HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdmin Order 58-96-26-F
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-96-26-F
of the
CITY MANAGER PRO TEM
EROSION PREVENTION AND CONSTRUCTION
SITE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
ADMINISTRATIVE RULE 6.645
The City Manager Pro Tem of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. Pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 2.019 and 6.645 of the Eugene Code,
1971, on December 5, 1996 I adopted Administrative Order No. 58-96-26 proposing the adoption
of an Administrative Rule establishing a program for managing erosion and other negative water
quality impacts associated with construction activities. The rule provides procedures, definitions,
outcomes, approval criteria, management measures, design standards, enforcement provisions, and
appeal procedures for implementing the program established by newly enacted provisions of the
Eugene Code, 1971.
B. Notice of the proposed adoption of the Erosion Prevention and Construction Site
Management Practices Administrative Rule was published in the Register Guard, a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of five consecutive days, to-wit, on Dec 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14,
1996. The Notice was also provided to persons who had requested notice, and made available for
inspection by interested persons at the City's Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 858
Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401 during normal business hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, exclusive of holidays), and made available to the general public through Eugene's
Home Page on the Internet.
C. The Notice provided that written comments would be received thereon for a period
ending at midnight, January 3, 1997. Written comments were received from 16 respondents, as
identified in Exhibit A hereto, to which I make the following findings:
Comment 1: The cost factor ($0.50 per square foot of disturbed lot area) in the
proposed definition of Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) is too high. There were two
recommendations for changing the cost factor: 1) 10 cents per square foot, and 2) 40 cents
per square foot.
Finding: The MEP concept is not a required amount of money to be spent on
erosion control measures. The MEP represents a maximum effort that the rule requires a
property owner to undertake in order to meet the outcomes of the program within established
limitations. The limitations include technological feasibility and costs, and together they
define "practicable." The cost limitation provides certainty to the property owner that costs
will not exceed a certain amount in a worst-case scenario. The property owner will make
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 1
choices as to how the outcomes are met and, therefore, the cost of implementation. Some
of these choices include timing of construction activities (dry versus wet season),
management measures to be used, maintenance of facilities, and response to violations.
MEP, and therefore cost, will only become an issue if the measures undertaken by the
property owner are not successful in meeting the outcomes and the City's efforts to have
these measures improved are challenged by the property owner (on the basis of MEP).
By definition, Maximum Extent Practicable means a higher than average effort. On
an extremely sensitive site, in poor weather conditions, cost to protect the water quality will
be higher than for the same use on a nonsensitive site during dryer conditions. A
developer/owner could implement low cost practices and stay well below the MEP, or they
could elect not to consider these factors and potentially spend up to the MEP.
The proposed MEP cost factor contained in the Administrative Rule was based on
estimated costs for implementing erosion control efforts for a 6,000 square foot single-family
residence. The estimates ranged between $960 to $2700, or 16 to 45 cents per square foot
of the lot assuming the entire lot area is disturbed. The estimates were calculated by city
staff and members of the Home Builders Association. For a larger subdivision (14 acres),
cost estimates were $6,500 or one cent per square foot. Costs are expected to be on the
higher side for parcels located in sensitive areas and for construction activities occurring
during the wet-weather season. Given these estimates are based on typical conditions, the
$0.50 per square foot factor of disturbed lot area appears reasonable given it represents a
maximum level of effort.
Since the program will be reviewed at the end of the first year of implementation,
the MEP cost amount will stay at $0.50 per square foot of disturbed area. As the program
is implemented and more cost data is obtained it may be appropriate to consider adjustments
of the MEP definition at that time. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at this time.
Comment 2: The cost for preparing the construction site management plan should
be included as a cost for determining Maximum Extent Practicable.
Finding: Cost to prepare construction site management plans are allowed under
6.645-D2.2. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule.
Comment 3: Delays in getting a building permit should be included as a cost for
determining Maximum Extent Practicable.
Finding: The erosion program will be adequately staffed to meet the administrative
needs of the program. Currently, delays in building permit issuance occur for a variety of
reasons of which none are related to the erosion program. The MEP provision is directly
related to the effort in preventing and/or minimizing negative water quality impacts from
construction activities to the stormwater system. However, there is no direct relationship in
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 2
the timing of building permit issuance to water quality issues. Costs incurred due to delays
in building permit issuance are not relevant to water quality efforts and the erosion program
and, therefore, these costs will not be included in the MEP calculation.
Comment 4: Maximum Extent Practicable provision is too complex for single
family residential application.
Finding: There are standardized management measures with proven technologies
that address most single family applications. Categories ofMEP cost are the same for single
family as for other land use types. Calculating costs and determining appropriate technology
is fairly straight forward and, therefore, there is no need at this time to differentiate between
single family and other uses for MEP purposes. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule
at this time.
Comment 5: Keep the second sentence ofR-6.645-D.2 in the originalAdministrative
Rule version.
Finding: This provision remains in the proposed rule and is now located in R-6.645-
D3. Th~r~ i~ !!9 !!~~g tQ t\4jy~t th~ ml~,
Comment 6: Who will monitor nonconstruction activities?
Findin~: The erosion program specifically addresses construction-related impacts.
Other City Code provisions will address illicit discharges or nuisance-related issues.
Comment 7: How and to what extent will compliance be monitored?
Finding: Erosion staff will monitor permit holders at specific points in the
construction process. Compliance with the outcomes will be assessed at each point in the
inspection process.
Comment 8: How will cost for monitoring be paid?
Finding: Monitoring and all other related program costs will be financed through
the erosion permit fees.
Comment 9: Don't require building inspectors to enforce this ordinance.
Findine: Building inspectors are not designated as enforcement officers for this
program.
Comment 10: The erosion program will increase building permit processing by two
weeks.
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 3
Finding:The erosion program will be adequately staffed and administered to ensure
it will not cause any delays in the issuance of building permits. Other non-building permit
construction activities, such as quick-start agreements and grading permits may be affected.
Quick permit turnaround is a high priority for the program.
Comment 11. There is no documentation of an erosion problem related to
construction activities.
Finding: During the time of development of the program (1995), surveys of
construction site for a variety of land use types, including single family residential, revealed
erosion, sedimentation, and other impacts related to construction activities (trash, improper
storage of toxic materials).
Comment 12: Some of the professions listed as qualified to prepare construction site
management plans are less qualified than contractors and builders.
Finding: The list generally represents those professions familiar with the building
and construction trades. This list has been reviewed and recommended by a Department
Advisory Committee that includes a cross-section of occupations including a home builder.
There is a provision that allows the City Manager to approve additional professions on a
case-by-case basis. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at this time.
Comment 13: How can City justify this program in-light of Ballot Measure 47?
Findine: The erosion program is financed through erosion permit fees and,
therefore, is not dependent on property tax revenues. Protecting water quality is a federally
mandated program for the City of Eugene. Erosion prevention is a component of that
program.
Comment 14: The program places too much emphasis on regulations and permits;
should be on an honor-basis.
Finding: This issue was raised at the time of adoption of the erosion ordinance. The
ordinance was approved by the City Council containing the level of regulations and permit
requirements as reflected in this Administrative Rule. This issue was addressed by the
Department Advisory Committee which recommended the level of regulation and permit
requirements as contained in the ordinance and rule. The current level was determined
necessary to address negative water quality impacts due to both large and smaller sized
construction activities. In order to lessen the extent regulations and permit requirements the
recently approved ordinance would have to be amended. That action is out of the scope of
the Administrative Rule making process. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule.
Comment 15: General public should be required to meet erosion outcomes.
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 4
Finding: All construction activities that disturb land are affected by the program
including the placement of building and landscape materials in the public right-of-way.
Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule.
Comment 16: Why were the necessary materials needed for review, such as the
manual, template, sensitive areas map not available for review?
Finding: Most of these materials have been available for review since December
1995 and their availability has been announced publicly.
Comment 17: Where does the program apply?
Finding: Within the city limits of Eugene.
Comment 18: Who is responsible for release of hazardous substances at a
construction site.
Finding: For activities requiring an erosion permit, the permittee (property owner
or easement holer) is responsible for meeting the requirements of the program and permit.
For non-permitted conditions, property owner or easement holder.
Comment 19: The City Council should review the Administrative Rule prior to
finalization.
Finding: City Councilors were provided copies of the proposed rule and fee schedule
for their review.
Comment 20: Program will affect cost of homes.
Finding: This issue was raised at the time the ordinance was considered. With most
of the single family dwellings requiring a permit, costs to this group were considered
minimized while benefits to water quality were raised. The ordinance was approved. This
issue is out of the scope of the Administrative Rule. Therefore, there is no need for rule
adjustments at this time.
Comment 21: Blanket permits should be allowed for new subdivisions.
Finding: The umbrella permit, R6.645-F3.2, provides this application. Therefore,
there is no need to adjust the rule at this time.
Comment 22: Stop work orders should only apply to the area of violation.
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 5
Finding: Stop work orders will be considered on a case-by-case basis and the extent
of their application will be determined at that time. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the
rule at this time.
Comment 23: Required vegetative buffer would render most lots unbuildable.
Finding: There is no requirement for a vegetative buffer. There is a definition of
a vegetative buffer which relates to Section 6.645-E.2. This section allows a property owner
to present evidence that a lot should not be considered a "sensitive area" if existing
conditions, such as a "vegetative perimeter buffer" exists. This definition, therefore,
provides exceptions to permit requirements. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at
this time.
Comment 24: Outcome 1.3 is too extreme as it defines allowable discharge at Y2
cubic foot.
Finding: This outcome was modified from the original version. Current version
allows discharge of Y2 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet of lot size. This issue has already
been addressed and, therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at this time.
Comment 25: During extreme weather conditions, the program should be
suspended.
Finding: Section R-6.645-C3.2 of the rule provides an exemption to remove or
alleviate emergency conditions. This section provides authority to address extreme
conditions on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at this time.
Comment 26: Program is being weakened.
Finding: While it is true that the allowable discharge standard has increased, other
provisions have increased such as requiring all construction activities to address the
outcomes. Under State law, only sites greater than five acres in size are subject to erosion
requirements. The dedication of two full-time staff resources to this program will increase
the program's effectiveness over current levels (State of Oregon).
D. In addition to the specific findings set forth above, I find that adoption of the
proposed rule is necessary in order to implement newly enacted provisions of the Eugene Code,
1971.
Based on the above findings, which are hereby adopted, I hereby adopt Erosion Prevention
and Construction Site Management Practices Administrative Rule R-6.645 to provide:
EROSION PREVENTION AND CONSTRUCTION SITE
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 6
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ADMINISTRATIVE RULE R-6.645
R-6.645-A
Purpose and Intent.
1. Purpose. These rules implement Sections 6.625 to 6.645 of the Eugene Code, 1971,
which were adopted to restrict the discharge of sediments or other construction related materials,
including hazardous substances, into the City's stormwater system in order to:
1.1 Prevent or minimize, to the maximum extent possible, negative impacts to
adjacent properties, water quality and related natural resources resulting from construction
activities; and
1.2 Maintain the capacity of the City's stormwater system by minimizing
sedimentation.
2. Intent. The intent of these rules, in implementing sections 6.625 to 6.645 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, is to ensure that construction related activities prevent or minimize erosion,
sedimentation, and other stormwater related problems identified in subsection 1 above. To carry-out
the intent of the these rules, it is the goal of the City I S erosion prevention program to review and
respond to all erosion permit applications in a timely manner so that these provisions do not increase
the time frame for issuing other permits. These rules are designed to provide developers and
property owners with broad discretion for addressing potential impacts of construction related
activities, so long as the erosion prevention measures achieve the desired outcomes. These rules
therefore do not specify or mandate the use of certain erosion prevention measures, and instead,
provide applicants with flexibility to choose or design erosion prevention measures subject to review
by the City. The issuance of an erosion prevention permit by the City will not necessarily reflect
concurrence by the City that the proposed measures will work. Instead, the City's review may be
more limited in many cases, relying on the certification of the owners' certified professional that the
proposed measures will achieve the mandated outcomes. In such cases, the City's review may be
limited to making an evaluation that the proposed measures address anticipated impacts. Where the
City is uncertain about the likely success of the proposed measures, the City may issue the permit,
and monitor the site to determine whether the measures are achieving the outcomes. If the erosion
prevention measures have not been successful in achieving those outcomes, the City will require
compliance.
R-6.645-B
Definitions.
In additions to the definitions contained in Sections 6.405 and 6.625 to 6.645 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, as used herein, the following words and phrases mean:
Adjacent property. Property where erosion and/or sedimentation or construction
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 7
material impacts are occurring and the cause of impact is directly related to a construction
activity from a separate parcel.
Annual landscape activities. Activities necessary to maintain the health and function
of developed landscaped areas, including but not limited to: tilling, sodding, mowing,
aerating, and pruning.
Certified professional. A person who holds an Oregon license in one of the following
professions: engineer, architect, landscape architect, or is in a similar profession as
determined by the City Manager; or a person who is certified as a geologist or as a
professional in erosion and sedimentation control by the International Erosion Control
Association, or any other similar organization, or by the City, as determined by the City
Manager.
City Manager. The City Manager of the City of Eugene, or the Manager's designee.
Construction activity. An activity used in the process of developing, redeveloping,
enhancing, or maintaining land, including but not limited to: land disturbance, building
construction, paving and surfacing, storage and disposal of construction related materials.
Construction footprint. That area of a parcel where disturbance to vegetation
and landform is necessary for the construction of buildings, parking lots, walkways,
landscaping, utilities, and for staging of construction equipment and other similar uses
associated with construction activities.
Construction related materials. Potential water quality pollutants that are used or
created during construction activities including, but not limited to; off-site deposits of
sediments by vehicles (e.g. tracking, spilling); building material wastes (e.g.. scrap metals,
rubber, plastic, glass, masonry, wood; paints and thinners; packaging materials; insulation,
plaster grout); hazardous substances (e.g. cleaning solvents; chemical additives; concrete
curing compounds; acids for cleaning masonry surfaces; paints, thinners); and concrete
washout.
Construction Site Management Plan. A set of maps, data, drawings, and narrative
that describes expected runoff from new construction sites and establishes measures to be
taken for preventing erosion, sediments, and other pollutants from construction related
activities.
Designated buffer. An area established by the Eugene Code, 1971, including but not
limited to sections 9.262(3)(b) and 9.264(3), that separates a protected natural resource site,
such as a wetland or water feature, from a conflicting use, or its designated buffer area.
Dewatering. The removal and disposal of surface water or groundwater for purposes
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 8
of preparing a site for construction.
Directly drains. The conveyance and discharge of stormwater runoff - either on the
surface or by an open channel or pipe - into a water feature that is located on or adjacent to
the parcel or tax lot of record for which construction activities are planned, or its designated
buffer area.
Disturbed area. A parcel or a portion of a parcel of land where the vegetation,
landform, or topography is altered due to logging, clearing, grubbing, grading, paving, stock
piling, or building.
Emergency condition. An immediate danger to life, property, or the environment due
to circumstances beyond the control of the property owner, including, but not limited to,
natural and human-caused disasters such as fires, floods, slides, earthquakes, sinkholes, and
tree blow-down.
Enforcement Officer. The person designated by the City Manager to enforce the
provisions of Sections 6.625 to 6.645 of the Eugene Code, 1971 and these rules.
Erosion prevention. Measures to be taken for preventing and/or minimizing impacts
to the City's stormwater system and related natural resources due to soil erosion from water
and wind forces, sedimentation, and other potential impacts associated with construction
activities such as handling and storage of building materials and disposal of building material
wastes.
Fully developed property. A parcel of land that contains buildings, pavement and
other facilities, including landscaped areas and due to these uses is not capable of additional
expanSIon.
Highly erodible soils. Soil map units as classified by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS - formerly the Soil Conservation Service) as being highly
erodible. Based on factors from the Universal Soil Loss Equation, the NRCS classification
system considers soil erodibility (K factor), climate, slope, steepness, length, and soil loss
tolerance (T factor).
Immediate clean-up. Not later than the end of the work shift in which the violation
occurred, but in no event shall it occur later than midnight of the day in which it occurred.
Improper disposal. Disposal of any construction related material in a manner that
causes, or has the potential to cause, the discharge of pollutants to the City's stormwater
system or related natural resource, the depletion of the capacity of the City's stormwater
system, or the contamination of soils.
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 9
Improper storage. Handling or storing of any construction related materials in a
manner that, due to leaks, spills, leachates, deposits or dumps, causes or has the potential to
cause the discharge of pollutants to the City's stormwater system or related natural resources,
the depletion of the capacity of the City's stormwater system, or the contamination of soils.
Jurisdictional wetlands. Any parcel or portion of a parcel which meets the state or
federal definition of wetlands that are under the jurisdiction of state or federal laws.
Synonymous with wetlands.
Land disturbance. Activities that can change the physical conditions of landform,
vegetation, and hydrology including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing,
excavating, filling, logging, and storing of materials.
Maximum extent practicable. A level of effort to be undertaken where technical
feasibility and financial costs to be incurred are appropriate, as determined by the criteria in
Section R-6.645-D.2 of this Rule, for the probable negative impacts to water quality to be
minimized.
Minor Recurring Activities. Repetitive construction activities that are performed as
part of an overall work plan and no individual disturbance exceeds more than 500 square feet
of land area and 50 cubic yards of fill or excavated material.
Permit Holder. The property owner or easement holder of record of the parcel or tax
lot for which construction activities are planned.
Person. An individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, joint venture, consortium,
commercial entity, partnership, association, corporation, commission, state and any agency
thereof, political subdivision of the state, interstate body or the federal government, including
any agency thereof;
Related Natural Resources. Natural resources located within or adjacent to the City's
stormwater system, such as waterways, wetlands, and riparian areas, that provide one or
more of the following stormwater functions: flood control, water quality treatment, and
streambank stabilization.
Routine Maintenance. Activities and practices that are necessary to maintain the
operating capacity, functional integrity, or aesthetics of a place or facility. Routine
maintenance includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, repair of recreation facilities (e.g.,
ball diamonds, play areas, fields), cleaning of stormwater facilities, and patching of streets.
Sensitive area. Sites that meet the criteria contained in R-6.645-E.l.
Template. An example of a construction site management plan provided by the City
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 10
of Eugene that - when modified by the erosion prevention permit holder to address site
specific conditions - can be used to satisfy permit requirements for a single dwelling or
duplex dwelling. The template may be prepared by the permit holder or the permit holder's
designee.
Untreated runoff. Contaminated stormwater runoff due to construction activities that
has not been filtered, screened, settled, or otherwise treated for the removal of pollutants,
prior to discharge into the City's stormwater system or related natural resources.
Water features. Permanent or intermittent bodies of water, including creeks, streams,
ponds, rivers, lakes, drainage channels and jurisdictional wetlands.
Vegetative buffer. A strip of land not less than 25 feet in width separating a
construction activity from either a water feature or a property line, whichever is nearest,
containing a vegetation that covers at least 75% of the buffer area.
Visible or measurable erosion. The deposit of mud, soil, sediment or similar
material exceeding one-half cubic foot in volume for every 1,000 square feet of lot size onto
public rights of way or private streets, into the City's stormwater system or related natural
resources, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge, or as a result of the action of erosion;
evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils, turbid or sediment laden flows, or
evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not
filtered or captured on the site using the techniques recommended in the City's Erosion
Prevention and Construction Site Management Practices Planning and Design Manual, or
comparable techniques; and, earth slides, mud flows, earth sloughing, or other earth
movement which leaves the property.
Wetlands. Any parcel or portion of a parcel which meets the state or federal
definition of wetlands that are under the jurisdiction of state or federal laws. Synonymous
with jurisdictional wetlands.
R-6.645-C
Applicability .
1. These rules, and Sections 6.625 to 6.645 of the Eugene Code, 1971 apply to all
construction related activities that result in anyone or all of the following:
1.1 Land disturbance;
1.2 Structural development, including, but not limited to buildings, bridges, roads,
and other infrastructure;
1.3 Impervious surfaces, including, but not limited to parking lots, driveways,
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 11
walkways, and patios; or
1.4 Dewatering.
2. No person shall engage in any construction related activity covered by Subsection
R-6.645-C.1 of these Rules except as allowed by the Eugene Code 1971 and these rules. All persons
shall prevent and/or control erosion, sedimentation, and other construction related impacts to
stormwater quality in a manner designed to meet the outcomes specified in R-6.645-D. Failure to
implement measures that meet those outcomes shall subject the person to the same enforcement
provisions as those applicable to a permit holder under section 6.640 of the Eugene Code and R-
6.645-F of the Rules. This requirement shall be implemented through one of the following
prOVISIons:
2.1 Issuance of an Erosion Prevention Permit in accordance with Section R-
6.645-F of these Rules;
2.2 For all other construction activities not subject to the erosion prevention
permit requirements, compliance by property owners with the standards for preventing and
controlling erosion, sedimentation, and other impacts associated with construction site
management practices. The City will make information about these requirements available
through a variety of techniques, including public outreach programs, handout materials, and
other educational efforts to assist property owners in meeting this obligation.
3. Notwithstanding Subsection 1 above, the following activities are exempt from the
provisions of Sections 6.625 to 6.645 of the Eugene Code, 1971 and these rules:
3.1 Actions by a public utility, the City, or any other governmental agency, to
remove or alleviate an emergency condition, restore utility service, or reopen a public
thoroughfare to traffic; or
3.2 Actions by any other person when the City determines, and documents in
writing, that such actions are necessary to remove or alleviate an emergency condition,
restore utility service, or reopen a public thoroughfare to traffic.
R-6.645-D Outcomes.
1. All persons conducting construction activities covered by R-6.645-C.l. shall employ,
to the maximum extent practicable, erosion prevention and construction site management practices
which result in the following outcomes:
1.1 No deposit or discharge of sediment from a site onto adjacent properties or
into water features and related natural resources in excess of those that occur through natural
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 12
processes;
1.2 No degradation of water features due to removal of streambank vegetation
from construction sites in excess of those that occur through natural processes;
1.3 No deposit of mud, soil, sediment, concrete washout, trash, or other similar
construction related material exceeding one-half cubic foot in volume for every 1,000 square
feet of lot size onto public rights of way and private streets, and into the City's stormwater
system and related natural resources, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge, erosion,
or tracking by construction vehicles, in excess of those that occur through natural processes.
Any such discharge shall be cleaned-up at the end of the current work shift in which the
deposit occurred, or at the end of the current work day, whichever comes first.
1.4 No exposure of soils and stockpile areas to stormwater runoff without
secondary containment and treatment measures.
1.5 No earth slides, mudflows, earth sloughing, or other earth movement which
may leave the property, in excess of those that occur through natural processes;
1.6 No discharge of runoff containing construction related contaminants into the
City I s stormwater system or related natural resources; and
1.7 No release onto the site of hazardous substances, such as paints, thinners,
fuels and other chemicals.
2. Maximum extent practicable. Implementation of a stormwater management practice
is considered practicable unless one or more of the following applies:
2.1 The practice is not technically feasible for the proposed use and physical
characteristics of the site;
2.2 The cost of implementing the practice would outweigh the benefits of
maintaining water quality. Costs are considered to outweigh benefits if they exceed $0.50
per square foot of disturbed area.
Costs to be considered under subparagraph R-6.645-D.2.2 include permit fees, design preparation
(construction site management plan/template), construction of construction site management
measures, and monitoring by a professional. Costs do not include: maintenance of management
measures, actions taken to correct violations, and permanent landscape and associated design fees.
3. When designing and implementing management measures to meet the above
outcomes, the applicant shall consider the seasonal variation of rainfall, temperature, and other
climatic factors relative to the timing of land disturbance activities. Management measures shall be
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 13
adjusted to meet increased stormwater runoff flows and velocities between November 1 and April
30 of the following calendar year.
4. No permit or other approval issued pursuant to these rules shall be deemed to
authorize any violation of the above prohibitions.
R-6.645-E
Designation of Sensitive Areas.
1. Criteria for Sensitive Area Designation. For the purposes of administering these
Rules, any construction site that meets one or more of the following criteria shall be considered a
sensitive area for which an erosion prevention permit will be required:
1.1 The slope of the parcel in the area of disturbance is greater than 10%;
1.2 The site contains highly erodible soils; or
1.3 The parcel or tax lot of record has the potential to directly drain into a water
feature or its designated buffer area.
2. Determination of Sensitive Area. To assist with the administration of these
provisions, the City has prepared a map indicating sites that appear to meet the above criteria. The
Public Work s Director, or designee, shall use this map to make a preliminary determination of a
site's sensitive area status. The map is on file at the City's Public Works Engineering Department
(858 Pearl Street) and Permit & Information Center (99 West 10th Avenue).
An applicant may challenge the Director's preliminary determination that a site is a sensitive
area through submission of actual field or site information that demonstrates to the City's satisfaction
that the site's existing physical features, such as a continuous vegetative perimeter buffer which
prevents discharge of sediments, mitigate potential stormwater quality impacts, and the Director
shall thereafter make a final determination of whether the site is a sensitive area.
If an applicant chooses not to contest the designation or is unable to satisfy the above criteria,
the site shall be considered a sensitive area and an erosion prevention permit shall be required.
3. Appeal of designation. An applicant who disagrees with the Director's final
determination may appeal that decision within the time and manner prescribed in section R-6.645-
F .11 of these Rules.
R-6.645-F
Erosion Prevention Permits.
1.
Permit Required. Except as otherwise provided in these rules or provisions of the
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 14
Eugene Code, 1971, no person shall commence any construction related activity without first
obtaining from the City an erosion prevention permit if the construction related activity will:
1.1 Disturb five or more acres of land at anyone time by one or more phases of
development, and the disturbance is located on the same parcel of land or on contiguous
parcels of land under the same ownership; or
1.2 Is located in a sensitive area as designated pursuant to R-6.645-E of these
rules.
2. Waiver of Erosion Prevention Permit. Notwithstanding any other provisions of
this section, the following activities shall not require an erosion prevention permit. However, under
no circumstances shall this waiver be construed to mean that these activities are exempt from any
of the erosion prevention requirements of the Eugene Code, 1971 and these rules other than the
requirement to obtain an erosion prevention permit; the following activities are subject to other
provisions, including but not limited to Outcome requirements in Section R-6.645-D of this Rule.
2.1 Construction activities involving the disturbance of less than 500 square feet
of land surface area, or which consist of the excavation and/or fill of less than 20 cubic yards
of material;
2.2 The issuance of permits and/or approvals for land divisions, interior
improvements to an existing structure, or other approvals for which there is no physical
disturbance to the surface of the land; and
2.3 Annual landscape maintenance activities on fully developed properties,
necessary to maintain the existing developed landscape.
3. Permit Classifications. A variety of permits may be issued to address different
circumstances. Regardless of permit type, the property owner or easement holder of record is the
responsible party for the permit. If property ownership changes before the permit is finalized, the
new property owner assumes the responsibility of the permit and any outstanding issues associated
with the permit. The following permits may be issued to meet the requirements of these rules
provided the associated eligibility requirements are met:
3.1 Individual Permit. A property owner or easement holder of record may
obtain a separate, individual permit for each construction activity on the same parcel of land.
For example, the individual permit allows a property owner to obtain a permit for building
construction activities and a utility to obtain a separate permit for utility purposes.
3.2 Umbrella Permit. A property owner or easement holder of record may obtain
an umbrella permit for multiple construction activities on the same parcel of land that are
proposed in connection with a development, including utility work, private infrastructure,
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 15
structures, and other site improvements. This permit allows one permit to be issued for all
construction activities and all phases of development.
3.3 Annual Permit. An annual permit may be issued for minor recurring
activities. The annual permit is intended to provide a streamlined permit process for entities
that perform repetitive activities on a frequent basis. This provision allows one permit to be
issued for more than one project within a calendar year. To qualify for an annual permit,
the following criteria shall be met:
3.3.1 Construction activities are minor and recur on a frequent basis.
Examples include but are not limited to: utility service connections and extensions,
repair of utility and infrastructure facilities.
3.3.2 Permits may be issued for a full calendar year, and shall expire on or
before December 31 of the year issued.
4. Application. In addition to the payment of any required fees, an application for an
erosion prevention permit shall include a completed Construction Site Management Plan (except for
an Annual Permit, refer to Section R-6.645-F7.4), prepared in accordance with Subsection 7 of this
Section, or a template prepared in accordance with subsection 7.3.
5. Independent Permit Processing. The application and processing of other City of
Eugene permits, such as, but not limited to, grading, privately engineered public improvements,
foundation and building permits, are independent of the Erosion Prevention permit process. The
City of Eugene shall not issue any of these other permits:
5.1 Unless and until the City has approved and issued a required Erosion
Prevention permit;
5.2 Until the City has determined an Erosion Prevention permit is not required;
or
5.3 If the property owner or applicant is in violation of an Erosion Prevention
permit, or any conditions contained therein.
6. Completeness Check. At the time of application submittal, the City shall conduct
a completeness check to determine if the application meets all of the submittal requirements. The
City shall not accept the application until all requirements have been met. After the application has
been accepted, the City may find after a more thorough review that the applicant submitted
inadequate or inaccurate information. In that case, the City may require that certain additional
information be submitted. A complete application submittal includes:
6.1 Completed and signed application form;
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 16
6.2 Fee;
6.3 Construction Site Management Plan prepared by a certified professional,
except as provided in subsections 7.3 and 7.4 of these rules.
7. Construction Site Management Plan.
7.1 Individual and Umbrella Permits. A Construction Site Management Plan
shall be required in order to identify potential water quality impacts associated with the
proposed construction activity and ensure that appropriate and effective techniques and
methods are utilized to prevent and control erosion and sedimentation and other pollutants
associated with construction activities. The Construction Site Management Plan (Plan) shall
be prepared by a Certified Professional. The Plan shall outline the techniques and methods
to be used to achieve the required outcomes, describe conditions before and after
development, and the proposed methods to prevent and control water quality impacts during
and after construction. The Certified Professional, as part of the Plan, shall certify that in his
or her professional opinion, implementation of the Plan will ensure compliance with R-
6.645-D.l. The City shall review the Plan prior to issuance of an erosion prevention permit
and may monitor the development thereafter for continued compliance.
7.2 Contents. At a minimum, the Construction Site Management Plan shall
consider and address the follow factors as appropriate:
7.2.1 A site location and vicinity map;
7.2.2 A site development drawing at a standardized engineering or
architectural scale, such as 1 "= 40', containing the following site conditions: (a) soil
type; (b) on-site elevations and/or topographic information adequate to determine
drainage patterns and slopes; (c) hydrology, including surface drainages and
wetlands; (d) existing vegetation; and (e) natural resource sites and designated buffer
areas.
7.2.3 Plans that show site control measures for preventing erosion and
sedimentation into the City's stormwater system and related natural resources,
including supporting calculations, such as hydraulics and soil loss equation, and
assumptions for the 5-year or 10-year storm event as required by City design policy;
7.2.4 Off-site and on-site access routes for construction and maintenance
vehicles;
7.2.5 Borrow and waste disposal areas;
7.2.6 Debris and garbage disposal areas;
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 17
7.2.7 Vegetation specifications for temporary and permanent stabilization;
7.2.8 Construction schedule, including the implementation of construction
site management practices and expected time period of land disturbing activities;
7.2.9 Manner of storage and disposal of materials (e.g., sand, lumber,
insulation, paints, thinners, fertilizers, fuels);
7.2.10 Temporary and permanent storm drainage facilities;
7.2.11 Measures to be undertaken to minimize the extent of exposed soils;
7.2.12 Areas where construction vehicles' wheels will be washed; and
7.2.13 Methods and places for concrete-wash disposal;
7.2.14 Disturbed areas and other areas that are physically protected from
potential disturbance, such as fencing.
7.3 Template. If the proposed construction is for one single family dwelling, or
one duplex dwelling, the property owner need not utilize the services of a certified
professional in the preparation of the Plan. A template plan may be submitted to satisfy
requirements for the single family dwelling and duplex construction activities.
7.4 Annual Permit. If the proposed construction activity qualifies for an annual
permit, preparation of a construction site management plan is not necessary. In lieu of a
construction site management plan, the applicant shall submit the following information as
part of the application submittal:
7.4.1 Description of the scope of work and types of construction activities
to be performed; and
7.4.2 Description of the erosion, sedimentation, and construction site
management practices to be employed during construction activities for meeting the
requirements of the Eugene Code, 1971 and these Rules.
7.5 Availability. The approved Construction Site Management Plan and
Template shall be kept at the construction site and be available during on-site inspections.
8. Review Criteria and Approval. The City shall review the Erosion Prevention
Permit application, including the Construction Site Management Plan, and such other documents as
may be submitted, and approve, approve with special conditions, or deny the permit application. If
the City finds that the construction related activities will result in visible or measurable erosion, or
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 18
will otherwise violate the conditions specified in R-6.645-D.l., then the City shall deny the permit,
or approve the permit with special conditions. In the absence of such an affirmative finding, the City
shall approve the permit, with or without special conditions.
9. Conditions. Every Erosion Prevention Permit shall include as conditions the
outcomes set forth in R-6.645-D of these rules.
10. Permit Duration. An approved erosion prevention permit shall remain in effect for
the full period of construction activity. The permit may be extended for a period of up to, but not
to exceed, two years after completion of the construction activities if the City Manager determines
the extension is necessary to ensure the construction activity has stabilized in accordance with the
outcomes listed in these rules.
11. Appeal. An applicant may appeal (a) the denial of a permit, (b) any conditions
imposed on a permit, or (c) the designation of a site as a sensitive area within the time and in the
manner prescribed in section 2.021 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
R-6.645-G
Construction Site Control Measures and Design Standards.
1. Construction Site Practices. In addition to compliance with specific requirements
contained in an approved permit, all permittees shall establish and implement construction site
management practices that will prevent toxic materials and other debris from entering the City's
storm drainage and waterway systems. The following construction site practices are prohibited and
constitute a violation of these rules:
1.1 Improper storage of chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers, fuels, paints, thinners);
1.2 Improper disposal of construction waste material, garbage, rubbish, and
sanitary waste, plaster, dry-wall, grout, gypsum;
1.3 Failure to immediately clean up spills of toxic materials;
1.4 Washing excess concrete material into a street, catch basin, or other public
facility or a related natural resource;
1.5 Leaving stockpiles uncovered; or
1.6 Allowing cons~ruction vehicles to track or spill soil or debris into or onto a
street or public right of way.
2. Prevention Measures and Design Standards. The City's Erosion Prevention and
Construction Site Management Practices Manual may be utilized to obtain ideas as to how to achieve
the outcomes mandated by R-6.645-D.l. These ideas include:
2.1 Keep vehicles on gravel or paved surfaces.
2.2 Surface stabilization measures (seeding, sodding, mulching, riprap);
2.3 Runoff control measures (temporary and permanent diversions, grassed-
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 19
swales, slope drains, riprap channels);
2.4 Outlet protection measures (energy spreaders/dissipaters);
2.5 Inlet protection measures (fabric-sod type protectors);
2.6 Sediment trap measures (basins, fences, rock dams);
2.7 Stream protection measures (temporary and permanent stream crossings,
buffers, vegetated and structural stabilizers);
2.8 Construction timing and sequence;
2.9 Areas not to be disturbed; and
2.10 Other measures such as: subsurface drains, check dams, dust control,
practices and procedures of operations.
The Manual is a guidance document only. It is not adopted as part of these rules. It is not necessary
to utilize any of the specific concepts contained in the Manual, nor is the use of one or more of those
ideas a guarantee that a permit will be issued. Each site and the proposed construction related
activities need to be examined to determine what measures are required for that specific site.
R-6.645-H Enforcement.
1. Intervention. The primary focus of sections 6.625 to 6.645 of the Eugene Code,
1971 and these Rules is to achieve compliance with the outcomes specified in R-6.645-D and
prevent erosion and control stormwater impact, and the City will use the amount of enforcement
necessary to achieve compliance. Where possible the City will rely on education rather than
enforcement. The City Manager may provide educational programs or other informational materials
that will assist permittees in meeting the desired erosion and sedimentation controls, and other
construction site management practices outcomes.
2. Stop Work Order. Whenever any construction related activity is being done
contrary to and in violation of Sections 6.625 to 6.645 of the Eugene Code, 1971, these rules, or an
erosion prevention permit, the enforcement officer may order the construction related activity
stopped by notice in writing, posted on the premises, or served on the permittee. The permittee shall
forthwith stop such work until authorized by the enforcement officer to proceed.
3 Citation for Violation. Upon a determination that a person is violating Sections
6.625 to 6.645 of the Eugene Code, 1971 or these rules, a citation may be issued to the permittee to
appear in Municipal Court.
4 Administrative Compliance Order. The City may issue an Administrative
Compliance Order for any violation. The Order shall be in writing, specify the violation(s) and
require compliance measures. The order also may include a Notice of Imposition of Administrative
Civil Penalty Assessment for the violation.
5 Notice of Imposition of Administrative Civil Penalty. If a person fails to comply
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 20
with applicable provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, these rules, an erosion prevention permit,
conditions imposed thereon, or an administrative compliance order, the enforcement officer may
issue to the person a Notice of Imposition of an administrative civil penalty pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2.018 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
6. Service. All notices/orders shall be served by personal service or sent by certified
mail and first class mail. Any notice/order served by mail shall be deemed received for purposes of
any time computations hereunder, three days after the date mailed, if to an address within this state,
and seven days after the date mailed, if to an address without this state.
7. Penalties Not Exclusive. Any administrative civil penalty imposed pursuant to this
section shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by Section 6.992 of
the Eugene Code, 1971, or any other action authorized by law.
8. Settlement of Administrative Civil Penalty Assessment. Upon receipt of Notice
of Administrative Civil Penalty Assessment, the violator may request a conference with the City
Manager or designee. The City Manager or designee may compromise or settle any unpaid
administrative civil penalty assessment where authorized under Section 2.582 of the Eugene Code,
1971. A request under this paragraph shall not act as a stay, or otherwise affect the filing or
processing of an appeal under R-6.645-I.
R-6.645-I
Appeals.
1. Stop Work Order. Administrative Civil Penalty. Administrative Compliance
Order. Any person to whom a Stop Work Order, Notice of Imposition of an Administrative Civil
Penalty or Administrative Compliance Order is issued pursuant to these rules may appeal that
determination to the City Manager. A Stop Work Order or Administrative Compliance Order shall
be effective upon issuance, and shall continue in effect during the pendency of any appeal. The
notice of appeal must be in writing, and filed with the City Manager within 15 days from the date
of the Notice being appealed. The appeal shall state the name and address of the appellant, the
nature of the determination being appealed, the reason the determination is incorrect, and what the
correct determination of the appeal should be. Failure to file such a statement within the time or in
the manner required waives the appellant's objections, and the appeal shall be dismissed. Unless the
appellant and City agree to a longer time period, the appeal shall be heard by a hearings official
within 30 days of receipt of the notice of appeal. At least ten days prior to the hearing, the City shall
mail notice of the time and place of the hearing to the appellant. The hearings official shall hear and
determine the appeal on the basis of the appellant's written statement and any additional evidence
deemed appropriate. The appellant may present testimony and oral argument at the hearing either
personally or by counsel. The hearings official shall issue a written decision within ten days of the
date of the hearing. The decision of the hearings official is final, and may include a determination
that the appeal fee be refunded to the appellant upon a finding by the hearings official that the appeal
was not frivolous.
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 21
2. Appeal Fees. Appeals filed under this section shall be accompanied by an appeal fee
in an amount established by the City Manager pursuant to Section 2.020 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
The foregoing Rule is adopted this.,2}day of January, 1997, and shall become
effective February 1, 1997.
~e:-L~ ~~
Linda Norris
City Manager Pro Tem
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 22
EXHIBIT A
Administrative Rule Order No. 58-96-26-F
Erosion Prevention and Construction Site Management Practices
Written Responses to Public Notice
· William Slattery, V.P. Lane County Home Builders Association
· Kathy Bruebaker, Director of Government Affairs, Home Builders Association
· Karen Hageman, Town & Country Homes
· Paul Witt, Regal Custom Homes
· Byron Roberts
· Bob Thomas, RE/MAX Integrity
· Wade Fletcher, Northwest Staple Supply
· Micheal T. Roberts, Gale Roberts Co., Inc.
· Bart Bardwell, Benchmark Northwest
· Joy and Bruce Barrey
· Wanda S. Ballentine
· Jim Breeden, Breeden Homes
· Robert L. Breeden, Breeden Homes
· Kathy Ging
· Michael J. Omogrosso
· Steve Miller
Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 23