New Search
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-96-26-F <br />of the <br />CITY MANAGER PRO TEM <br />EROSION PREVENTION AND CONSTRUCTION <br />SITE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES , <br />ADMINISTRATIVE RULE 6.645 <br />The City Manager Pro Tem of the City of Eugene finds that: <br />A. Pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 2.019 and 6.645 of the Eugene Code, <br />1971, on December 5, .1996 I adopted Administrative Order No. 58-96-26 proposing the adoption <br />of an Administrative Rule establishing a program for managing erosion and other negative water <br />' quality impacts associated with construction activities. The rule provides procedures, definitions, <br />outcomes, approval criteria, management measures, design standards, enforcement provisions, and <br />,appeal procedures for implementing the program established by newly enacted provisions of the <br />Eugene Code, 1971. <br />B. Notice of the proposed adoption of the Erosion Prevention and Construction-Site <br />Management Practices Administrative Rule was published in the Register Guard, a newspaper of <br />general circulation within the City of five consecutive days, to-wit, on Dec 10, 11, 12, i 3, and 14, <br />1996. The Notice was also provided to' persons who had requested notice, and made available.for <br />inspection by interested persons. at the City's Public Works Department; Engineering Division, 858 <br />Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401 during normal business hours (9:00 a.m. to S:OO p.m., Monday <br />through Friday, exclusive of holidays), and made available to the general public through Eugene's <br />Home Page on the Internet. ' ` ' <br />C. The Notice provided that written comments would be received thereon for a period <br />ending at midnight, January 3,-1997. Written comments were received from 16 respondents, as <br />identified in Exhibit A hereto, to which I make the following findings: <br />Comment 1: The cost factor ($0.50 per square foot of disturbed lot area) in the <br />proposed definition of Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) is too high. There were two <br />recommendations for changing the cost factor: 1) 10 cents per square foot, and 2) 40 cents <br />per square foot. <br />Finding: The MEP concept is not a required amount of money to be spent on ' <br />erosion. control measures. The MEP represents a maximum effort that the rule requires a <br />property owner to undertake in order to meet the outcomes of the program within established <br />limitations. The limitations include technological feasibility and costs, and together they <br />define "practicable." The cost limitation provides certainty to the property owner that costs <br />will not exceed a certain amount in a worst-case scenario.. The property owner will .make <br />Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R=6.645 - 1 <br />