New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Admin Order 58-96-26-F
COE
>
PW
>
Admin
>
Execs
>
Admin Orders
>
Admin Order 58-96-26-F
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2008 3:56:09 PM
Creation date
8/15/2008 1:42:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Exec
PW_Division_Exec
Administration
PWA_Project_Area
Admin Orders
PW_Subject
Erosion Prevention Practices
Document_Date
1/22/1997
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
~1 <br /> I <br /> i <br /> the timing of building permit issuance to water quality issues. Costs incurred due to delays <br /> <br /> ~r? in building permit issuance are not relevant to water quality efforts and the erosion program <br /> and, therefore, these costs will not be included in the MEP calculation. <br /> ~ Comment 4: Maximum Extent Practicable provision is too complex for single <br /> family residential application. <br /> i!, <br /> Findin :There are standardized management measures with proven technologies <br /> that address most single family applications. Categories of MEP cost are the same for single <br /> ~ family as for other land use types. Calculating costs and determining appropriate technology <br /> is fairly straight forward and, therefore, there is no need at this time to differentiate between <br /> single family and other uses for MEP purposes. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule <br /> at this time. <br /> 1 . <br /> I'~, Comment 5: Keep the second sentence of R-6.645-D.2 in the originalAdministrative <br /> Rule version. <br /> i <br /> I Finding: This provision remains in the proposed Wile and is now located in R-6.645- <br /> II D3. There is no need to adjust the rule. <br /> i <br /> 'I Comment 6: Who will monitor nonconstruction activities? <br /> indin :The erosion program specifically addresses construction-related impacts. <br /> Other City Code provisions will address illicit discharges or nuisance-related issues. <br /> Comment 7: How and to what extent will compliance be monitored? <br /> i <br /> ~ 'ndin :Erosion staff will monitor permit holders at specific points in the <br /> construction process. Compliance with the outcomes will be assessed at each point in the <br /> inspection process. <br /> ,l <br /> Comment 8: How will cost for monitoring be paid? <br /> i' <br /> 'ndin :Monitoring and all other related program costs will be financed through <br /> j the erosion permit fees. <br /> ~ Comment 9: Don't require building inspectors to enforce this ordinance. <br /> i <br /> I <br /> F'ndin :Building inspectors are not designated as enforcement officers for this <br /> program. <br /> Comment 10: The erosion program will increase building permit processing by two <br /> weeks. <br /> Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.