Camas Draft SMP Public Comments 2011

Camas Draft SMP Public Comments 2011 File 2/15/11 Manoj Kripalani Owner, Camas Produce Mr. Kripalani submitted, per procedure and as an interested party, his corrections to the SMP regarding his property and the surrounding area. He also asked for an opportunity to address the Planning Commission on these issues. File 2/25/11 Manoj Kripalani Letter from Mr. Kripalani to Phil Bourquin, Community Development Director, asking to meet informally and discuss their differences on the SMP. File 8//11 Camas Lakeland LLC Camas Lakeland LLC asked for the following issues to be reviewed and corrected: 1. The name of Mill Pond not be changed. 2. That Mill Pond be inventoried per Governing principle. 3. That Mill Pond be separated from Adoption Authority because Mill Pond does not meet the two specifics of size and flow and is not navigable. 4. That the language acknowledging Mill Pond in the document be removed. 5. That navigable waters be marked and differentiated from waters that are not navigable. 6. That the section 2.5.3 Non conforming lots be removed from the SMP. File 10/31/11 Gary W. Kaiser Vice President, Georgia Pacific File 11/2/11 Dean Sutherland Senior Manager of Government and Community Affairs, Clark Public Utilities Letter from Mr. Kaiser proposing that the areas surrounding the dams on Upper and Lower Lacamas Lake be designated Urban Conservancy and stating the reasons why. Mr. Sutherland stated the concern of CPU regarding the following issues: 1. Suggested that Camas change the heights of distribution and transmission poles to 45 feet. 2. Suggests that electrical transmission lines or poles be included in the uses in Table 6-1. 3. Suggested that the language in section 6.3.15 regulation 2 regarding electrical transmission lines be revised to be consistent with the Clark County and Vancouver SMP. Mr. Kripalani has filed legal action on these concerns. No further response is warranted at this time. The Director met with Mr. Kripalani on multiple occasions prior to this letter and afterwards. #1. This is an inaccurate statement. There is no contemplation or proposal to change the name Mill Pond. #2-6. Mr. Kripalani has filed legal action on these concerns. No further response is warranted at this time. The city supports the reasons for this designation change and it will be reflected in Section 4.4.4 and on the December 20, 2011, map. 1. Height change request is reasonable. Where there are existing transmission lines inside the 100-foot buffer areas, then maintenance of existing facilities is allowed under the program. 2. Electrical transmission poles are already in the table, given response to #1. 3. No change to this section is warranted. File 11/9/11 George Fornes, Biologist, Priority Habits and Species Program, State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Mr. Fornes commented favorably on the integration of WDFW suggestions regarding previous SMP drafts. In the Draft Inventory and Characterization Report (June 2010) draft, he suggested that language in Marine Mammals, 5 th paragraph, regarding California sea lions be revised due to recent developments Mr. Fornes recommended language changes in the following sections of the October 6, 2011 draft: Armoring-3.9.2.1; 3.9.2.3 Mining-Prohibit on gravel mining in aquatic designations. Setbacks-Recommends the City of Camas adds more explicit language for the Page 1 of 2 The city requested, but was not granted permission from the Coalition Project Manager to modify the Inventory documents, regardless of inaccuracies. Armoring-3.9.2.1 Recommended change was made. 3.9.2.3 City does not have this section in the draft SMP. Mining-The city proposes to require a shoreline CUP for gravel mining in aquatic designations. There are no existing operations. Setbacks- There was not a specific setback

Camas Draft SMP Public Comments 2011 File 11/9/11 George Fornes, Biologist, Priority Habits and Species Program, State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) File 11/9/11 George Fornes, Biologist, Priority Habits and Species Program, State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) protection of channel migration zones. Vegetation Conservation- Address the idea of clearing for views in 5.8, 5.9, 3.12.2 (examples noted) Hazard Trees- 5.8.5, 5.8.7, 5.8.6. Ideas related and could create an unfortunate situation. 5.8.5 WDFD suggests developers prepare for avoiding hazard tree removal. Habitat Conservation Areas- 5.3.2.7, Suggests sequential order of preference for Appendix D. Miscellaneous- To be consistent with RCW 77.55.181, Section 2.3.2.; to conform, one of three criteria (included) should be met. 2.3.2..a-c. Item c should not indicate that WDCD review would not be required. 6.3.3.4, Docks that would require dredging, Docks being located in spawning areas, No maximum of surface area. 6.3.3.4.14 phrasing change. requested. Vegetation Conservation- Incorporated suggestions as recommended. Hazard Trees- Incorporated suggestions as recommended. Habitat Conservation Areas- The change to sequencing was made as recommended by you and Ecology at Appendix D, Section.51.170. Ch. 2 - The exemption section at # clarified that all fish enhancement projects require WDFW review. The criteria as suggested will not be added to our Program, given that the text refers the proponent to the criteria at RCW 77.55.181. Dock location in spawning areas will be restricted. The maximum surface area is to be determined by necessity see #14. Revised to add the owner/lessee as suggested. Page 2 of 2

The following comments were directed to the City of Camas in a letter dated November 2, 2011, from the Department of Ecology. Ch. 1 Nov. 9 Page 1-1, Section 1.3 Background: The second paragraph is a bit confusing as it speaks to Revised as suggested. the adoption of this program. However, I believe you are referring to the prior SMP. In the third paragraph Battle Ground (and Yacolt?) should be added to the list of Coalition partners. Ch. 1 Nov. 9 Page 1-6, Section 1.9 Relationship to Other Plans and Regulations: Provision 5 indicates that previously approved projects are considered accepted. Do you mean vested? In addition, I believe the last sentence should refer to an approved permit or perhaps it should say plan and/or permit? Revised as follows: Projects in the shoreline jurisdiction that have been previously approved through local and state reviews are vested. Major changes that were not included in the originally approved permit will be subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. Ch. 2 Ch. 2 Ch. 2 Ch. 2 Ch. 2 Nov. 9 Page 2-1: The first paragraph in 2.1.1 provides the definition for shoreline jurisdiction within the City of Camas. It includes critical areas with associated buffer areas. Because of the discrepancy between this statement and the comment response matrix e- mailed to me (which indicates that the City will regulate the buffer area attached to associated wetlands, I want to ensure I clearly understand Camas s intention with regard to critical area buffers. As written in 2.1, you are defining shoreline jurisdiction to include all buffer areas necessary for all types of critical areas, not just wetland buffers. Nov. 9 2.1.1, second paragraph lists shoreline waters. Narrow Lake (a.k.a. Mill Pond) is not a shoreline waterbody in and of itself. Rather it is part of Round Lake. I recommend rewriting this to say Round Lake including that portion called Narrow Lake (a.k.a. Mill Pond) to make this more clear. Nov. 9 Page 2-7, Section 2.3.3 Statements of Exemption: Provision 4 should also include the requirement to send a copy of a written exemption to Ecology if federal permits are also required for the project (for example, wetland fills, dredging and overwater/in water structures would all require federal permits). Please see WAC 173-27-050 which sets forth this requirement. Nov. 9 Page 2-9, Section 2.6 Shoreline Variance: Here and in Section 2.7 along with provisions in Appendix B Administration and Enforcement all state that the City will make a recommendation on shoreline Variance and Conditional Use Permits which is then forwarded to Ecology. In all cases, the City is required to issue a final decision which is then filed with Ecology. Please replace the word recommendation with final decision (see WAC 173-27-130(1)). This is a needed change. Nov. 9 In addition, the Variance criteria contained in WAC 173-27-170 should be referenced. I recommend you add a provision (like provision 5 in Section 2.7) that refers to the requirement to be consistent with the WAC criteria. Page 1 of 25 Revised as suggested for consistency. The city s intent is as you interpreted. Revised sentence as recommended. Revised as suggested to #4. Revised every instance in SMP and Appendix B to reflect a change to city s decision. Added the reference to the WAC.

Ch. 2 Nov. 9 Page 2-10, Section 2.7 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit: Provision 4 is not consistent with WAC 173-27-0(3) which states that unclassified uses may be authorized when the Removed Coalition language and it is now consistent with WAC. applicant can demonstrate consistency with WAC 173-27-0 and the shoreline master program. The WAC criteria contain no statement about extraordinary circumstances precluding reasonable use of the property, which is a consideration more properly addressed under variance permits. Please rewrite this provision deleting this phrase. This is a needed change. Ch. 2 Nov. 9 The last sentence in Provision 4 should be a standalone provision: uses specifically Revised as suggested. prohibited by this Program may not be authorized. Ch. 4 Nov. 9 Page 4-1, Section 4.3: Mid-paragraph is a reference to the shoreline designation rationale being contained in Appendix B which is no longer correct. Deleted this provision. Ch. 4 Ch. 5 Ch. 5 Ch. 5 Nov. 9 Page 4-9, Section 4.4 Official Shoreline Map: I recognize you attempted to address my original comment by revising language in Section 4.4.4 Boundary Interpretation. However, I don t believe this fully addresses my concern or the requirement in the WAC. Ecology, and anyone else, absolutely needs to know the location of the end of one shoreline designation and the beginning of another. In some areas on your map, combined with the language in Section 4.4.4, it is clear; for example the shift from High Intensity to Medium Intensity which occurs at the centerline of SE 6 th Ave. However, there are other locations where this is not clear; for example the shift from High Intensity to Medium Intensity that occurs along State Route 14 upstream of Lady Island. These locations either need to be clearly delineated on the map and/or be described in the SMP. This is a needed change. Nov. 9 Page 5-2, Section 5.1 General Shoreline Use and Development Regulations: Regulation 10 references mitigation sequencing language in.51.170. It appears this language differs from that contained in the Guidelines (WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) and in our wetland Mitigation Guidance both of which have a specific order of priority. Note from 11/9 email: Please revise consistent with the Guidelines. This is a needed change. Nov. 9 Page 5-2, Section 5.2 Archaeological, Cultural and Historic Resources: In this draft you have included your local archaeological code (Chapter.31) in Appendix D. While you can do this, I recommend that you instead include language necessary to meet the Guidelines requirements and then loosely reference (rather than making it part of your SMP) your archaeological ordinance. Nov. 9 Page 5-2, Section 5.3 Critical Areas Protection: As currently formatted, my understanding is that the language contained in Appendix D will be part of your SMP, rather than adopting your critical area code by reference. This is an acceptable approach. Revisions to the designations map will be reflected in a draft before Planning Commission on December 20, 2011. Revised as suggested to Appendix D, Section.51.170 to read in the verbatim order as WAC 173-26. Revised as suggested. Thank you. Page 2 of 25

Ch. 5 Nov. 9 Pages 5-2 to 5-3, Provision 3(a) through (d) list areas in Camas where you propose to modify the buffers that would otherwise be required. Supporting justification needs to be The cumulative impacts analysis will further address these unique shoreline provided including evidence of on-the-ground conditions that have been documented areas. This area is the oldest section of (these should have been shown in your Inventory and Characterization). In addition, this town, and was fully developed in the will need to be factored in to your Cumulative Impacts Assessment and No Net Loss report 1930 s. This particular area has shown to ensure you are still able to meet the no net loss requirement in the Guidelines. slope stability and relatively unchanged vegetation cover since the 1950 aerial photos that is part of the record. Ch. 5 Nov. 9 Page 5-4, Section 5.4 Flood Prevention and Flood Damage Minimization: Regulation 5 indicates that fill will require a shoreline Conditional Use Permit. This is not reflected anywhere else in the Program (see Section 5.7.2 Clearing, Grading, Fill and Excavation) nor is fill listed in Table 6-1. Please clarify when a Conditional Use Permit will be required for this activity. You might want to take a look at Vancouver and Clark County s revised proposed language. Revised at #5 and #11 to not require a shoreline CUP. Ch. 5 Nov. 9 Pages 5-7 to 5-8, Section 5.7.2 Clearing, Grading, Fill and Excavation: See my comment directly above on Section 5.4. In addition, Regulation 7 is more permissive and inconsistent with the definition of fill in the Guidelines (and contained in Chapter 7, definition #59). There is no requirement that materials come from off-site, nor is there a limitation on the amount of material placed or elevation change, in order for it to be considered fill under the SMP. Please revise this regulation to be consistent with the Guidelines. This is a needed change. Nov. 9 Table 6-1: The table provides for heights greater than 35 in a number of instances. You are allowed to do this in the SMP but must also ensure that RCW 90.58.320 is met at the time of permitting. A footnote here and/or in the Administrative chapter would notify applicants and the shoreline administrator that a proposal for a structure exceeding the 35 height limit will need to provide evidence (often a view impact study) demonstrating that view obstruction will not occur. Nov. 9 Table 6-1: Setbacks listed under Recreational Uses appear a bit odd with the smallest setback allowed in the most sensitive and protective designation (Natural). Why is there this discrepancy? This provision has been deleted, given that provision #6 adequately addresses this issue. This provision is stated on the first page of the chapter (prior to the table) at #2. This difference is directly related to the types of trail design that would be located in a Natural area (e.g. meandering soft surface trail) versus a (e.g. 30 dual pedestrian/bike path) Medium Intensity shoreline. The design of trail is guided by the city s park and trail master plan as referred to in the table and later in the specifics. Page 3 of 25

Nov. 9 Table 6-1: Footnote 2 is not added to the setback standards for residential and transportation uses. Is there a reason for this? In addition, Footnote 2 seems to allow a reduction in the buffer if the buffer is less well vegetated, which goes contrary to what most scientific recommendations would say: the less intact the buffer, the greater the setback. We should probably discuss the intent behind this footnote so I have a better understanding. Note from 11/9 email: After discussing this issue, my understanding is that the City would like to recognize existing conditions on those sites which are already developed. I expect we will continue to work on this to arrive at an acceptable solution. Nov. 9 Page 6-10, Section 6.3.3.4 Moorage Facilities: Docks, Piers, and Mooring Buoys: The Revised as suggested. second sentence of Regulation 4 appears to be an incomplete sentence. As written, it doesn t make much sense. Nov. 9 Page 6-11, Section 6.3.3.4: Regulation uses the phrase U.S. Pierhead/Bulkhead line. Does this exist on the Columbia River and is it mapped? If not, is it necessary? Deleted as discussed with you on the phone. Nov. 9 Page 6-12, Section 6.3.3.4: Regulation 23 was revised in response to earlier comments regarding the need for dimensional requirements. I am confused, however, by how 23(b) can be implemented in conjunction with the other elements in Regulation 23. We should probably discuss this and I also recommend you contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for their review. Removed confusing provision, given those later, clearer requirements. Nov. 9 Page 6-13, Section 6.3.3.4: Regulation 25 sets dimensions for a recreational float. I generally consider recreational floats as a stand-alone structure that is not attached to a pier and ramp (e.g. a swim float). Was that your intention? If so, you might want to consider a square footage limitation rather than dictating an 8 x 20 float. If you intended this to address floats attached to pier-ramp structures (as a part of a dock), I recommend you include it in Regulation 23 which speaks to recreational docks and piers but appears to be silent on the float size. Nov. 9 I recognize you revised the definition for joint-use and shared moorage (Definition 150 on page 7-) in response to my earlier comments. However, it doesn t appear to address the issue I raised about a joint-use dock for two adjoining waterfront residential property owners. The definition remains focused on community or park facilities. It isn t clear how a dock or pier proposal by two to four property owners would be addressed in this SMP, nor does it restrict these facilities to at least two waterfront property owners (in those cases where the dock is not proposed to serve a subdivision with a community waterfront tract). I found one suggested definition in Army Corps of Engineers literature: Joint use means constructed and utilized by more than one residential waterfront property owner or by a homeowner s association that owns waterfront property. We should discuss this. Revised as suggested. The city assumed these would be stand alone. See Section 6.3.3.4 #12 (b and c). These provisions require two or more properties to share a joint dock, unless these properties existed prior to the adoption of the program. Then at Table 6-1 footnote 3, prohibits new docks on the Washougal and requires joint-use only on the lake. Page 4 of 25

Nov. 9 Page 6-14, Section 6.3.4 Commercial Uses: Regulation 4 begins by saying non-water Revised as suggested. oriented commercial uses are permitted. I would strongly recommend rewording this to say Non-water oriented commercial uses are allowed as a conditional use where Permitted uses and activities are generally understood to be those things that can be authorized with a substantial development permit. Nov. 9 Regulation 4.c.i references WRIA Salmon Restoration Plans. WRIA is not included in the acronym list or defined anywhere. I recommend you provide a bit more detail on what plans are being referenced here. Deleted this acronym and reference, since it appears that ESA included a plan that is only for Puget Sound salmon recovery. Nov. 9 Page 6-14, Regulation 6: You might want to clarify that this regulation addresses waterrelated and water-enjoyment commercial uses in the Urban Conservancy environment. You have already addressed non-water-oriented uses in Regulation 4. Revised as suggested. Nov. 9 Page 6-15, Section 6.3.5 Forest Practices: Are there any commercial forest lands within the city limits of Camas? If not, should this activity be identified as an allowed use? Assuming you don t make any additional changes, I recommend reorganizing the regulations to make better sense. Regulation 1 would become #4, Regulations 2 and 3 become 1 and 2 respectively, Regulation 4 would be #5 and Regulation 5 would become #3. Regulation 6 remains #6. Nov. 9 Page 6-, Section 6.3.6 Industrial Uses: It appears you have an unnecessary subsection (subsection 6.3.6.1). Nov. 9 Page 6-, Regulation 1 is inconsistent with Table 6-1, which only shows Non-water oriented industrial uses as a permitted use in the High Intensity designation. Please resolve this inconsistency. This is a needed change. Nov. 9 Pages 6-17 to 6-18, Section 6.3.7 Log Storage: Is this an activity that takes place in Camas and only in water? Are there any upland log storage areas in shoreline jurisdiction? Table 6-1 shows all upland log storage as prohibited which conflicts with Regulation 8 on page 6-18. Please resolve this inconsistency. This is a needed change. Nov. 9 Page 6-18, Section 6.3.9 Mining: Is there any mining occurring within Camas? Is this activity consistent with your Comprehensive Plan? If not, it may make more sense to prohibit this activity. Nov. 9 Page 6-20, Section 6.3.10 Parking: The Guidelines are very clear that parking is not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as necessary to support an authorized use. (WAC 173-26-241(3)(k)). This means that parking as a primary use should be listed as a prohibited use in your SMP. Parking accessory to an authorized use is allowed and I think you can add language to address the situation you described where the use is located outside shoreline jurisdiction but the parking is located within jurisdiction. I would hope that this is an unusual circumstance, not a normal one. In addition, there should be language that generally requires parking to be landward of the use it is serving. Page 5 of 25 No there are not any commercial forest lands. Revisions were made as suggested both in this letter and as discussed with you on the phone. Deleted subsection number. Revised text rather than table for consistency. Nov. 9 Regulation 3 appears to be missing some language. Revised as noted. Deleted this text section to be consistent with the table, since there is not log storage upland in Camas. Mining is permitted in Camas as a rock quarry use. Revised for clarity. The city recognizes that there are a few properties that contain uses that are not shoreline uses and their structures are not located in shoreline management areas. However, the parking accessory to that use is within the management area and setback the minimum 150-feet from OHWM as required in the current and proposed SMP.

Nov. 9 Pages 6-20 to 6-21, Section 6.3.11 Recreational Development: I recommend you check noted for consistency with the provisions in Table 6-1 and the language in this section. Nov. 9 Page 6-21, Section 6.3.12 Residential Development: In my previous review of various drafts, I failed to note that there appear to be no provisions that set standards for either Revised text of Sec. 6.3.12. The city s zoning code (CMC Title 18) provides lot residential density or minimum frontage width (see WAC 173-26-211(5)(f)(ii)(B)). The dimensions. There are two reaches 1 in the checklist indicates there are policies that meet this requirement. However, required city that have underlying residential standards can t be met by policy language alone. You must include regulations to zoning, which have not been developed. implement these policies. These standards are often set forth in the Development Otherwise the city s residential waterfront Standards table, and while Table 6-1 identifies building setbacks and heights, it is silent on is fully developed. At reach LACK_LK_01, lot width or density requirements in those shoreline designations that allow residential the residential land is separated from the uses. Other sections of the SMP do address setbacks, buffers, shoreline stabilization, lake by Leadbetter Road. The minimum lot vegetation conservation, critical area protection and water quality. However, absent lot width or density standards, presumably the same sort of residential development could width for this R-7.5 zone is 70 feet at a occur within Medium Intensity as could take place in Rural Conservancy Resource density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre. At Lands. [This comment is addressed to the Coalition as a whole and I have transmitted it by Reach COLU_RV_03c it is zoned R-10, e-mail separately on September 22, 2011.] This is a needed change. which allows lot size widths of 80-feet at a density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Nov. 9 Pages 6-23 to 6-24, Section 6.3.14 Transportation Uses: Regulation 7 may not always be Revised as suggested. possible and allows little flexibility. I recommend you rewrite this (or add the phrase where feasible. There may be circumstances that preclude co-location of these facilities but it certainly should be a clear preference in the SMP. Nov. 9 Pages 6-28 to 6-29, Section 6.4.3 Flood Control Works and In-Stream Structures: Regulation 5 appears to have a typographical error where it says the protected flood stage. I believe you intended to say projected or predicted flood stage. Revised to predicted. Nov. 9 I made the following comment to other Clark County jurisdictions: Please add a provision under the Design sub-heading that addresses the requirement to place structural flood hazard reduction measures landward of associated wetlands and vegetation conservation areas unless there is no other feasible alternative to reduce flood hazard to existing development. (See WAC 173-26-221(3)(c)(iii)). The regulations cited in the checklist do not address this issue. This is a needed change. Nov. 9 Your comment matrix asks that I clarify how to address this comment (shown above). Here is language from the Vancouver Draft SMP (dated October 2011): Structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be placed landward of associated wetlands and vegetation conservation areas unless there is no other feasible alternative to reduce flood hazard to existing development. This is intended to ensure connectivity between wetlands and/or habitat areas is retained as much as possible. In effect, this expresses a preference for setting the levee back from the edge of the river/stream. The Guidelines also state: The need for, and analysis of feasible alternatives to, structural improvements shall be documented through a geotechnical analysis. Inserted this provision verbatim from the example as #2 in this subsection. See response above. 1 LACK_LK_01 and COLU_RV_03c Page 6 of 25

Nov. 9 With regard to gravel removal for flood management purposes, this is an activity that does occur though far less than in the past. In general, the activity is a dredging, rather than a mining, activity. The Guidelines require that this sort of activity be consistent with an adopted flood hazard reduction plan and allowed only after a biological and geomorphological study shows that extraction has a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction, does not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and is part of a comprehensive flood management solution. In gravel removal for flood management purposes is seen as a potential activity in Camas, I recommend you address this issue. Per email (12/8/2011) this comment has been satisfied. The provision is found at Section 5.4 as Regulation #7 on page 5-4. Nov. 9 Finally, the City of Camas needs to address channel migration zone issues more specifically. While not included in the city-specific Inventory and Characterization report, this was an oversight. Absent more current scientific information that I am unaware of, the best we ve got right now is in the work done by Patricia Olson, Hydrogeologist in the Shorelands Program. Early in the update process, a map showing Potential Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Areas was developed from the information provided. This map is Map 27 in the Clark County Coalition Inventory & Characterization and it shows the lower reach of the Washougal River and a segment of Lacamas Creek upstream of Lacamas Lake with Moderate-High Potential. Portions of both appear to be within Camas city limits. I sent comments to the Coalition earlier in the process about this issue but will include these as attachments to this letter for your information. I recommend you review Clark County s approach to this issue as a possible way to address it in your SMP. Nov. 9 Page 6-31, Section 6.4.5 Shoreline Stabilization General: In response to my comments on earlier SMP drafts, you indicate on the matrix that the City does not have expertise regarding this activity. I believe you misunderstood the intent behind my comments, which does not address the issue of expertise, but rather, the circumstances under which a structural (hardened) stabilization approach may be used. In all instances, a geotechnical analysis would be required to show need (danger to a primary structure) which results from waves, currents or tidal action and not, for example, from upland conditions such as poorly managed stormwater or vegetation removal. I recommend you read WAC 173-26- 231(3)(a)(B). Alternatively, if you can show that you have provisions that would meet or exceed these requirements, please list them on the checklist. I sent the following comment to City of Vancouver on this same issue: I commented on the need to include regulations consistent with the standards set forth in WAC 173-26- 231(3)(a)(B). In our phone conversation, you indicated you believed these are met adequately by provisions in your bank erosion regulations under your critical areas. Please provide information on where the applicable provisions are that help you meet these standards. The provisions referenced in the June 2011 checklist were inadequate. Added a provision as #4, at Section 5.4 Flood Prevention and Flood Damage Minimization, which references the Inventory & Characterization Report (Vol. 1), Map #27, similar to how Clark County addressed this issue. Status regarding lack of expertise has not changed at the city. However, a verbatim statement from WAC 173-26-231(3)(a)(B) was inserted as #2. Page 7 of 25

Nov. 9 With regard to replacement structures protecting residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, you will need to explicitly include a provision addressing this circumstance. This is Added verbatim language per WAC as recommended, Replacement walls or a requirement in the statute (see RCW 90.58.100(6) and WAC 173-26-231(3)(a)(iii)(C)). bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of This is a needed change. the ordinary high-water mark or existing structure unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure. Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Page 7-1, Definition 10 Appurtenance : I recommend the examples, which are clearly related to residential uses, be deleted. Revision made as suggested. Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Page 7-4, Definition 40 Date of Filing : Most of the corrections to this definition were captured in your draft. However, 40(b) in your definition is incorrect. Below is the correct language: The definition was almost verbatim, yet was missing the phrase, has the same meaning as defined in (b). Ch. 7 Ch. 7 Ch. 7 (a) Date of filing is defined as: the date of actual receipt by the department [of Ecology] of the local government s decision except as provided for below: (b) With regard to a permit for a variance or a conditional use, date of filing means the date the decision of the department is transmitted by the department to the local government. (c) When a local government simultaneously transmits to the department its decision on a shoreline substantial development with its approval of either a shoreline conditional use permit or variance, or both, date of filing has the same meaning as defined in (b). This is a needed change. Nov. 9 Page 7-5, Definition 50 Effective Date of Permit : The correct citation is to RCW 90.58.143 not to RCW 90.58.140(6). Nov. 9 Page 7-5, Definition 51 Emergency/Emergency Construction : The first sentence should say WAC 173-27 not 173.27. In addition, the WAC reference listed at the end of the definition needs to be corrected. WAC 173-14 was repealed in 1996 and replaced with WAC 173-27. The correct citation is WAC 173-27-040(2)(d). Nov. 9 Page 7-6, Definition 54 Essential Public Facilities : I believe the citation at the end of the definition should be to RCW 36.70A and not WAC 36.70A. This revision was made. Revision made as suggested. Revision to citation made as suggested. Revision to citation made as suggested. Page 8 of 25

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Page 7-6, Definition 57 Feasible : Please use the definition found in WAC 173-26- 020(15) provided below. This is a needed change. (15)"Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, that an action, such as a development project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, meets all of the following conditions: Revision made as suggested. (a) The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in similar circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; (b) The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; and (c) The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's primary intended legal use. In cases where these guidelines require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. Ch. 7 Ch. 7 Ch. 7 Ch. 7 In determining an action's infeasibility, the reviewing agency may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames. Nov. 9 Page 7-7, Definition 63 Floating Home : This term was defined in Substitute House Bill 1783 adopted in 2011. Please revise, consistent with the following: Floating home means a single-family dwelling unit constructed on a float, that is moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in waters, and is not a vessel, even though it may be capable of being towed. Nov. 9 Page 7-8, Definition 77 Growth Management Hearings Board : As written, this is not a definition. I recommend you delete this definition. Nov. 9 Page 7-9, Definition 81 Height : There is a typographical error in the citation at the end of the definition. It should be WAC 173-27-030(9) not 0309(9). Nov. 9 Page 7-10, Definition 90 Lake : At least two of the citations listed appear to be incorrect. RCW 90.58.030 (1)(d) is the definition for shorelands or shoreland areas and WAC 173-2-030(4) is the definition for Flood plain. Revision made as suggested. Deleted as suggested. Revision made as suggested. Correct citation is RCW 90.58.030(2)(d) and (2)(f)(iv). Page 9 of 25

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Page 7-12, Definition 114 Normal Appurtenance : Please affirmatively state what a normal appurtenance to a residential development is, not just provide examples. WAC 173-27-040(2)(g) provides the definition for appurtenance and defines what normal appurtenances are on a statewide basis. It goes on to say that Local circumstances may dictate additional interpretations of normal appurtenances which shall be set forth and regulated within the applicable master program. (Emphasis added). This is a needed change. The city s Building Official does not propose to include any other interpretation beyond the statewide definition. To further clarify this intent, the following sentence was added: No additional interpretations of normal appurtenances shall apply in this jurisdiction. Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Page 7-13, Definition 123 Parking, Principal or primary : Please delete the second sentence. That is more appropriately located in the use regulations in chapter 6. Deleted as recommended. Ch. 7 Ch. 7 Ch. 7 Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Page 7-, Definition 150 Shared or Joint-use Moorage : See my comment above under moorage facilities about this definition. Nov. 9 Page 7-17, Definition 155 Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) : Please delete the text after the term enforcement penalties. Because Camas plans under the Growth Management Act, any appeal of the shoreline master program would go to the Growth Hearings Board and not the SHB. The SHB does hear all appeals related to shoreline permits and enforcement actions. Nov. 9 Page 7-17, Definition 156 Shoreline Jurisdiction : I recommend you add a reference to Section 2.1 on page 2-1. Nov. 9 Page 7-18, Definition 1 Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB) : This is defined in Definition 155. The definition states that it applies to more than one. There is not a threshold of land division which it does not apply as may be the case for other jurisdictions (e.g. four or more). Further the definition includes the conjunction or between residents and public park. Meaning that these regulations apply to both types of properties. Revised as recommended. Revised as recommended. Revised as recommended. Page 10 of 25

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Page 7-21, Definition 191 Wetlands : Please use the definition found in WAC 173-22- Revised as recommended. 030(10) and also required by the Growth Management Act. The language is provided below for your convenience. This is a needed change. "Wetlands" or "wetland areas" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands; App. B Nov. 9 WAC 173-26-140 notes that local government is required to adopt provisions for administrative interpretation of your development regulations including master Revised by adding a c under Section II of Administrator Responsibility. programs. When addressing this requirement for SMPs, you must include provisions requiring consultation with the department [of Ecology] to insure that any formal written interpretations are consistent with the purpose and intent of chapter 90.58 RCW and the applicable guidelines. Please add language addressing this. This is a needed change. App. B Nov. 9 Page B-2,VII. Application: Under Provision B, please add variance (permit) to your list of Revised as recommended. applications. App. B Nov. 9 Page B-4, IX. Variances: Please note WAC 173-27-130 requires the submittal of a final Revised as recommended. decision by local government on all permits, not a recommendation. Please replace recommendation with final decision or decision throughout this section. In addition, not all variance permits are considered substantial developments. I would delete that term in the first sentence and replace it with applications. Finally, you are required to use the Variance criteria found in WAC 173-27-170 though a jurisdiction is allowed to be more restrictive. Please replace the language here with either the language from our rule or a citation to the criteria. This is a needed change. App. B Nov. 9 B-5, X. Conditional Use: As above, replace the word recommendation with final Revised as recommended. decision or decision throughout the section. In addition, the criteria used here must be that found in WAC 173-27-0 which you may either reference or insert in this section. Paraphrasing the criteria slightly alters the meaning. This is a needed change. App. B Nov. 9 Page B-5, XI. Exemptions: Provision B refers to a repealed rule (WAC 173-14). Revised citation to WAC 173-27-130 Page 11 of 25

General Nov. 9 Also please note while Provision C indicates no letter of exemption will be required if Noted. other state or federal permits are not needed, the City will need to ensure you are tracking and periodically evaluating the cumulative effects of all project review actions in shoreline areas (WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(C). This would include those projects that may not need a shoreline permit but should be consistent with the SMP and the SMA. App. B Nov. 9 Page B-6, XIV. Permit revision: Please note that Variance permits may also be revised. The language here doesn t address variance permits. What comprises scope and intent has changed and (3) additional separate structures may not exceed a total of two hundred fifty square feet needs to be deleted (see WAC 173-27-100). This is a needed change. Revised to include the words, or variance. App. B App. D App. D App. D Nov. 9 Page B-7, XVI. Permit appeal: Please revise this section to ensure all local appeals occur and are completed prior to filing a shoreline permit with Ecology. As written in Provision A, it appears an appeal to the hearings examiner should occur within 14 days of the date of filing with Ecology. WAC 173-27-130(1) makes clear that Ecology wants a final decision which is defined as the order or ruling, whether it be an approval or denial, which is established after all local administrative appeals related to the permit have concluded or the opportunity to initiate such appeals have lapsed. (Emphasis added). Provision B also needs to be rewritten since it appears that appeals are filed with Ecology and the Attorney General. We can discuss this further. This is a needed change. Note from 11/9 email: We discussed this further on 11/8 and I clarified that all local opportunity for appeal of a shoreline permit decision must be completed before the permit is filed with Ecology. Nov. 9.53.010 (A)(2)(d) Purpose: Need to add state and federal protection measures. This is a needed change. Nov. 9.53.010 (B)(3) Reasonable Use Exceptions: Need to make sure this section is reviewed since some items listed may not be allowed or require a shoreline permit. Need to adhere to no-net-loss principles for critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction. [KVZ: Reasonable use provisions in the CAO need to be deleted these are handled through shoreline variances]. This is a needed change. Nov. 9 Email to Fox from Van Zwalenburg/ Brad Murphy.53.010 (C.) Exemptions: Again, need to look at this section to make sure the activities or uses are allowed under shoreline jurisdiction. This is a needed change. Revised this section to state that a decision of the city is final after fourteen days if not appealed. Revised as recommended. Deleted provisions after considerable discussion on this topic via email. Reviewed and added a cross-reference to SMP Chapter 2. Page 12 of 25

Nov. 9 Nov. 9 App. D General Brad Murphy.53.010 (C)(2) Exempt Wetlands: The exemption to allow development of Category 2, 3, and 4 wetlands less than one-tenth of an acre in size is not supported by the scientific literature. The scientific literature [Section 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Publication#05-06-006, March 2005)] emphasizes that it is not possible to conclude from size alone what functions and values a particular wetland is providing. Exempting wetlands based on size alone not supported by the scientific literature and will result in significant losses of wetland function. This is a needed change. Note from 11/8 email: There are other options for alternative mitigation that are available to the city, including wetland mitigation banks and the possibility of setting up an In-Lieu Fee program to accept payments in-lieu of permittee responsible mitigation of smaller wetland impacts. There are other options for alternative mitigation that are available to the city, including wetland mitigation banks and the possibility of setting up an In-Lieu Fee program to accept payments in-lieu of permittee responsible mitigation of smaller wetland impacts. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy The definition of Artificial wetlands needs to include the following: Wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland upland sites, in order to be consistent with the definition of wetlands required by RCW 36.70A.030(20). This is a needed change. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.030 (D) Wetland Delineation: Need the latest citation for delineation manual. This is a needed change. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.040 (B)(1): The Ordinary high water determination needs to be made in consultation with Ecology. Surveys may not suffice as adequate for OHWM determinations. This is a needed change. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.040 (B)(3)(c) Standards: residential lots should not extend into wetlands or wetland buffers. They should be protected in their own tracts of land. This is a needed change. Revised and added the clarification phrase of within shoreline jurisdiction. Given that this is not city-wide, the other exemptions were removed as advised. This section only applies within shoreline jurisdiction. Revised to add the word intentionally as recommended. Revised and added the requirement to follow the recently adopted (March 14, 2011) WAC 173-22-035, which said that the CORPS document must be followed. Revised to include the phrase in consultation with Ecology. Revised as directed to change this provision to state that in shoreline jurisdiction, wetlands must be in their own tract. Page 13 of 25

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.040 (B)(4) Adjusted buffer width: Ecology s recommended buffer widths are based on the assumption that the buffer is already well vegetated with a native plant community that is appropriate for the ecoregion and adequate to protect existing wetland functions. If a buffer area is degraded, it needs to be either increased in width or planted to create the appropriate plant community. Allowing a 25% reduction for a restored buffer will pose a greater risk of degradation of wetland function. For some wetland-dependent species, reducing the buffer widths will result in lost habitat that cannot be compensated with enhancements that consist of increased native plant density. This is a needed change. We are also concerned about combining options for averaging/reducing buffers. The CAO includes language which would allow combining buffer width averaging and buffer width reduction with enhancement, in addition to reducing buffers to those for moderate-intensity impacts with application of certain design measures. The resulting buffers for Category I and II wetlands could be as little as 50 feet. Buffers this narrow will not protect the functions and values of Category I and II wetlands. Buffers should not be less than 75% of the original prescribed width. Removed b and c as directed, and added a d with the exact statement as highlighted to the left. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.050 (c) Wetland Permits, Buffer Standards: Some proposed allowed activities may impact wetland functions and values. This section needs to be reviewed to make sure no net loss of functions and values is followed. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.050 (D)(1) Standards, Wetland Activities: The sentence should read avoid and minimize not avoid or minimize. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.050 (D)(2) Location of Mitigation: Please be flexible with the prioritization of where to place wetland mitigation. Sometimes the best option may be off site or part onsite and part off site. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.050(D)(5) Alternative Mitigation: Still need to go through mitigation sequencing (avoid and minimize) before allowing impacts to go to a wetland mitigation bank. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.050 (D)(5)(b) Cumulative Effects Fund: Any Cumulative Effects Fund or In-Lieu Fee program wanting to use credits for state or federal permits will need to be approved by the Corps of Engineers and Ecology. The Federal Mitigation Rule (40 CFR Part 230) has criteria which needs to met to become an approved program. Revised to read, Buffer Standards and Authorized Activities. The following additional standards apply for regulated activities in a wetland buffer to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and values Revised as recommended. Noted. There is no direction to change text. Noted. There is no direction to change text. Inserted this provision/clarification as a new b. Page 14 of 25

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.050 (D)(6) Stormwater Facilities: Stormwater facilities should be kept out of wetlands if at all possible. Mitigation may be required for facilities placed in or otherwise impacting wetlands. The city has adopted stormwater standards in compliance with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (February 2005). Replaced CAO text that could be outdated to refer the applicant to the SMP regulations at Sec. 6.3.15. App. D Nov. 9.53.050 (D)(8): Listed activities may require shoreline permits. Inserted a cross-reference to SMP Chapter 2 (exemptions). App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.050 (G) Wetland Permit Processing: May need to change or omit this section based on shoreline permit review criteria. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.050 (K) Programmatic Permits: May also need to be changed based on shoreline permit review criteria. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy.53.050 (L) Wetland Emergency Permits: May need to change or omit this section based on shoreline permit review criteria. App. D Nov. 9 Murphy Sections 20.740.140.A(1) and 140.B contain an outdated reference for delineating wetlands. The delineation should be conducted using the protocol found in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Our recommended language is as follows: Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this Chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. All areas within the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. This is a needed change. Removed processing the permit under CMC, and directed the applicant to Appendix B for a shoreline permit. This section is consistent with SMP. Inserted a requirement to provide notice to Ecology. Revised and added the requirement to follow the recently adopted (March 14, 2011) WAC 173-22-035, which said that the CORPS document must be followed. Page 15 of 25