New Search
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-96-26-F <br /> of the <br /> CITY MANAGER PRO TEM <br /> a <br /> EROSION PREVENTION AND CONSTRUCTION <br /> SITE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES <br /> ADMINISTRATIVE RULE 6.645 <br /> ~ <br /> i <br /> j' 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 /> i <br /> j ~ 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, 13, and 14, <br /> j 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 /> j j Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401 during normal business hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday <br /> through Friday, exclusive of holidays), and made available to the general public through Eugene's <br /> ~ I 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 /> I ~ identified in Exhibit A hereto, to which I make the following findings: <br /> r <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 /> I I per square foot. <br /> 'ndin 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 /> <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 /> <br />