New Search
Finding: Stop work orders will be considered on a case-by-case basis and the extent <br /> of their application will be determined at that time. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the <br /> rule at this time. <br /> Comment 23: Required vegetative buffer would render most lots unbuildable. <br /> Finding: There is no requirement for a vegetative buffer. There is a definition of <br /> a vegetative buffer which relates to Section 6.645-E.2. This section allows a property owner <br /> to present evidence that a lot should not be considered a "sensitive azea" if existing <br /> conditions, such as a "vegetative perimeter buffer" exists. This definition, therefore, <br /> provides exceptions to permit requirements. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at <br /> this time. <br /> Comment 24: Outcome 1.3 is too extreme as it defines allowable discharge at %z <br /> cubic foot. <br /> Findin :This outcome was modified from the original version. Current version <br /> allows discharge of %2 cubic foot per 1,000 squaze feet of lot size. This issue has already <br /> been addressed and, therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at this time. <br /> Comment 25: During extreme weather conditions, the program should be <br /> suspended. <br /> Findinn: Section R-6.645-C3.2 of the rule provides an exemption to remove or <br /> alleviate emergency conditions. This section provides authority to address extreme <br /> conditions on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at this time. <br /> Comment 26: Program is being weakened. <br /> Finding: While it is true that the allowable discharge standard has increased, other <br /> provisions have increased such as requiring all construction activities to address the <br /> outcomes. Under State law, only sites greater than five acres in size aze subject to erosion <br /> requirements. The dedication of two full-time staff resources to this program will increase <br /> the program's effectiveness over current levels (State of Oregon). <br /> D. In addition to the specific findings set forth above, I find that adoption of the <br /> proposed rule is necessary in order to implement newly enacted provisions of the Eugene Code, <br /> 1971. <br /> Based on the above fmdings, which are hereby adopted, I hereby adopt Erosion Prevention <br /> and Construction Site Management Practices Administrative Rule R-6.645 to provide: <br /> EROSION PREVENTION AND CONSTRUCTION SITE <br /> <br /> Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 6 <br /> <br />