New Search
7. Amend the last paragraph ofR-6.645-I by adding the word "habitat" after ", <br />significant threat to life, public safety, property ..." <br />C. I` find that the proposed revisions toRule R-6.645 are necessary in order to ensure that <br />the erosion prevention program is carried out in conforl~lity with. its purpose and intent, and to avoid <br />inconsistencies between provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 and these Rules. <br />Therefore, based on the above fitldings, I hereby propose to repeal Administrative Order No. <br />58-00-26-F and amend Erosion Prevention and Construction Site Management Practices <br />Admirvistrative Rule 6.645 to provide as follows: <br />EROSION PREVENTION AND CONSTRUCTION SITE <br />MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. ADMINISTRATIVE RULER 6.645 <br />R-6.645-A .Purpose and Intent. <br />1. Purpose. These rules implement Sections 6.625 to 6.645 ofthe 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 />1.1 Prevent or minimize, to the maximum extent,ptacticable, negative impacts to <br />adjacent .properties, water quality and Related Natural Resource Areas resulting from <br />construction activities; and <br />1.2 ~1Vlaintain the capacity of the City's stormwater system by nlininvzulg <br />sedimentation. <br />2. Intent. 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 aze designed to provide developers and property <br />owners with broad discretion for addressing potential impacts of construction related activities, so <br />long.as the erosion prevention measures achieve the desired outcomes. Therefore, except for the <br />wet-weather requirements contained in R 6.645 D-2; these rules do not specify or mandate the use <br />of certain erosion prevention measures; and instead, provide applicants with flexibility to choose or <br />design erosion prevention measures subject to review by the City. The issuance of an erosion <br />prevention permit by the City will. not necessarily reflect concurrence by the City that the proposed <br />measures wl~l work. Instead, the City's review may be more 1united in many cases, relying on the <br />certification of the owners' certified professional that the proposed measures will achieve the <br />Administrative Rule - 2 <br />C::Cl'l:MY'A3!•:rosionYcev lao.wpd (1/13/U3) <br />