New Search
J <br /> ISSUES RESPONSE REFERENCE <br /> Hazardous materials No change. Existing code requirements fall No change. <br /> already addressed by city under "illicit discharges." That code language <br /> code. is reactive - actions are taken as a result of a <br /> violation - and not proactive which is an <br /> important distinction of the erosion program. <br /> Permit duration is too Change. Links permit duration to a finding by Ordinance: <br /> long. the inspector that the site is stabilized. 6.635(1)(e). <br /> Inspector may extend permit up to 2 years. <br /> No appeal provision for Change. Appeal procedure added for permit Ordinance: <br /> decision to require permit. and sensitive area determinations. 6.635(2). <br /> Discharge limitation of 1 /2 Change. Standard changed to %2 cubic foot Admin Rules: <br /> cubic foot is too restrictive. per 1000 square feet of lot area. This is R- 6.645 -B, <br /> more -or -less equivalent to the loss of 1 ton Definition of <br /> per acre. For a typical 6,000 sq ft lot, this visible or <br /> equates to about 3 cubic feet. Requires measurable <br /> violations to be cleaned -up at end of the work erosion; <br /> shift. R-6.645-D1.3. <br /> Restriction of amount of Change. This outcome has been deleted. This Admin Rules: <br /> excavation/fill in surface issue is more applicable to on -site stormwater R- 6.645 -D. <br /> waters exceeds state standards than erosion prevention, which is Outcomes. <br /> standards. the next topic to be addressed by the DAC. <br /> No runoff over exposed Change. Outcome now requires a secondary Admin Rules: <br /> soils" is too restrictive. containment facility if soils are to be exposed. R- 6.645 -D.1.4 <br /> Requirement to address Change. This outcome has been deleted. This Admin Rules: <br /> changes of surface flow issue is more applicable to on -site R- 6.645.D. <br /> and velocities into rivers, development standards than erosion Outcomes. <br /> creeks, wetlands is too prevention, which is the next topic to be <br /> restrictive. addressed by the DAC. <br /> Proposal didn't allow for Change. This outcome was deleted as it was Admin Rules <br /> staging areas to be contrary to the overall concept of the program Deleted. <br /> included in construction which is to address issues through actual <br /> footprint. performance. <br /> 2 <br />