Item 6: Ordinance on Delta Sand and Gravel

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT A Staff Analysis for Delta Sand and Gravel July 28, 2008 On April 21, 2008, after reviewing draft ordinances and findings, the City Council passed the following motion: “I move to direct staff to perform further analysis of the application’s consistency with the criteria, considering citizen involvement and transportation-related impacts, impacts caused by mining of the aquaclude within 150 feet of existing residences, noise impacts on existing residences and the impact approval would have on the supply of residential land. I further move to direct staff to, if that analysis warrants, return to City Council with revised findings for Ordinance 1 (Council Bill 4791) determining that the application has failed to meet additional criteria.” Staff’s analysis below addresses the issues contained in the motion and, where revised findings could be warranted, a generalized description of the revised findings. Attachment B includes the draft ordinance denying the application, with modified findings incorporating the findings recommended in the staff analysis. These changes to the findings are shown in legislative format. 1. Citizen Involvement (Goal 1) The City is required to consider citizen involvement under Statewide Planning Goal 1 (“To ensure the opportunity for citizen involvement in all phases of the planning process”). Findings responding to Goal 1 are especially important for this project because there was public testimony that raised concerns about the citizen involvement procedures used to consider the application. The Goal 1 findings, as they appeared in the materials for the Council’s April 21, 2008 work session, address the concerns raised by some participants as follows: ”Some participants raised concerns about the procedures used to consider the application. The applicant’s request is composed of numerous applications. Those applications, taken alone, would be subject to different review procedures under the City and County Codes. Under one applicable process, the City Council and Board of Commissioners would not have accepted new evidence for their review (instead, they would base their decision on the evidence gathered in the Planning Commissions’ process). However, another applicable process required them to accept new evidence. To allow for a consolidated review while ensuring that no participant’s substantial right is prejudiced, the City and County opted to accept new evidence. The criteria applicable to the applications are very similar, making it nearly impossible to judiciously oversee a process that