Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council June 8 1992WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 8, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Council Chairman Dan Warner in the Council Chambers, 1000 N. Forest Street. Also Present: Absent: Ken Henderson None. Bob Imhof Dennis Vander Yacht Marge Laidlaw Barbara Brenner Larry Harris WORK SESSION: TEMPORARY CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (AB92 -058B) General Comments A Republican Commissioner from Island County, Dwain. Colby, wrote to Laidlaw about the wetlands and transfer of development rights regulations that have been in place in Island County since 1984. In summary, Colby said in his letter (on file, AB92 -058B) that property value seems to have been enhanced by the presence of wetlands. Warner commented negatively on materials distributed to about 5,000 people by C.L.U.E. and received by Council Members June 8 (on file, AB92- 058B). The organization made many false statements (including giving an incorrect meeting time for June 9, and charging that the Council had closed meetings). Warner addressed each point and said the information is not true; he directed his comments in general to members of the audience (numbering about 30). "Your property rights are not being taken," he said. "Don't build next to the wetlands ... that's what the ordinance says." He urged people to read the ordinance. Amendments to the Ordinance Warner asked for someone to move adoption of the ordinance, in order to get it before the Council. This step was needed due to parliamentary procedure prior to amendments being made. He also stated that final action would not be taken at this meeting. LAIDLAW AND HARRIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE AT THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 9. Terry Galvin of the Planning Department went through the Temporary Critical Areas Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 1 Ordinance page by page, listing amendments suggested by the Council and by staff. [Note: The Clerk recorded the minutes in a section by section fashion, although actual discussion may not have been that orderly. A true and accurate tape.recording of the meeting will be retained for at least six years Persons reviewing these minutes should refer to the amendments submitted in writing by Council Members by Friday, June 5 (on file, AB92- 058B), to the preamble submitted by Laidlaw (attached), to the Draft Temporary Critical Areas Ordinance dated May 1992, and to other documents as referred to herein.] Section 1 - PURPOSE Laidlaw read her proposed preamble to section 1(draft attached). Imhof commented on the second paragraph, third sentence; he'd like to add ".. in these areas ..." instead of " .. in the county ..." Laidlaw said she would accept that as a friendly amendment. Third to the last line ... this ordinance ' "r =`tuanc;:: Warner said in the section "this ordinance does not address issues of compensation..." the word "possession" should be removed. There was no formal vote, but it appeared that Laidlaw accepted these last two suggestions as friendly amendments as well. Harris pointed to the fourth paragraph last sentence; the statement about the conservations futures should not be included because the use of that levy for those purposes is tentative. Brenner agreed. Harris said also the phrase "to compensate property owners..." is confusing. Vander Yacht said the first sentence says there is no intent to take the land, but if that's true, there is no need for the statement about compensation. Imhof commented. Warner asked for a vote. HARRIS MOVED TO DELETE THAT LAST SENTENCE OF THE PARAGRAPH. Henderson agreed that it muddied the water to include anything about the Heritage Plan. Laidlaw commented. Motion carried with Laidlaw and Warner opposed. The wording about state and federal laws was changed, at Vander Yacht's suggestion. BRENNER MOVED TO DELETE THE FIRST PART OF THE FIRST PART OF THE FIRST SENTENCE, BEGINNING THE SENTENCE WITH 'THERE IS..." Motion carried unanimously. BRENNER MOVED TO, IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH, SECOND SENTENCE, DELETE THE STATEMENT ABOUT CONCERN; WHERE IT SAYS '"THE ORDINANCE IS TEMPORARY, NOT BECAUSE WE THINK THE PROBLEMS WILL GO AWAY .. " DELETE THAT LAST PART OF THE SENTENCE; BRENNER SAID Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 2 SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING STRIKING THE REFERENCE TO COMMON SENSE BECAUSE THE TERM IS TOO SUBJECTIVE. There was discussion by Laidlaw and Brenner. Imhof spoke against the changes. Warner spoke. Motion failed, with Brenner in favor. WARNER MOVED TO INCLUDE THE AMENDED PREAMBLE IN THE TEMPORARY CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE. Motion carried unanimously. Galvin listed Warner's suggestion of an additional sentence prior to item number 1 in section 1.1, having to do with nature and man living in harmony. WARNER MOVED TO AMEND SECTION 1.1 AS FOLLOWS: "THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO CARRY OUT THE GOALS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN BY IDENTIFYING AND MANAGING ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS AND ECOSYSTEMS. 90 Motion carried unanimously. Galvin said Imhof and Laidlaw recommended in 2.a "Give county staff time to develop a permanent ordinance while complying with state and local laws." WARNER MOVED TO SO AMEND THE ORDINANCE. Motion carried unanimously. 0 Brenner had suggested that the order of items under section 1.2 be reversed, and explained her feelings. It would give the appearance of putting the most specific items first, the more philosophical ones later. BRENNER SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Under section 1.3, Laidlaw suggested a more specific sunset date (by deleting the words "or upon final approval of a permanent Critical Areas Ordinance, whichever comes first.. "). Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 3 LAIDI-AW SO MOVED. Harris spoke against the motion. Henderson spoke in favor: Motion failed with Vander Yacht in favor. SECTION 2 Administrator: Imhof proposed to change it to either refer to a person or team, and that the person should be approved by or confirmed by the County Council. WARNER SAID THE FIRST MOTION IS TO CHANGE THE WORD "PERSON" TO '"TEAM." There was extensive discussion. Motion ? ? ?? [at about end of side 1, start of side 2] WARNER SAID THE SECOND MOTION IS TO CHANGE THE WORDING SO THEY ARE DESIGNATED BY THE EXECUTIVE AND CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL. This item was withdrawn. BRENNER MOVED TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FUNDING FOR THIS POSITION. There was discussion. Motion failed, with Brenner in favor. Galvin said two scrivener's errors were pointed out by Harris and Imhof, regarding buffers. IMHOF MOVED TO MAKE THE CORRECTIONS AS SUGGESTED BY - GALVIN. Motion carried unanimously. Page 14, under "regulated wetlands," staff would like to add "ponds or" HARRIS SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 4 Page 15, seismic hazards, to change the words to say "risk of severe ..:' BRENNER SO MOVED Motion carried unanimously. SECTION 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS Galvin said Brenner suggested an addition to 1.21, "County officials are responsible for applying regulations consistently." BRENNER SO MOVED. The Council decided to move this line to page 19, section 3.2, and add "that this ordinance shall be consistently applied to all ordinances ..." Motion carried (as amended) unanimously. Under 3.3.2 Laidlaw proposed to amend the four years to three years. There was discussion. LAIDLAW SO MOVED. Motion carried with Brenner opposed. HARRIS MOVED TO ADD AFTER THE WORD "ORDINANCE," "OR UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PERMANENT ORDINANCE." Motion carried unanimously. At the end of that sentence Imhof had a suggestion but withdrew it. Under section 3.4.4, Imhof would like to add "diking or drainage districts" and after "chapter" add "85.05 and." Warner noted that throughout the ordinance, (such as in 3.5.3) whenever drainage districts are referred to "diking or" should be added. IMHOF SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Brenner submitted an amendment from the floor. Under section 3.4.1, emergency construction, Puget Power had a concern about waiting for approval of the administrator in emergency situations. BRENNER MOVED TO STRIKE THE WORDS "AS DETERMINED BY THE Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 5 ADMINISTRATOR" IN SECTION 3.4.1. Discussion ensued. Galvin said the maintenance perm_ its would include what constitutes an emergency. Motion failed with Brenner and Vander Yacht in favor. In section 3.4, Brenner would like to see a .5 added something about permits for utilities. Galvin said that was addressed later in the ordinance. On page 20, under maintenance permits, Brenner said she would rather see permits issued every three years, not annually. BRENNER SO MOVED. Motion failed, with Brenner and Vander Yacht in favor. IMHOF MOVED TO INSERT A NEW SECTION C UNDER 3.4: "ADVERSE IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY ARE MINIMIZED DURING SUCH ACTIVITY," STRIIGNG THE EXISTING SECTION C. Motion carried with Warner and Harris opposed. On page 22, under 3.7.2.F, Brenner wanted to add on F and G the words "subject to appeal." BRENNER SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Under 3.7.3.A, Laidlaw and Brenner wanted to change the word "May" to "Shall." Galvin spoke against this change. Laidlaw withdrew her suggestion. BRENNER MOVED TO CHANGE THE WORDING TO "APPROACH SHALL BE USED UPON THE REQUEST OF THE EFFECTED PARTY." Motion failed with Brenner and Vander Yacht in favor. Section 3.7.3.A.1, Brenner wanted to change "may" to the same wording as in the previous motion. BRENNER MOVED TO CHANGE THE WORDING TO SAY"... TEAM SHALL INCLUDE THE PROPONENT UPON REQUEST, AND MAY INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING." Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 6 Motion carried unanimously. Section 3.8.1, Harris was concerned that the preliminary` checklist will be too costly and take too much research for most proponents. Galvin suggested adding under A.4 after "addresses, phones," the words "if used." Under A.S, "critical area type" add "to be determined by the county." Under A.6, "this information will be made available by the county." Under section B, the following changes were suggested by Galvin: B, "a map... made available by the county'; B.4 "on maps made available by the county "; B.5 add "source, Whatcom County.'; B.6, add "generally" instead of "as precisely as possible." HARRIS SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Page 24, 3.8.2.E (and in other related spots) Brenner requested in her memo on the first page ... Galvin never stated what was desired. He did suggest the addition of a new section H that would say, "A report or plan from a qualified specialist shall not be required as a part of the supplement when the application is for one single family dwelling unit or accessory uses on a one legal single family lot of record." BRENNER SO MOVED. HARRIS MOVED TO AMEND BRENNER'S MOTION BY CHANGING THE WORD "SHALL" to "MAY." Motion to amend carried unanimously. Motion carried unanimously. Page 27 under fees, 3.9.1.13; Brenner requested that the existing fee schedule be changed to reflect .1 percent of the total cost (one -tenth of a percent). BRENNER SO MOVED. Motion failed with Brenner in favor. Imhof noted some numerical /mathematical errors. Those were accepted as scrivener's errors. Under 3.10, Imhof would like to eliminate the word "only" under 3.10.1. IMHOF SO MOVED. Motion carried with Warner and Harris opposed. Under 3.10.1.A and B, Council Members wanted to change the words "the applicant Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 7 proves beyond a reasonable doubt." LAIDLAW MOVED TO CHANGE THE WORDS "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' TO ' THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE CLEAR, COGENT AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE..." Watts suggested the words "a preponderance of evidence," which would create a lesser burden on the applicant. This was not accepted as an amendment by Laidlaw. Motion carried with Vander Yacht, Imhof and Brenner opposed. BRENNER MOVED TO CHANGE THE WORDING IN THAT SAME SECTION TO SAY "THE APPLICANT PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS." Motion failed with Vander Yacht and Brenner in favor. IMHOF MOVED TO CHANGE THE WORDING IN THAT SAME SECTION TO SAY "THE APPLICANT PROVIDES A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS." Motion failed with Imhof, Brenner and Vander Yacht in favor. Under 3.10.1.A.2, Imhof would like to delete the word "strict." IMHOF SO MOVED. Motion carried with Henderson and Harris opposed. Under section 3.10.2, Brenner would like the sentence to say "Variance approvals shall be done within a designated time frame determined by the Hearing Examiner." Watts said this time frame does not deal with the Hearing Examiner's decision; it's only the variance expiration. Council staff suggested: "The Hearing Examiner shall have the authority to set an expiration date for any and all variances approved." WARNER SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Laidlaw asked that item 3.10.2 be amended so that the Hearing Examiner's decision will be rendered within 10 days of the closure of the record. There was extensive discussion. LAIDLAW SO MOVED. Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 8 The motion was changed to "the Hearing Examiner will render a decision pursuant to Whatcom County Code 20.92." Motion carried unanimously. The Council took a short break and resumed the meeting at 8:15 p.m. LAIDLAW MOVED TO ADD A SECTION UNDER 3.10.1.B, "ANY PARTY OF RECORD MAY APPEAL A HEARING EXAMINER DECISION PURSUANT TO 20.92." Motion carried unanimously. LAIDLAW PROPOSED THAT TWO SECTIONS BE ADDED UNDER 3.12 TO REFLECT THE SAME CHANGES AS ABOVE. Watts said under 3.12.1, the last words saying "the action being appealed... ", the "action" needed to be fully explained. Laidlaw said it is taken care of under 3.12.3. Motion carried unanimously. Galvin suggested that instead of saying "action' the wording should say "written decision." WARNER MOVED TO DELETE THE WORD "ACTION" UNDER 3.12.1 AND REPLACE IT WITH "WITHIN 20 WORKING DAYS OF THE DATE THE WRITTEN DECISION IS SIGNED." Motion carried with Brenner opposed. Imhof suggested changing the last sentence of 3.11 to say "or a change in use is subject to approval by the administrator." Staff wanted to add "... pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance." IMHOF SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Brenner would like to change the word "discontinued" to "abandoned" in 3.11. BRENNER SO MOVED. Watts said he would need to research the difference in terms. Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June a 1992 Page 9 Motion failed with Brenner in favor. On page 29, after E, to change the wording as follows:. "shall be guilty of a civil offense and::_::?_ :: >::<tt:::::::: see page 2 of Brenner's ..:.................................... ...................:........... memo). BRENNER SO MOVED. Motion failed with Vander Yacht and Brenner in favor. SECTION 7 Page 35, Section 7.4.2; Imhof would like to see the word "eliminated" changed to "minimised." IMHOF SO MOVED. Motion failed with Vander Yacht, Imhof and Brenner in favor. SECTION 9 Page 38, under 9.2.1.C, after the words "50 percent of the" add the word "documented." BRENNER SO MOVED. Motion carried with Harris opposed. SECTION 10 Imhof would like to deleted the entire introductory paragraph, because it does not serve a purpose. IMHOF SO MOVED. Motion failed with Imhof, Brenner and Vander Yacht in favor. BRENNER MOVED TO ELIMINATE ALL THE WORDS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH AFTER "FLOOD CONTROL." Motion carried with Henderson opposed. Laidlaw wanted to move D to A under section 10.1.1, and re -order other sections accordingly. Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 10 LAIDLAW SO MOVED. Motion carried with Henderson opposed. Brenner said the original letter A, Brenner would like to delete the same language as had been deleted in the introductory paragraph. BRENNER SO MOVED. Motion carried with Henderson opposed. Under "B" Brenner wanted to delete "and water based recreational activities." BRENNER SO MOVED. Motion failed with Brenner and Henderson in favor. Under F, that same page, third line, after the words "upland sites," add "wherever practical." BRENNER SO MOVED. HENDERSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE WORDS "AS DETERMINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR." Brenner accepted that as a friendly amendment. Harris and others urged the use of the word "practicable" rather than "practical." Brenner accepted this. Motion carried unanimously. Under subsection F, item 8 should be deleted, Brenner said. BRENNER MOVED TO ELIMINATE THAT PARAGRAPH. Laidlaw suggested changing the wording to say "destroying downstream sites." Galvin said that would not address his concerns. Imhof suggested saying "off site;" Galvin said again the concerns wouldn't be met. Vander Yacht commented. Motion failed with Brenner in favor. Under subsection F, item 10, Brenner would like to delete the words "aesthetic and." Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 11 feet. BRENNER SO MOVED. Motion failed with Harris and Brenner in favor. : Under section 10.2.3,C, Harris suggested changing 15,000 square feet to 10,000 square HARRIS SO MOVED. Motion carried with Imhof and Brenner opposed. Galvin clarified that related amendments could be made throughout the document. On page 43, C, Imhof wanted to combine the first two sentences. IMHOF SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Section 10.2.3.E1 Imhof would like this section deleted or clarified. There was discussion. Henderson suggested adding, to section 10.2.4.0 after the words "Intentionally created artificial wetlandsstota�azt::> He also suggested that this ..... gg be determined when the final ordinance is being crafted, within the next three years. IMHOF MOVED TO CHANGE SECTION 10.2.3.E TO SAY "WETLANDS ALTERED BY RESTORATION." Imhof said this amendment could be refined before the June 9 meeting. On page 46, under 10.6.1.E, staff proposes to add "pesticide or fertilizer application WARNER SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Staff also recommended under G, to add "provided that in a category one and two wetland there is no adverse impact pursuant to 10.8.2." WARNER SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 12 Brenner suggested adding section 10.6.2, adding some sort of appeal process. BRENNER MOVED TO ADD A NEW SECTION. 10:6.2, SAYING THAT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD BE APPEALABLE TO THE HEARING EXAMINER AS PROVIDED BY THIS ORDINANCE. Motion carried unanimously. Under section 10.7, Imhof would like to change 10.7.1 to delete the words after "Clean Water Act," and say that the Army Corps of Engineers regulations should apply. Galvin said staff didn't like this amendment. Imhof withdrew the suggestion. On page 47, category 1 wetlands, 10.8.6.A, Imhof suggested deleting the reference to public access. Why should the public have access, he mused. Imhof withdrew his amendment. Under 10.8.6.B, Imhof wanted to deleted the last two lines of the introductory paragraph. Imhof withdrew this. Under 10.8.7.A.1, Imhof would like to delete the word "extraordinary." IMHOF SO MOVED. Motion carried with Harris, Warner and Henderson opposed. Under 10.9, introductory paragraph; Imhof would like to delete the words "e* when it can be eeneltisively shown that the functional characteristics of the existing wetland can be restored, recreated or enhanced." IMHOF SO MOVED. Motion failed with Brenner and Imhof in favor. Under 10.9.1.B, the word "sequencing" was to be added after the words "the above order..." HARRIS SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. On page 51, Henderson wanted to add under subsection H some wording about bonding. Galvin spoke against the amendment. Henderson withdrew the suggestion. Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 13 Watts said at the . end of 11.3.2.A, the phrase should be added that "unless applied by a U.S. Department of Agriculture licensed applicator." WARNER SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. The same amendment was suggested for 11.4.1.E. WARNER SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Staff moved to delete 11.6.2. WARNER SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Under 11.6.4.a, Laidlaw would like to delete this line. Staff concurred. LAIDLAW SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. LAIDLAW MOVED TO DELETE THE WORDS "AND HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS" UNDER 1.6.4.b. Motion carried unanimously. Galvin suggested adding a new section, 11.6.5, to dovetail with the Shorelines Management Program. The language would be, "Where the buffer requirements of these regulations are more stringent than the setback requirements of the shorelines management program buffers shall be set with the designation of the shorelines management program" . There was discussion. Galvin said he would massage the language and present it for the June 9 meeting. On page 63, 13.1.1.B, Brenner would like to delete this section, or to define "public trust interest." Warner said Council could delete the word "trust." Watts commented on the Public Trust Doctrine. BRENNER MOVED TO DELETE SECTION 13.1.1.B. Motion failed with Brenner in favor. Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 15 Imhof said in the. first sentence of H, ".. insure full performance ..." the sentence should end at "performance." He said he would work on that for the June 9 meeting as well. No motion was made. Section 10.10.1.B, Imhof would like to add "or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers." Imhof withdrew this one. Section 10.11, Skip Richards had asked Galvin to replace this section with the City of Bellingham's public interest test. BRENNER SO MOVED. Henderson asked that this decision be delayed to the June 9 meeting. There were objections. Motion carried unanimously. SECTION 11 Under 11.1.A and B, Brenner made suggestions for changes. BRENNER MOVED TO ELIMINATE OPEN SPACE, AESTHETICS AND RECREATION FROM SECTION A. Motion failed with Harris and Brenner in favor. Under 11.3.1.11, Laidlaw would like to add a section I that would allow gravel extraction from the Nooksack and Sumas drainage basins. LAIDLAW MOVED TO ADD A NEW SECTION 11.3.1.I, TO EXEMPT PERMITTED MINERAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION OPERATIONS. Motion carried unanimously. BRENNER MOVED TO ADD ANEW SECTION J, TO EXEMPT EMERGENCY _ REMOVAL OF DEBRIS FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND DIKE STABILIZATION. Brenner withdrew this motion. Under 11.3.2.A, Imhof wanted to add "dikes" between "lawns" and "drainage facilities." IMHOF SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 14 Brenner and Harris asked Galvin to bring a definition of "public Arust interest" for the Council to consider June 9. Galvin commented on 13.2.2.A, where criteria is defined for a wildlife conservation area. It doesn't set buffers, just identifies wildlife conservation areas. On page 66, the only regulations that apply to this section are listed in 13.6. No development is restricted in these areas. There was discussion. Brenner would want a definition of some sort included., BRENNER MOVED TO ADD UNDER 13.2.2.A SOMETHING THAT SAYS CERTAIN ACTIVITIES ARE EXEMPT. Warner said he didn't think it would fit there. BRENNER MOVED TO ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH UNDER 13.6. "ACTIVITY MAY OCCUR IN WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE RECOMMENDED BUFFERS WHICH PRESENT NO SERIOUS RISK OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT OR ISOLATION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS." Motion failed with Brenner and Vander Yacht in favor. WARNER MOVED TO AMEND 13.6 TO READ "...THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPROVE DEVELOPMENT IN WILDLIFE RECOMMENDED BUFFERS IF IT PRESENTS NO SERIOUS RISK OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT..." Motion carried unanimously. Galvin recommended deleting appendix A. WARNER SO MOVED. Motion carried unanimously. LAIDLAW MOVED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 3.16, "EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE," ADDING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: "IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.30 OF THE COUNTY CHARTER, ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WILL TAKE EFFECT 30 DAYS AFTER ADOPTION OR AT SUCH TIME THAT APPROPRIATE STAFF ARE HIRED TO CARRY OUT THIS ORDINANCE, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST." There was discussion. Laidlaw said she felt it would be best if staff were available to enforce the ordinance after 30 days, although the rest of the ordinance would become effective immediately. Harris argued against the amendment, because he felt there is a benefit to having a law on the books even if enforcement is difficult. Henderson said the presence of a law doesn't always mean it is being enforced. Watts said Council could not Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 16 have a law in effect and prohibit it from being enforced. Motion failed, with Imhof in favor. _ Warner said other amendments will be made at the Council meeting June 9. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ATTEST: Ramona Reeves, Clerk of the Council WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Daniel M. Warner, Council Chairman Minutes of the Critical Areas Work Session, June 8, 1992 Page 17 CAO AMENDMENT P R E A M B L E Marge 6/92 As part of the growth management process, the'Temporary Critical Areas Ordinance. is designed to set standards ..that.- be applied to help protect the health,ssafety and _1welfare of the public by allowing careful development in -and around geol�ically hazardous, alluvial fan, wetland, river, stream, aquifer recharge, fish,. and wildlife areas. This ordinance seeks to specify the framework that will be applied to define and protect those areas considered critical, while still allowing development to continue in the county. A variety of exemptions and options exist so that property owners can still continue to improve and develop their properties. What is regulated are the impacts that further development will have on critical areas.. % -- The County also affirms that the zoning code (Title 20) is a companion odocument which provides property owners with yet more options, such as clustering the allowable number of buildings,*- in order to avoid adverse impacts on critical areas.' This ordinance does not address issues of compensation because there is no intent on the part of governemnt�to take possession of any land as the result of this process. If such an extreme situation were to occur, the County recognizes existing federal and state laws and procedures which are already in place to guarantee a fair hearing and just. compensation to any private property owner. The County has identified the Conservation Futures Levy as r)a source of funds to compensate property owners. The ordinance is complex because the issues are complex.- If there were simple solutions, there would be no concern. - But the problems associated with population-and growth will continue. The ordinance 'is' t'em..o... , not because the problems are expected to go away, .but because the knowledge and experience gained from -this temporary ordinance,-will allow our community to make cahnges in the-next ordinance which will carry us into the 21st century with balance and common sense.