New Search
<br /> • ':r u <br /> ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER N0.58-9b-2b <br /> of the <br /> j CITY MANAGER <br /> PROPOSED EROSION PREVENTION AND CONSTRUCTION <br /> SITE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES <br /> ~ ADMINISTRATIVE RULE b.b45 <br /> j Pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 2.019 and 6.645 of the Eugene Code, 1971, <br /> I intend to adopt Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645, to read and provide: <br /> ~I <br /> EROSION PREVENTION ADMINISTRATIVE RULE R-b.b45 <br /> j <br /> ~ L R-6.b45-A Purpose and Intent. <br /> I <br /> 1. ose. These rules implement Sections 6.625 to 6.645 of the Eugene Code, 1971, <br /> which were adopted to restrict the discharge of sediments.or other construction related materials, <br /> including hazardous substances, into the City's stormwater system in order to: <br /> i'', <br /> 1.1 Prevent or minimize, to ,the maximum extent possible, negative impacts to <br /> adjacent properties, water quality and related natural resources resulting from construction <br /> ' activities; and <br /> 1.2 Maintain the capacity of the City's stormwater system by minimizing <br /> sedimentation. <br /> 2. ent. The intent of these rules, in implementing sections 6.625 to 6.645 of~the <br /> Eugene Code, 1971, is to ensure that construction related activities prevent or minimize erosion, <br /> sedimentation; and other stormwater related problems identified in subsection 1 above. To carry-out <br /> ~ the intent of the these rules, it is the goal of the City' s erosion prevention program to review and <br /> ~ respond to all erosion permit applications in a timely manner so that these provisions do not increase <br /> the time frame for issuing other permits. These rules are designed to provide developers and <br /> property owners with broad discretion for addressing, potential .impacts of construction related <br /> activities, so long as the erosion pr~.vention measures achieve the desired outcomes. These rules <br /> therefore do not specify or mandate the use of certain erosion prevention measures, and instead, <br /> II provide applicants with flexibility to choose or design erosion prevention measures subject to review <br /> 1, byt the City. The issuance of an erosion prevention permit by the City will not necessarily reflect <br /> cdncurrence by the City that the proposed measures will work. Instead, the City's review may be <br /> mere limited in many cases, relying on the certification of the owners certified professional that the <br /> proposed measures will achieve the mandated outcomes. In such cases, the City's review may be <br /> limited to making an evaluation that the_proposed measures address anticipated impacts. Where the <br /> Proposed Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 1 12/4/96 <br /> <br />