire fighting.
· Potable .rainwater harvesting systems: Because rainwater may carry biological, physical or
aesthetic contaminants that are lethal or harmful, rainwater should never be
consumed without proper filtration & purification.
Water used for potable purposes should receive continuous disinfection or other best
management practices to ensure safety & meet drinking water quality
standards (local, state & federal). Potable rainwater systems must meet
drinking water quality standards, which require: [List water quality
parameters here & the level that must be met. Usually, the absence of E.
Coli & the absence of fecal coliform is required. Nitrates should not
exceed 10 milligrams per liter. Further reference to Household Water
Treatment (Parrott, Ross & Woodard, 1999) or other excellent sources may be helpful.
Provide sufficient information & directions for implementation locally.]
As with wells, periodic water quality. testing is required. Fecal coliform testing may be the
minimal water quality parameter to test & is a commonly used indicator of potentially
harmful bacteria.
Avoid drinking hot tap water or hot rainwater as disease causing agents (pathogens) may be
. gher in hot water. Further, hot water pipes are more likely to erode.
Sewage infiltration & contamination must be prevented when using underground water tanks.
If rainwater is the sole source of water, it is advised that the cistern have an
alternate filling point with adequate air gap & backflow prevention.
If a rainwater system will use the same pipes as potable water, adequate cross
contamination & backflow prevention. are necessary.
System components for potable systems, including roofing materials, should be approved by
the National Safety Foundation (www.nsf.org).
Tammie Stark, M.A. @
Page 6 of 8
5/312006 11 :53:57 AM
Rainwater Harvesting Policy
Metal roof surfaces provide challenges. Lead, zinc & copper materials should be avoided
in potable systems. See Health Issues for an excellent summary of roofing materials &
health issues.
Water from composite roofing material may be used for potable or nonpotable uses with
careful filtration & purification (personal communication, P. Macomber). Elimination or
reduction of volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile compounds, heavy metals (lead,
copper & zinc) & organic pathogens is highly suggested. Furthermore, a blood urine nitrogen
test from a medical doctor would be advised. Changing filters regularly is required. An
oil/water separator may be useful. Composite roofing material may pose a significant health
risk, so caution should be exercised. Water filtration to 1 micron with further disinfection
(e.g. ultraviolet, ozone, reverse osmosis, carbon block) to eliminate biological contaminants
is suggested.
Bibliography & Additional Sources
Texas Guide to Rainwater Harvesting, Second Edition. (1997). Austin, TX: Texas Water
Development Board in Cooperation with the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems.
Retrieved February 2004 from http://www.solar783.comlrainharv.pdf
Campbell, S. (1998). The home water supply: How to find, filter, store, and conserve it.
Pownal, VT: Garden Way Publishing.
Code Guide: Rainwater Harvesting - ICC - RES/34/#l & UPC/6/#2. Portland Office of
Planning & Development Review. Section 3101.2, Section 3401.1, Section 301.2 & Section
601.1. Portland, OR.
City of Tucson. (March 2003), Department of Transportation, Stormwater Section. City
of Tucson water harvesting guidance manual. Retrieved December I, 2004 from
http://dot.ci.tucson.az.us/stormwater/educationlwhm. pdf
Domestic Roofwater Harvesting Research Programme. Health Issues. Retrieved July 16,
2004 from htto:llwww.eng.warwick.ac.uklDTU/rwhlhealth.html
Gould, J. & Nissen-Petersen, E. (2002). Rainwater catchment systemsfor domestic
supply: Design, construction and implementation. London: Intermediate Technology
Publications.
Ludwig, A. (2005). Water storage: Tanks, cisterns, aquifers and ponds. Santa Barbara,
CA: Oasis Design.
Macomber, P. (2004). College of Tropical Agriculture & Human ResoUrces University of
Hawaii at Manoa (CTAHR). Guidelines on rainwater catchment systems for Hawaii. Manoa, HI:
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources.
Macomber, P. (2004). College of Tropical Agriculture & Human Resources University of
Hawaii at Manoa (CTAHR). Personal communication. (Filed as "Portable Water From
Composite Roofs," c:\Documents and Settings\Gaia\My Documents\Potable water from
composite roofs.doc).
Mintz, E., Bartram, J., Lochery, P. & Wegelin, M. (October 2001). Not just a drop in a
bucket: Expanding access to point-of-use water treatment systems. American Journal of Public
Health, 91. .
Parrott, K., Ross, B., Woodard, J. (1999). Household water treatment, Publication 356-
481. Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Retrieved August 9,2005 from http://www.ext.vt.edulpubslhousing/356-481/356-481.pdf
Tammie Stark, M.A. @
Page 7 of 8
5/312006 11:53:57 AM
Rainwater Harvesting Policy
Stark,T. (Fall 2004). Harvested Rainwater Quality. Unpublished paper, Antioch
University Seattle.
Stauffer, J. (2004). The water you drink: Safe, or suspect? New Society Publishers:
Canada
Vigil, K. M. (1996). Clean Water: An introduction to water quality and water pollution
control, 2nd Ed. Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR.
Tammie Stark, M.A. @
Page 8 of 8
5/3/2006 11 :53:57 AM
May 8, 2006
Esteemed mayor and city councilors,
I am here as a concerned citizen of Santa Clara. I want to thank the public works
department for its thorough outreach and education efforts with the stormwater
ordinance. This exciting move forward for lower impact development has come at a time
when our neighborhood land use subcommittee has been preoccupied. Upon close
inspection of the ordinance and manual, we realize that the unique nature of our
stormwater basin is not adequately protected by the proposed materials. We therefore ask
for the hearing to be held open for two weeks to provide more cogent comments and
suggested changes to the language used here.
The River Road/Santa Clara stormwater basin is unique in that we
· lack the stormwater pipe infrastructure found in other basins.
· have an extensive system of open waterways that function as our stormwater
conveyance
. have a high water table with many residents actively relying on domestic and
agricultural wells
. are supported by soils and pervious surfaces that allow rates of percolation which
recharge our groundwater
. do not have a completed Stormwater Basin Plan
The Stormwater Basin Master Plan for River Road and Santa Clara is unfinished (an
initial study was published in August of 2002). The study states that the city does not
have a comprehensive data set on the drainage system nor adequate data on aquatic
habitat and species in the basin. Without clearly defined characteristics and a thorough
understanding of how our system functions today, we do not see how this ordinance can
effectively address the needs of our basin. An inspection ofthe initial study document
reveals that conclusions about the effectiveness of the present system to control water
quality were not based on data taken within the basin. Instead sampling done in basins
with wholly different stormwater collection and conveyance systems was used to make
assumptions about our water quality.
The goals ofthe ordinance and manual are admirable but limited, and fail to take the
logical first step in stormwater management. They are limited in that they do not address
the protection of groundwater, natIve vegetation, and soils that" all playa dramatic part in
stormwater filtration, percolation, and conveyance. The ordinance stumbles over its first
step by promoting engineered and manufactured solutions without first recognizing and
prioritizing the preservation and enhancement of existing natural features that already
meet the goals ofthe ordinance. For instance, the ordinance definitions of flow control
facilities, pollution reduction facilities, and stormwater management facilities should
be amended to have two subsections, one that recognizes natural and existing facilities
and another that defines engineered and manufactured facilities.
Existing systems designed by nature that control flooding, protect water quality,
provide aquatic habitat, make an area more livable, and increase in value and
effectiveness over time are priceless and perform at significantly higher levels than their
engineered replacements. While the manual states its goal is to "provide storm water
management principles and techniques that preserve or mimic the natural hydrologic
cycle and achieve water quality goals", the entire ordinance and manual focus on the
"mimic" and not the "preserve". They are written with the assumption that development
which compromises our existing natural drainage systems will occur and that we will
somehow "mitigate" the effects through artificially constructed stormwater "facilities".
The amount of soil compaction that occurs when we construct something to mimic
natural systems greatly reduces the effective rate of percolation for the entire disturbed
area. Instead we should look at "Low Impact Development Standards" LIDS or "zero
impact development standards" ZIDS (see definition at end of document) that are
increasingly adopted in other cities. They are superior for meeting stormwater
management goals and also have the added benefits of saving infrastructure costs, long
term maintenance costs, preserving livability, and protecting natural resources.
The ordinance does a good job of protecting the headwaters area, but needs to offer
the same level of protections to other sensitive areas. The River Road/Santa Clara basin
does not have the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the level of urbanization the
city allows through its zoning. In order for us to continue to urbanize, we need the
ordinance and the manual to protect our system by:
. Requiring protection of existing natural drainages. The filling of our swales and
wetlands to accommodate more housing which discharges polluted stormwater runoff
directly into our open waterways does not meet the goals ofthe ordinance. We have
no alternate storm sewer system to fall back on.
. Limiting the amount of impervious surface. We are experiencing rapid
development with high levels of impervious surface and no way to treat, capture, and
retain the runoffbefore it discharges directly to the open waterways. "At 34 percent,
the basin currently has levels of imperviousness that are expected to degrade water
quality. Projections at UGH buildout indicate that the impervious surface area will
increase to 51 percent, which is the highest for all the basins. JJ (RR/SC draft basin
plan p.2-20).
. Instituting "Green Streets" to minimize the pollutant levels from roadways.
Roadways are the single biggest source of stormwater pollution and runoff. . Green
streets are narrower, have no curbs and gutters, and are bordered with bioswales to
slow conveyance of the water and allow for surface biofiltration.
. Protecting native vegetation, and existing trees. Large shade trees intercept huge
volumes of stormwater-thousands of gallons-yet too often they are cut down as part
of new developments or street "improvements". Developers commonly remove all
native vegetation from a site and fill existing drainageways, dramatically reducing
their ability to filter and retain stormwater.
. Protecting native soils. The soils in the RR/SC basin are generally well drained and
allow tremendous amounts of groundwater infiltration. They effectively filter
stormwater runoff and allow for the recharge of our groundwater system supplying
many residents in our area with well water. Washington state has soil best
management practices in its stormwater code for just this purpose.
The work of the RR/SC Transition Team has identified these same issues as critical to
this area. The outcome of their work supports this request for preservation and
enhancement of the open waterways and the listed contributing factors for the continued
successful functioning of our natural stormwater system.
Finally, we ask that the 3,000 square foot threshold for applicability of the proposed
standards be reduced to 1,000 square feet. Portland (the city you are striving to model
this plan after) has a 500 square foot threshold. Aiming to be only half as effective
should take us a long way toward improving our water quality.
Thank you for your consideration. Below I have included some examples of existing
code language from other municipalities that closely parallel our goals for the Eugene
stormwater code and will inform our work in creating language for Eugene's ordinance
over the next two weeks.
Sincerely,
Kate Perle
The Pierce County Ordinance from the Puget Sound area outlining many of the
same concerns of RR/SC basin. (Pierce County ordinance--page 9) Low impact
development goal shall be achieved through adherence to the following
objectives... "retain or restore native soils and vegetation on 65% of a site. limit effective
impervious area to no more than 1 0%. retain and incorporate natural site features that
promote infiltration of storm water on a developed site. use of traditional conveyance and
pond technologies to manage storm water quality and quantity should only be considered
after all other LID techniques have been considered and used to the greatest extent
possib'e
Soils for Salmon.org outlines reasons to include soil protections instormwater
ordinances and highlights Washington's soils BMPs.As land use intensifies,
surface water runoff increases and evapotranspiration diminishes. This pattern is
common in the urban environment and highlights the need for creative alternative~
that can help reduce water runoff and increase groundwater infiltration in the face of
continued growth. It is widely recognized that urbanization brings increased peak
storm flows and decreased summer flows to streams. This results from the increase in
impervious surface and decrease in groundwater infiltration. It has been clearly
demonstrated that minimizing development impact on native soils and forests, and
restoring impacted soils with compost, can reduce peak storm flows and increase
infiltration.
Soil Best Management Practices
Recently Washington State has included soil BMPs (Best Management Practices) in
their stormwater manual. Snohomish County has funded creation of an simple and
useful manual to help builders, developers, landscapers, planners and inspectors use
these BMPs effectively. The manual includes specification language, soil
management plan forms, an amendment calculator and more.
Low Impact Development definition from Soils for Salmon Oregon
Low Impact Development (LID) is an innovative storm water management approach with
a basic principle that is modeled after nature: manage rainfall at the source using
uniformly distributed decentralized micro-scale controls. LID's goal is to mimic a site's
predevelopment hydrology by using design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store,
evaporate, and detain runoff close to its source. Techniques are based on the premise
that storm water management should not be seen as storm water disposal. Instead of
conveying and managing / treating storm water in large, costly end-ol-pipe facilities
located at the bottom of drainage areas, LID addresses storm water through small, cost-
effective landscape features located at the lot level. These landscape features, known as
Integrated Management Practices (IMPs), are the building blocks of LID. Almost all
components of the urban environment have the potential to serve as an IMP. This
includes not only open space, but also rooftops, streetscapes, parking lots, sidewalks, and
medians. LID is a versatile approach that can be applied equally well to new
development, urban retrofits, and redevelopment / revitalization projects.
May 8, 2006
I'
" /
Mayor and City Council
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
SUBJECT: Proposed Stormwater Manual Adoption
As you know, the proposed Stormwater ordinance and the related Stormwater Manual have significant
implications for development and the related urbanization that resul~ from development. Although these draft
documents are expected to address a variety of circumstances and specific basin area assumptions, the River
Road/Santa Clara area, with it's own specific circumstances, does not appear to have been considered.
While stafIhas done a great job of reaching out to neighborhood organizations and others in an effort to inform
, 'and educate citizens about the proposed polices, we would like to request an additional 2 or 3 weeks to prepare
written comments. The review and preparation of comments has proven to be complex and time consuming.
In an attempt to be proactive rather than reactive, citizens from the RR/SC area would like to offer useful and
reasonable suggestions for improvements specific to the RR/SC Basin. However, we have found it challenging
to prepare suggestions for improvements as the issues ARE so complicated, and the learning curve is steep.
, For now, I have two examples of issues of concern :
. Section 1.4.2, Destination Design Methodology, states "The City of Eugene has developed a flood
control strategy for each of the drainage basins within the Urban Growth Boundary and published its
findings in the 2002 Stormwater Basin Master Plans." However, no such strategy has been adopted for
the RR/SC Basin. As a result, the Flood Control Design. Storm information does not include the data
necessary to evaluate the capacity of storm drainage facilities for the desired level of protection for the
RR/SC neighborhoods.
. Section 2.2.1, Simplified Design Methodology Approach, states, in part, that "the simplified approach
is a relatively easy process for selecting and designing combined pollution reduction and flow control
facilities, intended to save the project developer and the City time and expense." This is a
shortsighted justification for the simplified methodology. We suggest including language that addresses
the intent of the simplified design methodology to encourage implementation of natural systems'
functions' where appropriate, and that articulates the value of protecting and preserving open waterways,
groundwater, native vegetation, and soils that contribute to stormwater filtration, percolation, and
conveyance. After all, the simplified approach might be most appropriate for specific sensitive areas,
such as the RR/SC Basin. This methodology shouldn't be promoted as just a fast/cheap tool for
developers but rather as an efficient tool for maximizing the benefits and functions of natural stormwater
maintenance.
From these two examples, I hope you all can understand how important it is for the RR/SC Basin to receive
more attention from this proposal than is currently proposed. Tharik you for your time, and for considering our
request for a 2 - 3 week extension of the written comment period.
R dy
455 ~ River Road
RUQ'ene OR 97404
~
~; 1,'/ I J
~,~~,. ~.
'u. ·
Proposed Rainwater Harvesting Code in Eugene, OR
Top reasons to revise RWH Code before adoption June 8, 2006
\ (. RWH code should encourage rather than discourage the use of rainwater through burdensome regulations.
2. More public input is needed.
3. A streamlined process that is easy to understand & implement is crucial.
4. Allow all nonpotable & potable (indoors or outdoors) u'ses. (Rainwater is safely used for all purposes globally now),
5. Recommend outcome based code (not prescriptive). .
6. Request that outdoor nonpotable rainwater uses do not require a permit.
7. . Ask that City Stormwater fees are decreased / eliminated if R WH system mitigates.
8. Request free educational materials.
9. Water is a right; barriers to harvesting rainwater should not be created.
10. Professional RWH & water folks are poised to create educational tools that will safely encourage the use of
rainwater in collaboration with City.
,
Why rainwater is worthy of your attention. What RWH can do for community.
1. Rainwater harvesting (RWH) can defer or eliminate cost of increased drinking water capacity.
2. Rainwater is a good primary water source that can successfully supplement main water supply.
3. Eugene, Veneta & Creswell have already identified a need for more water (if 10% of our population used
3,000 gallon tanks once a year, we would save 45 million gallons of drinking water).
4. RWH can defer or eliminate the need for a stormwater treatment plant.
5. RWH is I can be a great part of the Mayor's Sustainable Business Initiative.
6. RWH can meet many stormwater management goals such as eliminating contaminants, decreasing water
velocity, maintaining low water temperature, decreasing flood risk & increasing water infiltration to
recharge aquifers.
7. The above benefits can assist riverine restoration (like Metro Waterways).
8. RWH provides an opportunity to create appropriate tech 'solutions to water needs (e.g. rather than plastic).
9. RWH can increase individual & community water security.
10. Rainwater has been safely used for all water uses globally for centuries (don't drink wlout filtration!).
11. RWH can mitigate some or all of the stormwater on a property.
12. RWH can be used to recharge aquifers through natural percolation.
13. Real homeland security = equal access to clean water, air & soil.
Reasons to attend May 8th Council Meeting (777 Pearl St, 7:30 pm, Council Chambers) & June 8th
Storniwater MgmtPlan meeting (858 Pearl St, Lyle Conf Room, 4:00 pm)
1. Lobby City to eliminate stormwater fees by using RWH.
2. Persuade Council that insufficient public input has been allowed regarding R WH code.
3. Prove to Council that professionals dealing with rainwater already have clients wanting to install RWH.
4. Show support for RWH as a sustainable supplementary water source.
5. Convince Council that we the public can be trusted to use rainwater safely.
6. Encourage Council to nurture RWH with incentives rather than implementing restrictive code.
7. Lobby for 1 permit rather than multiple.
8. Ensure equal access to an alternative water source. !Aqua es vida!
For a detailed RWH Design & Maintenance Guide request by writing tammie@eu2:enerainwater.com. Limited copies will be available
1ay 8th @ Council meeting. .
Tammie Stark, M.A.
Page 1 of2
5/8/2006
Proposed Rainwater Harvesting Code in Eugene, OR
What is rainwater harvesting?
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is the collection and use of rainwater that would otherwise be directed to local
waterways, collecting velocity& pollutants along the way. Rainwater can be used for total or supplemental
irrigation needs during the summer when the rains have stopped, or other uses with proper purification.
How does rainwater harvesting work?
Rainwater that falls on your roof can be collected with gutters and diverted
in pipes to a water tank or cistern. Water is then used when & where
desired, ideally using gravity flow for irrigation or other nonpotable outdoor ~.
uses. Although wooden barrels do not provide very good quality water, it's
ok for ornamentals' irrigation.
Did you know that summer irrigation is the biggest use of purified drinking water in the
summer?
Summer irrigation often uses more purified drinking water than any other domestic uses combined. Saving your
winter rainwater for use during the summer can mean reduced irrigation costs, more water available for
drinking & for ecosystems as well as decreased water utility infrastructure needs.. (Pictured at right is a system
designed by three UO students, Kaarin Knudson, Yale Jallos &.Brooks McDonald for the DO HOPES
Conference. )
What type of system do I need?
Rainwater harvesting systems vary in size and variety of components used.
Your specific location, needs & budget help determine the best system setup
for you. Water use also plays a crucial part in determining the type of filtration
& purification needed. Irrigation only requires filtration of debris, while
drinking water requires filtration & purification to meet drinking water
standards. Remember do not drink any water without purification as it
may be harmful or lethal.
Eugene Rainwater
Rainwater Utilization & Water Education
Eugene, OR 97405,541.343.0607
Tammie@EugeneRainwater.com
www.eugenerainwater.com
LCC boasts a neW water class: Water & Society, Fall 2006.
Other upcoming events: LCC RWH Design/Build Workshop - an intensive look at all aspects of rainwater us
including a system design & install of a rainwater system. For more information call Tarinnie or watch the
website for a posting soon. Applications to receive the design & set up of a RWH system will be available soon.
Tammie Stark, M.A.
Page 2 of2
5/8/2006
- _0 ' ..__ d__ . Sj<ilo~
rego-ra '~ S+o-r~w~ pI 4vt ,
MJ Vla~ i~ '.~~K-_,te~-f/L
, 1LLCJ (Ad.d-~sc; ,<;; VYI {eda-vsf. e~~ Or-.o;7YO<. .
:t vf:>~1t ~ A T4Dtt ~\~ ll.<~~dl'" (J (ja-.cf.
L~. to ~ (0 ~ ~.1'-e- ji>j IfTWl \ f4JCri.~ {f)tf k
.~ RLO H- (0 tkfvr ~1M...~lA"'-fL gl.. ,
· Ir1low--illVloY\f~ ) p~ fA~ \
· ~. ~. vPqL~tV7~ 9/Yff";~ kCJ'\VlG7eYff'RJ
-F-r L4-l>({!,.- fvP~~ ~-f'-fe-.,.I~ 1:.~
vP(Of'Yl~~~ enJ-(~~&..U{~
~rvk- vPqUNPS" .veY1'~ fo k~~'v-iVIVcf;;~
-~to ~OY\-~~}r~ - u
~..lA-~(..
). O~ orv VI (J)A.~r1~Kt-f "'- ~ 14S-<- S
~~ t;t6r vf t( u ( ".4> OL ~ W'l ~ 1', Fa-v
- J2~ ~lA-~Yv?1s LJ"'lA,CA,,,-- ro.A-e"--
VIA vt * ct '^-&.. ~~ l1~ 0( I-c
~ u>\~ ~ lA.<YlA-lcL VI ar {,f'9lA4V(l '^---
~ I J-. 'P~ /"J::e..' ~ (,(Jl)~ J.. If 1:efJ.. k
~~J!-~ ~~~ Ytt-/k~.
, 1'-a-re IS CIA . ~.aYI.'j(-fW(<-(j) {-f-.el/~f
~~ ~ Shd'v\.ftls ~~fo
}'v,~ ~. .~ H-<-~'sl ~ --:- ~ ~1-5,~{
lPJf/!aM (I....d ~"-1~,If- 0).~/1~ SIA~~
~~"'-'2S ~\n~\M'. ..
~ I1cr1f fvk1iL ,,^('^-* f) ~ ~ ~ ~
(S cNl~&'. .
~!f'- .
KEPPLER Peggy A
Subject:
RE: Addendum to Rainwater Harvesting Code
-----Original Message-----
From: Jenya Lemeshow [mailto:jlemeshow@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:34 PM
To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council; kittypiercy@earthlink.net
Subject: Addendum to Rainwater Harvesting Code
To Whom it May Concern,
I sent an e-mail last week addressing some of my concerns with the RWH code. I want to
make a few more
requests:
1) Please listen to as much public input as possible in this decision-making process.
2) Please approve a process for installation of RWH systems that is easy to implement
3) Please allow for all potable and non-potable uses of rainwater, with no permit required
for outdoor non-potable uses
4) Please have a non-prescriptive, outcome-based code
5) Please reduce or eliminate stormwater fees if the RWH systems mitigates
6) Please provide free educational materials to the public
Thanks for considering these issues!
Sincerely,
Jenya Lemeshow B.A., LMT
Wellsprings Friends School Teacher
Board: Willamette Farm and Food Coallition Steering Commitee: Eugene Permaculture Guild
(541) 684-0066
>
> To Whom It May Concern,
>
> I am writing out of concern for the Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) code
> that is about to be passed.
>
> I feel that collecting water from the sky is a basic human right, and
> that it should be encouraged as much as possible, rather than made
> expensive and difficult. Rainwater should be available to everyone,
> not just those who can afford permits, expensive roofwashers, and
> overbuilt shade structures.
> I understand the importance of keeping water safe for our population,
> but there are ways to do this without requiring three permits. With
> proper education and outreach, we can educate our population about the
> various methods that are available, and then choose the most
> appropriate method for each specific location.
>
> Placing restrictions upon harvesting rainwater will prevent people
> from trying it in the first place. We
> live in a time when we so desperately need to make use of resources
> that are naturally available with as
> little energy output as possible. Children and
> adults alike need to be taught to make use of the water that is close
> to home, rather than depleting resources to transport water longer
> distances.
> Along
1
> these lines, the code defines rainwater as "reclaimed." I do net
> think of it as reclaimed.
> Rather, it is water that falls from the sky. As I see it, water that
> has been treated and cleaned with chemicals is reclaimed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
There are many professionals who can help to safely encourage the
proper use of rainwater. We live in a climate that is perfect for
RWH, with our wet winters and dry summers. Many people in this area
are interested in collecting rainwater, and if it was encouraged more
in general, Eugene would certainly see a lot of savings, as well as
defer the need for a new stormwater treatment plant.
I plan to attend the City Council Meeting on Monday May 8. Please
consider my thoughts as you proceed with your decision-making.
Sincerely,
Jenya Lemeshow, B.A., LMT
Wellsprings Friends School Teacher
Board: Willamette Farm and Food Coallition Steering Commitee:
Permaculture Guild
Eugene
(541) 684-0066
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
2
KEPPLER Peggy A
Subject:
KELLY David S
Tuesday, May 09,2006 9:32AM
HANDY Rob (SMTP)
ORTIZ Andrea F; BETTMAN Bonny S; PAPE' Gary D; PIERCY Kitty; TAYLOR Dennis M;
COREY Kurt A; KEPPLER Peggy A; KELLY David S
Re: stormwater follow up
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Rob -
I've cc'd the city manager and a couple other staff on this reply,
because your question is something I really want to press staff on -
both for RR/SC and with regard to our citywide stormwater system.
I agree with you that stormwater issues in RR/SC are very important.
What I was getting at last night is that I don't believe that this
ordinance (or its associated manual) is where such things like the
character of public drainage ways are regulated.
My questions are along the lines of:
(1) What qllows a current open storm drainage to remain open? Or what
could prohibit it?
(2)How does the answer to #1 change if there is new development like a
subdivision that involves PEPI work that improves a street and therefore
its drainage?
(3)What citywide policies exist in support of using open public
drainageways rather than piped - in both existing and new development? (4)Related to #3:
To they extent such policies don't exist, where could
we consider adding them? In the currently proposed ordinance? In some
other ordinance? In some motion directing the city manager to revise
some administrative manual?
Regards,
David
Rob Handy wrote:
> Hi David, Bonny, Andrea, Gary and Kitty
>
> David: You asked staff to get back to you about Portland and their 500
> sqft. threshold for ordinance exemptions, referenced in some
> testimony. I believe that answer will be one of apples and oranges---I
> think Portland pipes both waste and stormwater concurrently, a hard
> situation to compare. Gresham's experience might be a better one to
> compare---their exemption threshold was originally 5000, was reduced
> later to 2500, and I believe there are rumblings to reduce it further.
>
> David, you have been a proponent of neighborhoods all absorbing their
> share of infill growth, so we don't have to expand the UGB. In RR and
> SC we are in the midst of absorbing more than our share of
> growth---and given that we are/ have been an existing community, not a
> greenfield that Eugene is growing into---that surging growth is being
> questioned as to whether we have effective standards to guide infill
> and stormwater issues. Opportunity Siting has potential, particularly
> if embraced by responsive infill standards.
>
> Stormwater issues are critical to how build out occurs here in RR/SC
> ---and the boom is on. Will we end up with infill and stormwater
> guidances that support our wonderful soils and physical
> characteristics of these neighborhoods we cherish? Or will our
> absorbing our "share" of growth result in pervious surfaces (and their
> attendant characteristics) disappearing in a slew of concrete?
>
1
> Thanks for all of your interest....... ..Rob
>
>
>
Messages to and from this email address may be available to the public under Oregon Public
Records Law.
2
KEPPLER Peggy A
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
PIERCY Kitty
Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:35 AM
KELLY David S; HANDY Rob (SMTP)
ORTIZ Andrea F; BETTMAN Bonny S; PAPE' Gary D; TAYLOR Dennis M; COREY Kurt A;
KEPPLER Peggy A
RE: stormwater follow up
Subject:
Thanks for these questions David. Kitty
-----Original Message-----
From: KELLY David S
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:32 AM
To: HANDY Rob (SMTP)
Cc: ORTIZ Andrea F; BETTMAN Bonny S; PAPE' Gary D; PIERCY Kitty; TAYLOR Dennis M; COREY
Kurt A; KEPPLER Peggy A; KELLY David S
Subject: Re: stormwater follow up
Rob -
I've cc'd the city manager and a couple other staff on this reply, because your question
is something I really want to press staff on - both for RR/SC and with regard to our
citywide stormwater system.
I agree with you that stormwater issues in RR/SC are very important.
What I was getting at last night is that I don't believe that this ordinance (or its
associated manual) is where such things like the character of public drainage ways are
regulated.
My questions are along the lines of:
(l)What allows a current open storm drainage to remain open? Or what could prohibit it?
(2)How does the answer to #1 change if there is new development like a subdivLsion that
involves PEPI work that improves a street and therefore its drainage? (3)What citywide
policies exist in support of using open public drainageways rather than piped - in both
existing and new development? (4)Related to #3: To they extent such policies don't exist,
where could we consider adding them? In the currently proposed ordinance? In some other
ordinance? In some motion directing the city manager to revise some administrative manual?
Regards,
David
Rob Handy wrote:
> Hi David, Bonny, Andrea, Gary and Kitty
>
> David: You asked staff to get back to you about Portland and their 500
> sqft. threshold for ordinance exemptions, referenced in some
> testimony. I believe that answer will be one of apples and oranges---I
> think Portland pipes both waste and stormwater concurrently, a hard
> situation to compare. Gresham's experience might be a better one to
> compare---their exemption threshold was originally 5000, was reduced
> later to 2500, and I believe there are rumblings to reduce it further.
>
> David, you have been a proponent of neighborhoods all absorbing their
> share of infill growth, so we don't have to expand the UGB. In RR and
> SC we are in the midst of absorbing more than our share of
> growth---and given that we are/ have been an existing community, not a
> greenfield that Eugene is growing into---that surging growth is being
> questioned as to whether we have effective standards to guide infill
> and stormwater issues. Opportunity Siting has potential, particularly
> if embraced by responsive infill standards.
>
> Stormwater issues are critical to how build out occurs here in RR/SC
1
> ---and the boom is on. Will we end up with infill and stormwater
> guidances that support our wonderful soils and physical
> characteristics of these neighborhoods we cherish? Or will our
> absorbing our "share" of growth result in pervious surfaces (and their
> attendant characteristics) disappearing in a slew of concrete?
>
> Thanks for all of your interest.........Rob
>
>
>
Messages to and from this email address may be available to the public under Oregon Public
Records Law.
2
May 22, 2006
Peggy Keppler,
The proposed stormwater ordinance and manual go a long way toward meeting the
NPDES permit requirements and implementing the outcomes of the completed basin
plans. This step toward increased water quality and flood control is appreciated citywide,
yet there are certain places where these proposed actions fall short of the best we can
achieve. Part of that is due to the fact that not all basins have completed basin plans to
inform the ordinance, and part ofthat is due to omissions or adjustments that could be
made to the proposed ordinance. Below I have outlined the concerns of the Santa Clara
Community Organization's Land Use Subcommittee on this issue and have
recommended changes where they seem feasible.
The River Rd/Santa Clara basin comprises approximately one fourth of the total area
for all seven basins covered by the proposed ordinance. The quality and quantity of
stormwater runofffrom this basin needs to be reflected in the ordinance and manual
being proposed for adoption. According to the process outlined by the city for
developing integrated strategies from the six basins, identifying, evaluating, and
developing proposed capital projects and development standards for each basin
precedes the development of an ordinace and BMP manual. (see 13 step process in
Volume I of the City's Stormwater Basin Master Plans)
The River Road/Santa Clara stormwater basin master plan is unfinished. Given that
this basin lacks piped stormwater infrastructure (the primary vehicle for stormwater
conveyance and treatment in the rest of the city) and instead relies on natural drainage
and open waterways, the challenges of meeting water quality and quantity goals there
require different solutions.
. PERVIOUS OR IMPERVIOUS?
The transition from undeveloped to densely developed correlates to a change from
pervious (vegetated land that allow water to infiltrate into the ground) to impervious
(roofs, roads, parking lots, driveways) surfaces. Impervious surfaces can not absorb or
infiltrate precipitation resulting in greatly increased runoff volumes, higher peak flows,
and higher concentrations of pollutants. According to the draft basin plan, our projected
percentage of impervious surface at buildout will be 51 %, the highest of all the basins.
Given that we have no piped system and thus no possible "mechanical fix" to adequately
filter out pollutants, or slow velocity of stormwater, we need to maintain a higher level of
impervious area to allow natural filtration and percolation of stormwater into the ground.
Preserving and enhancing the existing natural stormwater system is more cost effective,
efficient, requires less maintenance, and the system increases in value and efficacy over
its lifespan. The goals of the ordinance are best met through development standards, not
capital projects in this basin. We need to have language in the ordinance that reflects
these priorities for a functioning natural stormwater system.
. WATERQUALITY
Water quality data for this basin is missing. There has been no macro invertebrate
sampling (useful in evaluating water quality issues i.e.: cumulative effects of pollutants
and effects from bioaccumulative chemicals). Although the draft basin plan predicts a
58% increase in pollutant load as a result of future development, the water quality
conclusions in the draft basin plan were made based on generalizations from data
collected in other basins. Without adequate baseline data on how well our natural
drainage system is working and where the pollutants are entering, how can we create a
strategic plan to improve the functioning of our system and bring us into compliance with
the NPDES permit? Open waterways in this basin connect directly with the Willamette
River and have been identified as likely salmonid habitat by the Long Tom Watershed
Council. As yet there is insufficient data on existing aquatic. species in the open
waterways ofthis basin and how stormwater quality affects their survival.
· CAPITAL PROJECTS OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS?
According to our draft basin plan, the results of all the other basin plans has "been to
implement the capital project alternatives and not implement flood control development
standards" (p.3-8). In RR/SC we do not have the infrastructure to improve for controlling
flooding. We rely on open waterways, sloughs, wetlands and water infiltration to
accommodate our stormwater. We can not allow the filling of our swales, waterways and
wetlands and expect to accommodate the runoff from the projected amount of impervious
surface for our basin. Replacing culverts with larger culverts will not meet our
stormwater conveyance goals. Pervious surfaces, native soils and vegetation, and water
channels allow for infiltration of precipitation and greatly reduced velocity of stormwater
flow thereby reducing the risks of flooding and simultaneously reducing the need for
"stormwater facilities" that require capital expenditure, ongoing maintenance, and
inevitably replacement.
. THE BASIN PLAN AND THE ORDINANCE
The RR/SC basin plan strategy is not reflected in the proposed ordinance. In particular,
the basin plan goals of (1) reducing pollutant loads associated with new developments
through development standards and (2) identifying, protecting, and managing significant
open waterways for their beneficial stormwater functions. The proposed ordinance
focuses on engineered and built facilities to manage quality and quantity of stormwater
instead of specifically prioritizing preservation and enhancement of existing natural
stormwater drainage components which effectively control both quality and quantity of
stormwater. The ordinance is the tool used to implement the goals of all the basins, but
without a completed basin plan, our basin's needs are not addressed.
. THRESHOLD FOR THE REQUIREMENT
The 3000 square foot threshold for pollution control facilities requirement is too large
and the rationale for its use (that it matches current categories for SDC and user fee
categories) is not compelling. The effects of stormwater runoff are cumulative, and the
goals to minimize the deleterious effects should inform the threshold, not that it's a
number that "developers are familiar with". The majority of stormwater runoff is from
residential sources. Most development in our basin happens when builders buy
individual lots from a developer or when existing lots are divided to allow the building of
another residence. Subdivisions are not developed all by the same builder or at the same
time. In this case, each lot would need to pass the 3,000 sq. ft. threshold before these
stormwater regulations would kick in. This is an unacceptably large loophole that allows
for tremendous amounts of stormwater to bypass the goals set out by the ordinance and
manual. Ifwe reduce that threshold to 1,000 sq. ft. we accomodate additions and
remodels to existing homes, but achieve stormwater goals with new development.
· LOWIMPACTDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS
Other jurisdictions are adopting "low impact development" standards that multi-task by
. achieving stormwater goals, accomodating growth, and addressing livability issues.
Given that LID is state of the art and has been tested in other communities, Eugene
should not adopt a stormwater ordinance that does not include LID components. LID
standards aim to preserve existing hydrology, including watercourses, soil, vegetation,
and mature trees. These methods hold out promise of doing a better job of managing
stormwater, recharging groundwater, and preventing degradation of water quality
because they take advantage of the superior characteristics of natural systems. They have
the added benefit of helping communities remain attractive and livable as they grow more
dense. We encourage staffto review LID approaches and look for ways that LID
provisions can be incorporated into Eugene's stormwater ordinance and development
code
Thank you for your consideration,
The Santa Clara Community Organization Land Use Subcommittee
And these co-signers:
Ellen Hyman
Kate Perle
Rachael DeB use
Kevin Jones
Cathy Lesiak
Karen Lawrence
Eugene Water & Electric Board
By C~tC~/II~D
H.4; :;/jtv/jG~1Y
~b
wp,et
EWEB
500 East 4th Avenue / Post Office Box 10148
Eugene, Oregon 97440-2148
541-484-2411 Fax 541-484-3762
May 22, 2006
Mayor and City Council
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: Proposed Stormwater Ordinance
Dear Mayor and Councilors,
EWEB would like to thank you for keeping the record open. The additional time allowed our
staff to meet with City staff (Peggy Keppler) and determine that our concerns are anticipated and
allowed for in the ordinance.
EWEB is often required to construct facilities such as reservoirs in isolated headwaters areas
with no developed stormwater facilities serving them. The requirements for flow control in
section 9.6792(3) appeared to require that EWEB disturb additional trees and natural resource
areas in order to meet the standards. Staff indicated that section 9.8030(24)(c)3 allows for
adjusting those requirements in this particular circumstance. The adjustment would be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Director and would not need a formal code variance or public
hearing.
EWEB has no objections to the adoption of the ordinance with the understanding that the
ordinance is flexible in balancing EWEB' s need to provide required public facilities to approved
development and the protection of both headwaters and the natural vegetation in their
watersheds.
Thomas E. Buckh use
Director, Water and Steam Division
Page 1 of2
KEPPLER Peggy A
From:
OSBORN Keli M
Monday, May 22,2006 9:18 AM
KEPPLER Peggy A; NYSTROM Steven A
KLEIN Glenn
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
FW: Proposed Stormwater Code Amendments in Relation to Residential Rq,inwater Harvesting
& Use
Importance: High
FYI.
Bruce Anderson has strong interest in green building methods and is harvesting rainwater at his home for use in
irrigation.
Though the proposed stormwater standards do not restrict the ability of community members to use rainwater
harvesting at residences, I believe Bruce would like to see some kind of statement with the ordinance or staff
materials that emphasizes that these standards are not intended to hinder rainwater harvesting.
Steve, Peggy and I have met with Tammie Stark, a local consultant on rainwater harvesting, and shared
information on regulations from other codes and code provisions (e.g., stormwater destination rather than
stormwater quality, State plumbing code). We also are trying to develop a handout on rainwater harvesting to
better describe what is and is not possible under local and state codes.
Sending this info along for your files. I'll also continue to follow up with Bruce on the green building components.
Thanks, kmo
From: Bruce Anderson [mailto:bruce.eugene@alumni.duke.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 9:08 PM
To: OSBORN Keli M
Cc: KLEIN Glenn
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Stormwater Code Amendments in Relation to Residential Rainwater Harvesting & Use
Keli: This is a re-send as my first email to you came back as Not Deliverable Due to Incorrect Address.
Thanks, Bruce H. Anderson
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bruce Anderson <bruce.eugene@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: May 19,20065:43:34 PM PDT
To: keli.m.osborne@ci.eugene.or.us
Cc: glenn.klein@harrang.com
Subject: Proposed Stormwater Code Amendments in Relation to Residential
Rainwater Harvesting & Use
Dear Keli: Thank you for your time and worthwhile discussion on the phone this afternoon.
Earlier today, I left a lengthy message on your voice mail explaining the background for,
and the reasons for, my interest in rainwater harvesting for residential use. I will not repeat
all of that here but just rather just do an abbreviated summary of that voice mail message.
Summary of my Background: I retired 4 years ago from 35 years of law practice, with an
emphasis in Land Use and Environmental Law, a substantial portion of which involved
5/22/2006
Page 2 of2
advocating public interest environmental issues. Three years ago this summer we had
completed the construction of our retirement home in Eugene, a home that featured
numerous environmentally innovative features, including one of the early rainwater
harvesting systems. This system involves collecting rainwater from a portion of our
concrete tile roof, remediating it directly onto our rear yard during the fall and winter
months than switching to storing that collected portion in large on-site cisterns, starting in
the late spring, for the purpose of gravity flow based irrigation of the fruit and nut orchard
we have planted on the rear of our yard. Upon completion, our 2500 square foot home,
located at 4350 Spring Blvd., was the subject of an in depth article on page El of the
Saturday, July 19, 2003 edition of The Register-Guard.
I have read the Draft Rainwater Harvesting public handout prepared by the City of Eugene
(City) staff, the February 2006 City Alternative Material and Methods Decision (AM&M)
on Rainwater Harvesting and the City Stormwater Code amendments proposed for adoption
by the City Council this coming week. As I will be out of town from this Sunday, May 21,
through May 29, and thus not available to attend the deliberation by the Council this
coming week, I ask that you append to the record of that proceeding, and make available for
Council consideration, this email, including the following specific comments and one
Stormwater Code language suggestion:
1. In General: I favor everything that the City can do to educate residents about, and
support, the on-site harvesting and use by city residents of the rainwater that falls on their
property. Such use decreases demand on the existing City stormwater and drinking water
systems, will reduces the magnitude of further additions to those systems; and, to the extent
that the rainwater harvested is remediated back onto the land, helps recharge groundwater
acquifers while providing non-City furnished, non-City treated water for irrigation
purposes.
2. Specific Stormwater Code Language Addition: I realize from my own Code review,
and your confirmation on the phone today, that the intent of the City Stormwater Code is
not to regulate in any manner rainwater harvesting in the City by homeowners of single
family residences, However, I am not aware of any statement in the current City Stormwater
Code, or the amendments thereto proposed for adoption by the Council this coming week,
that makes this exclusion clear. As a practicing attorney for many years, who regularly dealt
with extensive code and ordinance interpretation issues, I believe that complex regulatory
systepls'should also clearly state what they do not intend to regulate when, as in this case,
the subject (on-site rainwater harvesting and use) could easily be construed as a subject of
the intended regulatory scheme. Accordingly I propose that, at an appropriate point in
Eugene Code Section 9, there be added the following specific language:
"The stormwater provisions of the Eugene Code do not apply to or regulate rainwater
harvesting for on-site use in the case of single family residences."
I leave it to the very capable hands of the City Attorney's Office to suggest the most
appropriate new section, or addition to an existing section, within the stormwater provisions
of Code section 9 to add this clarification, if the Council adopts my recommendation.
Thank you,
Bruce H. Anderson
cc. Glenn Klein, City Attorney
Best regards,
Bruce
5/2212006
Page 1 ot '2
KEPPLER Peggy A
From: Anita Van Asperdt [anita@modemmedium.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22,200612:20 PM
To: *Eugene Mayor and City Council
Cc: KEPPLER Peggy A
Subject: Stormwater Ordinance Comments
To the Mayor and the City Council of Eugene.
As one of few rainwater harvesting experts in Eugene and a registered landscape architect, I have a few
comments to make before you approve and implement the new stormwater development standards
ordinance.
I have one small point to make about he new ordinance under point 9.6794. It states that source control
is needed when the site stores "High and Low-risk hazardous materials". This is confusing, it almost
reads as if medium risk materials are not included, why not just state "hazardous materials".
My bigger issue has to do with Rainwater Harvesting. Upon reading the ordinance I understand that
Rainwater Harvesting can be used as a "Flow Control" and "Pollution Reduction" Facility. City Staff
member Peggy Keppler mentioned that the manual on Rainwater Harvesting should be treated as a
guideline not as code or regulation. However, the new code says under point 9.6791 Standards: "Locate,
design and construct pollution reduction facilities in accordance with adopted plans and policies,
Chapters 6 and 7, and the Stormwater Management Manual." and under 9.6792 Standards is says:
"Locate,design and construct flow control facilities in accordance with adopted plans and policies,
Chapter 6 and 7, and the Stormwater Management Manual."
I can only conclude from this that the flow and pollution reduction facilities have to be designed, located
and constructed according to the Stormwater Manual. I find two stipulations in the Manual regarding
Rainwater Harvesting objectionable.
1. The Stormwater Manual mentions that Harvested Rainwater "may be collected for non-potalbe
water uses". I advice you to strike that from the manual and replace that with "may be collected
for water uses to be determined upon further city staff study."
2. The Manual furthermore stipulates that hydrologic calculations need to be included on the permit
package. Since water collected in a cistern does not infiltrate I am wondering what these
hydrologic calculations entail. I advice you to direct city staff to replace this requirement with
"hydrologic or holding capacity calculations to be determined upon further study by city staff'.
There will be a meeting on June 8 on Harvesting Rainwater. I understand that on this meeting a
discussion will take place on how Rainwater Harvesting should occur in the city of Eugene. Accepting
the stormwater ordinance with its strong reference to the Stormwater Manual as it is drafted now seems
to pre-empt this meeting. I urge you to direct staff to rewrite the text in the Stormwater Management
Manual so that it is clear that further study on Rainwater Harvesting still needs to occur or to rewrite the
text so that it is clear that the stipulations in the Manual shall be treated as guidelines only.
5/22/2006
Page 2 of2
Sincerely,
Anita Van Asperdt
1754 Moonshadow Lane
Eugene Oregon 97405
ph. 434.2458
5/22/2006
comments on ~tormwater Development Urdmance and lStormwate
Page 1 ot 0
KEPPLER Peggy A
Becky Riley [briley@efn.org]
Monday, May 22, 20064:50 PM
KEPPLER Peggy A
WALCH Therese; COREY Kurt A; MUIR Susan L; CARLSON Jim R; TAYLOR DennisM; YEITER
Kurt M
Subject: Comments on Stormwater Development Ordinance and Stormwater Management Manual
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
May 22, 2006
COMMENTS ON STORMW ATER DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE and STORMW ATER
MANAGEMENT MANUAL
We, residents and neighborhood leaders from River Road and Santa Clara, appreciate the opportunity to
submit additional comments on the Stormwater Development Ordinance and accompanying Stormwater
Management Manual.
We are glad to see that Eugene is joining the many communities around the country that are adopting
development standards that require installation of stormwater flow control and pollution control
facilities that mimic natural systems and discharge stormwater close to the source. It is encouraging that
the City recognizes the importance of such controls, and the benefits of more naturalistic stormwater
systems.
This ordinance has enough beneficial aspects that we encourage its adoption as soon as possible.
However, there are a number of shortcomings of the ordinance that we hope can be addressed, either in
amendments now or later. Several aspects will require more detailed consideration. These
shortcomings are:
* Too much development is exempted from pollution control provisions--that which adds less than 3000
sq. ft. impervious surface
* It fails to recognize and protect existing soils, vegetation, and trees--despite their superior capabilities
to store and filter stormwater
* It doesn't go far enough to protect existing drainage ways
* It fails to take into account the particular needs of the sensitive River Road-Santa Clara Basin and its
"natural" drainage system
We offer more detailed section-by-section comments below--but a few more general comments first.
Eugene Needs to do More to Preserve Natural Hydrology in the Urban Area
The Stormwater Management Manual (1.1 Purpose) says: "The purpose of this manual is to provide
stormwater management principles and techniques that help preserve or mimic the natural
hydrologic cycle and achieve water quality goals." However, the purpose of "preserving" the
natural hydrologic cycle is not carried over as policy guidance in the ordinance. It is also barely
addressed in the "text of the Manual, which is devoted to describing constructed stormwater "facilities"
that mimic natural stormwater systems. The only exceptions are the section offering credits for
preservation or planting of trees as an optional "pollution control facility" and the section listing
conditions that must be met when drainage ways are filled. Otherwise, protection of soils, trees,
vegetation, and drainage way--and their superior infiltration capacity--is ignored. This is a major and
5/23/2006
Comments on Stormwater lJevelopment Ordinance and Stormwate
Page 2 of6
unfortunate oversight.
Increasingly, natural systems are recognized as superior for meeting stormwater management goals
(flood, erosion, and pollution control, groundwater recharge). They have the additional benefits of
enhancing wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and livability in our urban areas. The quality and quantity of our
groundwater and surface water supplies are already compromised, and will be further degraded as
development intensifies. It is essential that we do a better job of preserving and fully utilizing natural
hydrology so we are not facing a losing battle. Improved protection and utilization of natural hydrology
can also help control the costs that will be associated with maintaining public stormwater conveyance
and treatment systems as our urban area grows.
Eugene Needs to Explore "Low Impact Development" (LID) Standards
Other jurisdictions are adopting "low impact development" standards that DO aim to preserve existing
hydrology, including watercourses, soil, vegetation, and mature trees. These methods hold out promise
of doing a better job of managing stormwater, recharging groundwater, and preventing degradation of
water quality because they take advantage of the superior characteristics of natural systems. They have
the added benefit of helping communities remain attractive and livable as they grow more dense.
We are sending an attachment with more information about low-impact development standards. We
would hope that staff would develop some recommendations for how LID provisions could be
incorporated into Eugene's development code. We believe that LID standards have the potential to not
only preserve natural hydrology and a more efficient stormwater system, but also to address staff and
Council goals of helping promote denser development at opportunity sites (and elsewhere) in our
existing neighborhoods. LID provisions offer the potential of helping mitigate some of the "high
impacts" of opportunity-sited and infill development to make it more compatible with existing
neighborhoods and palatable to residents.
The Development Code Needs to Address and Protect the Unique Drainage in River Road-Santa
Clara
How stormwater is managed is a very key issue in the River Road-Santa Clara neighborhood. We are
part of the only area in Eugene that does not have the piped stormwater infrastructure of other parts of
the City. Our "country" drainage system--based on natural soil infiltration, drywells, roadside ditches
and other drainage ways-- has many benefits. In essence, what we have in place already IS the
"naturalistic", "distributed" and "on-site" approach to stormwater management now being recognized as
superior for water quality and flow control. This system also maximizes stormwater infiltration and
recharge of groundwater. This is important for the continued functioning of the many shallow irrigation
wells still used in our neighborhood, but also for retaining the overall quantity and quality of
groundwater and surface water in our area.
Our natural drainage system provides other benefits, too. Because we have less of the conventional City
infrastructure--"improved" streets and stormwater systems and all the soil compaction and concrete that
goes along with them--more of our good river soils and road verges are intact and support large trees and
other greenery. Good soils and plentiful vegetation help buffer and cleanse not only water, but also air.
There is greenspace in each yard for gardens, wildlife habitat and an attractive ambience for us humans.
These aspects are a big part of our neighborhood identity, health, and livability.
In addition to the environmental benefits to the City and our neighborhood, preserving natural drainage
will reduce costs to the City and residents by eliminating the need for expensive piped infrastructure.
There are many reasons to preserve our existing drainage system.
5/23/2006
Comments on Stormwater Development Ordinance and Stormwate
Page 3 of 6
Unfortunately, the proposed stormwater development ordinance and Manual have no provisions that
specifically address the unique characteristics of our area, nor any special development standards that
aim to protect the natural drainage system in our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is slated for a high
development density. The draft Basin Plan projects that at UGB buildout, impervious surface in our
Basin is expected to "increase to 51 percent, which is the highest for all of the basins."
Can our "country drainage" system continue to function at this percentage of impervious surface? Alas,
our Basin Plan is not complete, and drainage modeling is unverified. None of the water quality testing
that has been used to develop the plan has been done in our area at all. According to the draft text
(Initial Study Towards the Development of a Stormwater Basin Master Plan), feasibility and cost
analysis of proposed water quality standards and capital projects have not been completed.
Staff have suggested that this stormwater development ordinance and Stormwater Management Manual
can be adopted separately from the Basin Plans, but something is wrong with this picture. Each Basin
Plan contains proposed development standards ostensibly based on characteristics and needs of the
Basin, and aimed at controlling flooding and preserving water quality. Surely it is those proposed
development standards that are, or should, be the basis for these city-wide development standards. A
schematic and text at the start of the draft Basin Plan describes such a process--adoption of stormwater
development standards and best management practices manual AFTER completion of Basin Master
Plans and integrated stormwater management strategies.
In any case, the public has not had the opportunity to comment on the proposed development standards
in the draft River Road-Santa Clara Basin Plan. There needs to be a more thorough review of these
standards in light of the unique characteristics of our Basin and natural drainage system, and the City's
development code may need to be amended in the future with provisions protective of our Basin.
"
Comments on Specific Sections of Stormwater Ordinance and Stormwater
Management Manual:
These comments address various sections of the ordinance (and relevant sections of the Manual):
Definitions, destination (flood control), pollution reduction (water quality), flow control (stream bed.
protection), and drainage ways section of Manual.
Definitions
More work is needed to clarify the definitions of Runoff and Stormwater.
Runoff is not defined in the ordinance, but is defined in the Stormwater Management Manual as
"Stormwaterflows across the ground surface during and after a rainfall event." But shouldn't runoff also
include water flows across ground caused by human activities, such as car washes?
The Manual defines "stormwater" as "water runoff that originates as precipitation on a particular site,
basin, or watershed. "
In contrast, according to the Eugene Public Works web site, "stormwater" is water that flows across the
land -- and it is not limited to what falls from the sky. It includes water that runs off any hard surface,
from roads to roofs..."
The ordinance itself does not have a definition of "stormwater". It probably should. Also, the source
5/23/2006
Comments on Stormwater Development Ordinance and Stormwate
Page 4 of6
controls section (9.6795) says its purpose is to "prevent stormwater pollution..." This does not seem
accurate if the Manual's definition of storm water is assumed. The Public Works definition would be
more appropriate. Or, it would be more accurate to say that the purpose of source controls is to prevent
pollution of runoff. But only if "runoff' is also redefined, as above!
Destination Standards
* The Stormwater Management Manual (Section 1.4.2 Destination Design Methodology) states that the
City has developed a flood control strategy for each of the drainage basins within the UGB, and
published these within the 2002 Stormwater Basin Plans. Yet the River Road-Santa Clara Basin Plan
has not been finalized due to problems with the modeling and verification of various aspects of our
drainage system. Without correct drainage modeling, it does not seem possible to gauge the necessity
and sufficiency of recommended development standards and capital projects at controlling flooding in
our area.
* The Draft River Road-Santa Clara Basin Plan says that flood control goals could be met through
standards for reduced effective impervious surfaces, and infiltration and detention areas. However, the
proposed ordinance does not include such flood control development standards. Evidently it is City
policy to NOT implement flood control development standards, but to assume that capital projects in
each Basin will be sufficient to control flooding. We have been unal1le to learn the justification for
this. Yet, with the amount of density slated for (and already arriving in) River Road, and the desirability
of preserving the natural drainage system, it seems appropriate that reduced effective impervious surface
and infiltration standards be considered. It seems especially premature to reject such standards when the
drainage modeling is not complete for our Basin. Can staff explain the reasoning for this?
* Given that most of River Road and Santa Clara is not served by public storm sewers, developers
should be required to select as the destination for stormwater either "on-site infiltration" or "off-site
discharge to surface flow", and NOT "off-site discharge to piped flow". In the same way that the
ordinance specifies preferred use of on-site filtration in the Headwaters area, it should specify preferred
use of on-site filtration in River Road and Santa Clara. This is important because of the lack of storm
sewers, and also the importance of recharging groundwater.
* Developers should be required to retain natural ~ydrology, and use soil Best Management Practices,
minimal site disturbance, and other low-impact development (LID) techniques to prevent stormwater
runoff in the first place. We urge Council to ask staff to develop a set of proposed LID standards to
address these aspects in future amendments to the development code. LID techniques will reduce
runoff, and thus reduce the need for off-site discharge of stormwater in the first place.
Pollution Reduction Standards
* Pollution reduction provisions in the ordinance apply only to development that results in more than
3000 sq. feet of additional impervious surface. Why would these standards not be applied to ALL
development, including single family dwellings? The pollution impacts of development are the same
whether the development occurs in one large piece, or many smaller pieces. If the intent is to exempt
development with truly minimal impact, then exemption of development that adds less than 500 sq. ft.
of impervious surface might be more justifiable. The 3000 sq. ft. exemption seems to offer a loophole
large enough to allow developers to avoid the requirements of the ordinance entirely by simply
subdividing large areas and developing each parcel as a separate (single-family dwelling) application.
[Putting the exemption at 3000 sq. ft. because that figure is also used in setting stormwater rates or fees
is not very compelling, and bears little rational relationship to the purpose of this ordinance, which is to
protect water quality and prevent flooding]. Please reduce this exemption to 500 sq. ft.
5/23/2006
Comments on Stormwater Development Ordinance and Stormwate
t'age J OI 0
* The Stormwater Management Manual says: "The purpose of this manual is to provide stormwater
management principles and techniques that help preserve or mimic the natural hydrologic cycle and
achieve water quality goals." However, the entire focus of the Manual is on "mimic" and not "preserve".
The ordinance and Manual need sections that recognize and prioritize the preservation of soils, trees,
vegetation and existing drainage ways as ways to reduce pollution and polluted runoff. There should be
pollution reduction credits and requirements not only for tree preservation, but for soil preservation, and
post-construction soil quality. Too often, developers compact soils, dramatically reducing their ability
to filter stormwater.
Flow Control Standards
* The flow control provisions applied in the Headwaters (higher elevation) area require developers to
keep the peak rate of flow of stormwater runoff to pre-development levels. However, there does not
seem to be a requirement that addresses the total volume or duration of runoff. Other stormwater
publications we have consulted indicate that these are important parameters to be considered, too. We
would appreciate an explanation of why this ordinance is not requiring developers to control total
volume or duration of runoff, as well as peak flow rates.
* One stated purpose of the Flow Control standards in the Manual is to recharge groundwater. The
River Road-Santa Clara area relies on groundwater and recharge, and also needs these protections. The
Manual and ordinance should require that "on-site filtration methods are preferred and required to the
maximum extent practicable" in the River Road-Santa Clara Basin, in addition to this requirement in the
Headwaters area.
Disturbances or Development within Drainage ways
There is a section in the Stormwater Management Manual (section 1.7.2) that describes the conditions
under which disturbance or development within drainage ways is to be allowed (e.g., if it does not
impede stormwater flow, cause erosion downstream, etc). Two concerns:
* This provision is found in the Manual, but not the ordinance. Is this because the ordinance is intended
to put conditions only on new development or redevelopment, and this provision is intended to apply
more broadly (e.g., to dumping, etc.)? Or is this an oversight? Shouldn't the provision be in the
ordinance as well as the Manual?
* I am assuming there must be legal reasons why the City cannot outright prohibit disturbance or
development of a drainage way, but instead merely restricts it, and provides this listing of conditions to
clarify its stormwater-related purposes in doing so? Can the City supplement this somewhat weak
provision with an outright prohibition on fill in another more general part of the City code--similar to the
previous Open Waterways ordinance? Or, can a parallel provision be put in City code to restrict fill of a
drainage way under the same conditions as listed in the Manual (but regardless of whether the fill is
done as part of a development application?). Here is a recent photo depicting a fence and retaining wall
built by a property owner in the middle of Flat Creek (one of the major drainage ways in River Road).
The culvert in the foreground runs under Elkay Drive. This type of activity seems important to prevent
in the future (and undo in this case)--yet it appears to be currently outside the reach of any "regulations,
including this proposed new stormwater development ordinance. I hope the City and County can work
together to find a way to prohibit this kind of activity, which surely has an adverse effect on stormwater
drainage in the area, yet seems objectionable on other grounds as well. The property in question is
within County, not City jurisdiction, but City development codes would apply.
5/23/2006
Comments on Stormwater Development Ordinance and Stormwate
Page 60f6
Fence and retaining wall built by a property owner in the middle of Flat Creek (one
of the major drainageways in River Road)
.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Becky Riley, Vice Chair, River Road Community Organization
Rob Handy, Chair, River Road Community Organization
Jerry Finigan, Chair, Santa Clara Community Organization
Teresa Damron, board member, River Road Community Organization
Kate Perle, board member, Santa Clara Community Organization, and Chair, SCCO Land Use
Subcommittee
Ellen Hyman, board member, Santa Clara Community Organization, and SCCO Land Use
Subcommittee
Rachel DeBuse, former board member, Santa Clara Community Organization
5/23/2006
Attachment to Comments re: Stormwater Ordinance--Low Impac
Page I of3
KEPPLER Peggy A
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From: Becky Riley [briley@efn.org]
Monday, May 22, 20064:51 PM
KEPPLER Peggy A
WALCH Therese; COREY Kurt A; MUIR Susan L; CARLSON Jim R; TAYLOR Dennis M; YEITER
Kurt M
Subject: Attachment to Comments re: Stormwater Ordinance-Low Impact Development (LID)
Low Impact Development
Typical low impact development standards promote or require:
* smaller footprint development (build up, not out)
* limitations on percent coverage of a site with impervious surface
* narrower streets, sidewalks and driveways
* smaller front yard setbacks to reduce driveway length
* site fingerprinting for minimal disturbance during development
* protecting soils from compaction and preservation of high infiltration soils
* preservation of existing open waterways and drainage ways
* preservation of existing trees and vegetation
* retention of buffer vegetation along waterways
* addition of constructed stormwater control facilities or conveyance only AFTER these other
approaches are used to minimize runoff and maximize natural filtration in the first place
Requiring developers to do site planning and use the above techniques would go a long way toward
minimizing stormwater runoff and reducing the negative impacts of development in the first place.
Developers would also come out ahead--by reducing the need for additional constructed facilities to
manage stormwater, and by preserving more of the greenscape and mature trees that can increase
property values.
The LID materials and language referenced or excerpted below contain provisions and wording
especially relevant to protecting the natural hydrology of a development site. But note that other LID
standards (such as some of those listed above)--iftailored to the specific needs and characteristics of our
community--also have great potential to promote higher density development in appropriate locations of
existing neighborhoods that is more attractive and palatable to residents. We believe that adoption of
LID standards could be one way for the City to address a number of the hot issues about opportunity
siting and infill standards and help address the concerns of residents about the "high impact"
development that we see happening in our neighborhoods now.
Excerpts from Prince George's County, MD Low Impact Development Hydrologic Analysis
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lid _hydr. pdt):
In low-impact development, the design approach is to leave
as many undisturbed areas as practical to reduce runoff
volume and runoff rates by maximizing infiltration capacity.
5/23/2006
Attachment to Comments re: Stormwater Ordinance--Low Impac
Page 20f3
...low-impact development site planning practices [include]
the following:
Narrower driveways and roads (minimizing impervious
areas)
Maximizing tree preservation or aforestation (tree
planting)
Site fingerprinting (minimal disturbance)
Open drainage swales
Preservation of soils with high infiltration rates to reduce
eN
Location of Integrated Management Practices (IMPs) on
high infiltration soils.
Excerpts from Pierce County, W A ordinance:
http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID_studies/ordinances_regulations.htm#ord4
(page 9) Low impact development goal shall be achieved through adherence to the
following objectives... "Retain or restore native soils and vegetation on 65% of a site. Limit
effective impervious area to no more than 10%. Retain and incorporate natural site features
that promote infiltration of stormwater on a developed site. Use of traditional conveyance
and pond technologies to manage stormwater quality and quantity should only be
considered after all other LID techniques have been considered and used to the greatest
extent possible. Use bioretention...surface water dispersion, etc... as close to the origin as
possible. "
Low Impact Development:
"Primary objective is to retain native vegetation and soils. Retain watershed hydrology for
the health of aquatic systems and stormwater control. Reduce development envelope,
reduce total impervious surface, provide infiltration area, maintain most closely mimic
natural hydrologic function of site. Additional benefits are critical area habitat for wildlife,
open space corridors for passive recreation, visual buffers, and erosion and sediment
control. "
5/23/2006
Attachment to Comments re: Stormwater Ordinance--Low Impac
Page 3 of3
Puget Sound Action Team LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound
http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LIDtechmanua105/lidindex.htm
- - -
Chapter 2: Site Assessment
Chapter 3: Site Planning and Layout
Chapter 4: Vegetation Protection, Reforestation, and Maintenance
Chapter 5: Clearing and Grading...
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, Start at the Source
http://www.ehs. berkeley .edu/whatwedo/airwater/ccg/sats4sitedesign. pdf
Chapter 4: Site Design
Excerpt from Washington State Dept. of Ecology Stormwater Manual
Soil Best Management Practices
"Guidelines and Resources for Implementing Soil Depth and Quality BMPs".
http://compostwashington.org/PDF/SOIL_MANUAL.pdf
re: post-construction soil quality: "Undisturbed soil and vegetation provide important stormwater
functions...these functions are largely lost when development strips away native topsoil and vegetation
and replaces it with minimal topsoil and sod...such landscapes become pollution-generating pervious
surfaces due to increased use of pesticides, fertilizers... Establishing a minimum soil quality and depth
is not the same as preservation of naturally occurring soil and vegetation..."
5/23/2006