Camas SMP Matrix public comments 2 of 2 Camas Draft SMP – Public Comments 2011 protection of channel migration zones. requested. File 11/9/11 George Fornes, Biologist, Priority

Page 1 of 2

Camas Draft SMP – Public Comments 2011

Loc. Date Name Comment City Response

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.

Mr. Kripalani has filed legal action on these

concerns. No further response is

warranted at this time.

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.

The Director met with Mr. Kripalani on

multiple occasions prior to this letter and

afterwards.

File 8/16/11 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.

#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.

File 10/31/11 Gary W. Kaiser

Vice President,

Georgia Pacific

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.

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.

File 11/2/11 Dean Sutherland

Senior Manager of

Government and

Community Affairs,

Clark Public Utilities

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.

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, 5th

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

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

Page 2 of 2

Camas Draft SMP – Public Comments 2011

protection of channel migration zones. requested.


Biologist, Priority

Habits and Species

Program, State of

Washington

Department of Fish

and Wildlife (WDFW)

• 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.

• 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 16.51.170.


Biologist, Priority

Habits and Species

Program, State of

Washington

Department of Fish

and Wildlife (WDFW)

Miscellaneous- To be consistent with RCW 77.55.181, Section 2.3.2.16; to

conform, one of three criteria (included) should be met.

• 2.3.2.16.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.

Ch. 2 - The exemption section at #16

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.

Ch. 6 – 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 1 of 25

Camas Draft SMP – Ecology Comments As of 12/06/2011

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 Van Zwalenburg Page 1-1, Section 1.3 Background: The second paragraph is a bit confusing as it speaks to

“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.

Revised as suggested.

Ch. 1 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Revised as suggested for consistency. The

city’s intent is as you interpreted.

Ch. 2

Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Revised sentence as recommended.

Ch. 2 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Revised as suggested to #4.

Ch. 2 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Revised every instance in SMP and

Appendix B to reflect a change to “city’s

decision”.

Ch. 2 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Added the reference to the WAC.

Page 2 of 25



Ch. 2 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 2-10, Section 2.7 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit: Provision 4 is not consistent

with WAC 173-27-160(3) which states that unclassified uses may be authorized when the

applicant can demonstrate consistency with WAC 173-27-160 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.

Removed Coalition language and it is now

consistent with WAC.

Ch. 2 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg The last sentence in Provision 4 should be a standalone provision: “uses specifically

prohibited by this Program may not be authorized.” Revised as suggested.

Ch. 4 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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 6th

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.

Revisions to the designations map will be

reflected in a draft before Planning

Commission on December 20, 2011.

Ch. 5 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 5-2, Section 5.1 General Shoreline Use and Development Regulations: Regulation

10 references mitigation sequencing language in 16.51.170. 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.

Revised as suggested to Appendix D,

Section 16.51.170 to read in the verbatim

order as WAC 173-26.

Ch. 5 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 5-2, Section 5.2 Archaeological, Cultural and Historic Resources: In this draft you

have included your local archaeological code (Chapter 16.31) 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.


Ch. 5 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Thank you.

Page 3 of 25



Ch. 5 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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

provided including evidence of on-the-ground conditions that have been documented

(these should have been shown in your Inventory and Characterization). In addition, this

will need to be factored in to your Cumulative Impacts Assessment and No Net Loss report

to ensure you are still able to meet the no net loss requirement in the Guidelines.

The cumulative impacts analysis will

further address these unique shoreline

areas. This area is the oldest section of

town, and was fully developed in the

1930’s. This particular area has shown

slope stability and relatively unchanged

vegetation cover since the 1950 aerial

photos that is part of the record.

Ch. 5 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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 Van Zwalenburg 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.

This provision has been deleted, given that

provision #6 adequately addresses this

issue.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

This provision is stated on the first page of

the chapter (prior to the table) at #2.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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 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 4 of 25



Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 6-10, Section 6.3.3.4 Moorage Facilities: Docks, Piers, and Mooring Buoys: The

second sentence of Regulation 4 appears to be an incomplete sentence. As written, it

doesn’t make much sense.


Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 6-11, Section 6.3.3.4: Regulation 16 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.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Revised as suggested. The city assumed

these would be stand alone.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg I recognize you revised the definition for “joint-use” and “shared moorage” (Definition

150 on page 7-16) 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.

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 5 of 25



Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 6-14, Section 6.3.4 Commercial Uses: Regulation 4 begins by saying non-water

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.


Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 6-14, Regulation 6: You might want to clarify that this regulation addresses water-

related and water-enjoyment commercial uses in the Urban Conservancy environment.

You have already addressed non-water-oriented uses in Regulation 4.


Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

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.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 6-16, Section 6.3.6 Industrial Uses: It appears you have an unnecessary subsection

(subsection 6.3.6.1). Deleted subsection number.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 6-16, 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.

Revised text rather than table for

consistency.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Deleted this text section to be consistent

with the table, since there is not log

storage upland in Camas.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Mining is permitted in Camas as a “rock

quarry” use.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

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.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Regulation 3 appears to be missing some language. Revised as noted.

Page 6 of 25



Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Pages 6-20 to 6-21, Section 6.3.11 Recreational Development: I recommend you check

for consistency with the provisions in Table 6-1 and the language in this section. noted

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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

residential density or minimum frontage width (see WAC 173-26-211(5)(f)(ii)(B)). The

checklist indicates there are policies that meet this requirement. However, required

standards can’t be met by policy language alone. You must include regulations to

implement these policies. These standards are often set forth in the Development

Standards table, and while Table 6-1 identifies building setbacks and heights, it is silent on

lot width or density requirements in those shoreline designations that allow residential

uses. Other sections of the SMP do address setbacks, buffers, shoreline stabilization,

vegetation conservation, critical area protection and water quality. However, absent lot

width or density standards, presumably the same sort of residential development could

occur within Medium Intensity as could take place in Rural Conservancy – Resource

Lands. [This comment is addressed to the Coalition as a whole and I have transmitted it by

e-mail separately on September 22, 2011.] This is a needed change.

Revised text of Sec. 6.3.12. The city’s

zoning code (CMC Title 18) provides lot

dimensions. There are two reaches 1in the

city that have underlying residential

zoning, which have not been developed.

Otherwise the city’s residential waterfront

is fully developed. At reach LACK_LK_01,

the residential land is separated from the

lake by Leadbetter Road. The minimum lot

width for this R-7.5 zone is 70 feet at a

density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre. At

Reach COLU_RV_03c it is zoned R-10,

which allows lot size widths of 80-feet at a

density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Pages 6-23 to 6-24, Section 6.3.14 Transportation Uses: Regulation 7 may not always be

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.


Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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”.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Inserted this provision verbatim from the

example as #2 in this subsection.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.”

See response above.

1 LACK_LK_01 and COLU_RV_03c

Page 7 of 25



Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

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.

Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

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 8 of 25



Ch. 6 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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

a requirement in the statute (see RCW 90.58.100(6) and WAC 173-26-231(3)(a)(iii)(C)).

This is a needed change.

Added verbatim language per WAC as

recommended, “Replacement walls or

bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of

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 Van Zwalenburg 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 Van Zwalenburg 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:

(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.

The definition was almost verbatim, yet

was missing the phrase, “has the same

meaning as defined in (b).”

This revision was made.

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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). Revision made as suggested.

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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).

Revision to citation made as suggested.

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Revision to citation made as suggested.

Page 9 of 25



Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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:

(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.

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.

Revision made as suggested.

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.”


Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 7-8, Definition 77 “Growth Management Hearings Board”: As written, this is not a

definition. I recommend you delete this definition.

Deleted as suggested.

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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).


Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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”.

Correct citation is RCW 90.58.030(2)(d) and

(2)(f)(iv).

Page 10 of 25



Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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 Van Zwalenburg 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 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 7-16, Definition 150 “Shared or Joint-use Moorage”: See my comment above under

moorage facilities about this definition.

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.

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Revised as recommended.

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 7-17, Definition 156 “Shoreline Jurisdiction”: I recommend you add a reference to

Section 2.1 on page 2-1. Revised as recommended.

Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 7-18, Definition 161 “Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB)”: This is defined in Definition

155.


Page 11 of 25



Ch. 7 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page 7-21, Definition 191 “Wetlands”: Please use the definition found in WAC 173-22-

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 Van Zwalenburg WAC 173-26-140 notes that local government is required to adopt provisions for

administrative interpretation of your development regulations including master

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.

Revised by adding a “c” under Section II of

Administrator Responsibility.

App. B Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page B-2,VII. Application: Under Provision B, please add variance (permit) to your list of

applications. Revised as recommended.

App. B Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Page B-4, IX. Variances: Please note WAC 173-27-130 requires the submittal of a final

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 Van Zwalenburg B-5, X. Conditional Use: As above, replace the word “recommendation” with “final

decision” or “decision” throughout the section. In addition, the criteria used here must

be that found in WAC 173-27-160 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 Van Zwalenburg Page B-5, XI. Exemptions: Provision B refers to a repealed rule (WAC 173-14). Revised citation to WAC 173-27-130

Page 12 of 25



General Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg Also please note while Provision C indicates no letter of exemption will be required if

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.

Noted.

App. B Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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 Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 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.

Revised this section to state that a decision

of the city is final after fourteen days if not

appealed.

App. D Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 16.53.010 (A) (2) (d) Purpose: Need to add “state and federal protection measures. This

is a needed change. Revised as recommended.

App. D Nov. 9 Van Zwalenburg 16.53.010 (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.

Deleted provisions after considerable

discussion on this topic via email.

App. D Nov. 9 Email to Fox

from Van

Zwalenburg/

Brad Murphy

16.53.010 (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.

Reviewed and added a cross-reference to

SMP Chapter 2.

Page 13 of 25



App. D

General

Nov. 9

Nov. 9

Brad Murphy

16.53.010 (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.

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.

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.

Revised to add the word “intentionally” as

recommended.

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.030 (D) Wetland Delineation: Need the latest citation for delineation manual. This

is a needed change.

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.

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.040 (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.

Revised to include the phrase “in

consultation with Ecology”.

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.040 (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 as directed to change this

provision to state that in shoreline

jurisdiction, wetlands must be in their own

tract.

Page 14 of 25



App. D Nov. 9 Murphy

16.53.040 (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 16.53.050 (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.

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”

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.050 (D)(1) Standards, Wetland Activities: The sentence should read “avoid and

minimize” not “avoid or minimize”.


App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.050 (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 on-

site and part off site.

Noted. There is no direction to change

text.

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.050(D)(5) Alternative Mitigation: Still need to go through mitigation sequencing

(avoid and minimize) before allowing impacts to go to a wetland mitigation bank.

Noted. There is no direction to change

text.

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.050 (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.

Inserted this provision/clarification as a

new “b”.

Page 15 of 25



App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.050 (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 Van Zwalenburg 16.53.050 (D)(8): Listed activities may require shoreline permits. Inserted a cross-reference to SMP Chapter

2 (exemptions).

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.050 (G) Wetland Permit Processing: May need to change or omit this section based

on shoreline permit review criteria.

Removed processing the permit under

CMC, and directed the applicant to

Appendix B for a shoreline permit.

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.050 (K) Programmatic Permits: May also need to be changed based on shoreline

permit review criteria.

This section is consistent with SMP.

App. D Nov. 9 Murphy 16.53.050 (L) Wetland Emergency Permits: May need to change or omit this section

based on shoreline permit review criteria.

Inserted a requirement to provide notice to

Ecology.

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.

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 16 of 25


The comments on the pages that follow are from Ecology and other agencies, which were sent to the Clark County Coalition to assist in the ongoing revisions to

their SMP. Camas revised the common elements of the SMP in advance of sending out our first draft to the public. The first draft SMP for the city was

presented at an Open House, posted online and sent to agencies for comment on October 6, 2011.


1-4 Aug.

16

Kim Van Zwalenburg-

Comments on

Ridgefield PC June

2011 Draft SMP

Page 1-4, Section 1.8 Effective Date: The effective date of a Shoreline Master Program

(SMP) was changed this past legislative session (see Substitute Senate Bill 5192 which

amended RCW 90.58.090). SMP’s are now effective fourteen days from the date of

Ecology’s written notice of final action to local government (RCW 90.58.090 (7)). This is

a needed change.

Change was made as indicated.

2-1 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 2-1: The first paragraph contains two typographical errors. The first sentence

should have “and” added on line 3 as follows: “shall be planned and carried out” The

second correction is on line 5 where RCW 90.50.140(1) should be RCW 90.58.140(1).

Camas SMP does not have the first

paragraph. The second correction was

made as indicated.

2.1.1 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Section 2.1 Applicability: 2.1.1 contains the following statement: “This Program shall

apply to all of the shorelands and waters within the Ridgefield city and UGA limits that

fall under the jurisdiction of RCW 90.58.” (Emphasis added) While I understand the

intent of this statement, it needs to be rewritten to clarify that the City is pre-

designating those lands located within its Urban Growth Area (UGA) and, only upon

annexation will the Ridgefield SMP apply.

Camas provided the names of applicable

bodies of water.

2.1 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg I recommend you address it in a separate paragraph saying something like: “The city is

pre-designating shorelines within its adopted UGA. Until annexation, development in

these areas will continue to be regulated by the Clark County SMP. The City’s SMP will

apply concurrent with annexation and no additional procedures are required by

Ecology at the time of annexation (WAC 173-26-150) unless a re-designation is

occurring per Section 4.4.5 and Table 4-1.”


2.1 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg When defining and adopting jurisdictional limits for the City’s SMP, there are two

optional elements:

• Extending jurisdiction to include the entire 100-year floodplain

• Extending jurisdiction to include “land necessary for buffers for critical areas”

(see RCW 90.58.030(2)(d)(ii)).

This needs to be clearly stated and is a needed change.

Clarified that the City will regulate the

buffer area contiguous to associated

wetlands.

2.1.5 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 2-1, Section 2.1.5 includes a statement regarding Native American Tribes. To

clarify, the State of Washington has no authority, nor do local jurisdictions, to

implement the SMA with regard to tribal activities on tribal lands. In addition, please

note the following provision in RCW 90.58.350: “Nothing in this chapter shall affect

any rights established by treaty to which the United States is a party.” This statement

should be added to Section 2.1 to ensure consistency with the Act. This is a needed

change. I made this change as suggested.


2.3.1 Aug. Van Zwalenburg Page 2-2, Section 2.3.1, Regulation 1 needs to be revised to reflect a change to our rule Change was made as indicated.

Page 17 of 25


16 which now says: “Except when specifically exempted by statute, all proposed uses and

development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction must conform to chapter 90.58

RCW, the Shoreline Management Act, and this master program.” (WAC 193-26-

191(2)(a)(iii)(A)). Note: The first clause is the new language. This is a needed change.

2.3.1 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Pages 2-2 to 2-3, Section 2.3.1, Regulations 4 and 6 are duplicative. Change was made as indicated.

2.4 Aug.

18

Email to Fox from

Van Zwalenburg

Pages 2-6 to 2-7, Section 2.4 Prohibited Uses: The introductory paragraph indicates

definitions for the listed modifications and uses are provided in Chapter 8. Some of

these definitions are missing (particularly solid waste, and solid or hazardous waste

landfill). It might be more useful to provide a brief summary in this section for these

two items

Deleted cross-reference to glossary. Default

is a standard dictionary meaning.

2.3 Aug.

18

Email to Fox from

Van Zwalenburg

Page 2-6, Section 2.3 Exemption 16: This provision is not written consistent with the

statutory language in RCW 90.58.147. Please revise. This is a needed change

Inserted the entirety of RCW 90.58.147

2.3 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Pages 2-2 to 2-6, Section 2.3 Exemptions from a Shoreline Substantial Development

Permit: It appears the following activity is not included in the list of exemptions

provided: remedial actions pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order

issued under Chapter 70.105D RCW (please see RCW 90.58.355). This activity is, in

fact, exempt from all procedural requirements (not just the definition of substantial

development) under RCW 90.58. To assist you in compiling your list, I have attached a

summary list put together by Don Bales called Attachment 1.

Change was made to add this provision as

#6 of Section 2.1 – Applicability.

4-3 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg A section 4.3.1.4 Management policy is awkwardly constructed. Changed phrase, see #9 at Section 4.3.1.4

4.4 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 4-6, Section 4.4 Official Shoreline Map: In reviewing Appendix A, it is not clear

where the designation boundaries occur. I could not discern roads, parcel lines or any

other distinguishing feature that tells me exactly where a designation shifts from one

to another. For example, along Lake River I was unable to tell at what point it shifts

from Urban Conservancy to High Intensity. WAC 173-26-211(2) requires that either the

map “accurately designate individual parcels” or the SMP text “shall include a clear

basis for identifying the boundaries, physical features, explicit criteria, or “common”

boundary descriptions to accurately define and distinguish the designations on the

ground.” (Please see page 8 in our SMP Handbook Chapter 13 - Shoreline Environment

Designations for additional guidance). This is a needed change.

This concern was addressed in the

description under Section 4.4.4 – Boundary

Interpretation.

4.4.1 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 4-6, Section 4.4.1 Map Established: Regulation 2 in the last line (line 196) needs

to be rewritten. A re-designation requires a master program amendment not a City

amendment. (WAC 173-26-211(2)(e)). This is a needed change.

Change was made as indicated. See Section

4.4, #2

4.4 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg You need to also include provisions to address any potential mapping error (see WAC

173-26-211(2)(b)) which says “in the event of a mapping error, the jurisdiction will rely

upon common boundary descriptions and the criteria contained in RCW 90.58.030(2)

and chapter 173-22 WAC pertaining to determinations of shorelands, as amended,

Change was made as indicated. See Section

4.4, #3

Page 18 of 25


rather than the incorrect or outdated map.” This is a needed change.

5.3 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 5-3, Section 5.3 Critical Areas Protection: When adopting your Critical Area

Ordinance (CAO) by reference, you are required to reference a specific dated

ordinance. This is a needed change. I also recommend you reference the copy that

you have included in Appendix D

Camas has included CAO as “Appendix D.

Also referenced in Ch. 2 and the Table of

Contents.

5.3.2 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Please add the following provision to Regulation 1 as 1(c) or under the General

Provisions in Section 5.3.2:

Provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations that are not consistent with the Shoreline

Management Act Chapter, 90.85 RCW, and supporting Washington Administrative

Code chapters shall not apply in shoreline jurisdiction.


5.3.2.4 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 5-4, 5.3.2.8 contains the standard mitigation sequencing language found in

critical area ordinances and now required in master programs. However, by placing it

here in Section 5.3, it appears to only apply to critical areas.. will need to be revised to

ensure consistency. This is a needed change.

Changed text at #10, and referenced

Appendix D.

5.5.4.5 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 5-5, Section 5.4 Flood Prevention and Flood Damage Minimization: Regulations

5.5.4.5 and 5.5.4.6 should be cross-referenced with your fill provisions in Section 5.7.2.

#5, of Section 5.4 has been changed to

include a cross-reference as suggested.

5.5 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 5-5, Section 5.5 Public Access: I recommend you include provisions that address

both nexus and proportionality. Case law (from the US Supreme Court known as the

Nolan and Dollan cases).

Changed #2 of Section 5.5 to include a

provision regarding “nexus”. There is also a

provision within the subsection of #2 at “c”

that speaks to proportionality.

5.7.2 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 5-8 and 5-9, Section 5.7.2 Clearing, Grading, Fill and Excavation: I don’t

understand the need for an explicit reference to the International Building Code in

Regulations 1 and 10. This requirement is covered in a local ordinance that you are

already “loosely” referencing (as opposed to those codes specifically referenced as

part of the SMP). I recommend deleting the language.

Camas SMP deleted these provisions. (then

#10 – our #8)

5.7.2 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 5-9, 5.7.2 Regulation 11 contains the phrase “landfill materials”. While I believe

you may be referring to materials that would be disposed of in a solid waste landfill,

the phrase is not defined. Please clarify what is being discussed.

At #8, page 5-8, change was made as noted.

5.7.2 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg 5.7.2 Regulation 14 addresses fill waterward of the OHWM. As written, this regulation

is very restrictive, only allowing fill in support of water-dependent or public access

uses. The Guidelines (see WAC 173-26-231(3)(c)) include a longer list of circumstances

when fill would be allowed waterward of the OHWM including: cleanup and disposal of

contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental clean-up plan;

expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide significance under

specific circumstances; mitigation action; environmental restoration; and for a beach

nourishment or enhancement project. These all require a conditional use permit

except for ecological restoration.

At #11, page 5-8 change was made to text

as suggested.

5.8 Aug. Van Zwalenburg Page 5-10, Section 5.8 Vegetation Conservation: I recommend rewriting Regulation 1. Camas SMP has deleted the entire provision

Page 19 of 25


16 First, it seems to imply that vegetation waterward of the OHWM can be removed.

How do you propose to address areas where there are fringing wetlands, with

emergent vegetation along the shoreline edge? In addition, the sentence is a bit

awkward and I recommend the following: “Existing vegetation within shoreline

jurisdiction shall be retained in the riparian area closest to the waterbody but

landward from between the OHWM and the landward edge of the buffer or setback,

whichever is greater.”

as suggested.

5.8 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 5-11, 5.8 Regulation 3 is not protective enough and the first sentence should be

rewritten as follows: “If native vegetation removal cannot be minimized avoided, it

shall be minimized and mitigated at a minimum ratio of 1:1…” This is a needed change

in order to be consistent with mitigation sequencing.

#2 at page 5-9, was changed in response to

comments from both DOE and WDFW that

advised that this provision be changed.

Table 6-

1

Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg The table contains the terms “activity”, “building” and “structure” as descriptors for

“setback”. If it defines it as a “building setback” (see for example recreational uses

and residential uses), does that mean the setback only applies to a building and not to

the activity? For non-water-oriented recreational uses, it appears that there is no

minimum setback that must be met for sports fields. How does this ensure that you

meet no net loss?

Changes were made as suggested to signs,

recreation and parking within the Table.

Table 6-

1

Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-2, Table 6-1 Agriculture: The matrix shows agriculture as a permitted use in the

High Intensity shoreline designation. I am confused by this because this does not

appear to be consistent with the purpose, designation criteria or management policies

in Section 4.3.3.

Change made to table under HI, for

agriculture is now “X”.

Table 6-

1

Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-2, Table 6-1 Docks, Piers, Mooring Buoys: there is a footnote for these in the

Urban Conservancy and Medium and High Intensity designations that says “Private

docks permitted as joint-use only”. What does this mean? Are you referring to private

residential docks or to non-public docks associated with multi-family development or

to private industrial docks? This needs to be clarified.

Discussed with committee. See changes to

docks and footnote #3 that prohibits docks

on the Washougal River and limits docks on

Lacamas Lake.

Table 6-

1

Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-3, Table 6-1 Floating homes: I recommend you include a footnote that the

allowed floating homes are those that legally existed as of January 1, 2011.

Our city does not allow floating homes.

Table 6-

1

Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-4, Table 6-1 Unclassified uses: I recommend addressing the potential for

water-oriented uses as it relates to setbacks.

Change was made as suggested to

Unclassified Uses.

Table 6-

1

Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Signs: The table includes very specific sign limitations. While the SMP appropriately

should address types and locations of signs along with potential view issues, you may

find that size limitations within your SMP are more trouble than it’s worth. By

including sign dimensions here any request to vary from these dimensions will trigger

a shoreline variance permit. Do you have a sign ordinance that does, or could,

regulate sign sizes?

Camas has a sign ordinance as CMC18.15.

These additional and limiting regulations

were deleted.

6.3.1 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-6, Section 6.3.1 Agriculture: Please see WAC 173-26-241 (3)(a)(vi). While

Regulation 5 addresses conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural use, I’m not

sure it quite meets the requirement in the Guidelines to address development on

Camas SMP inserted the exact text from

WAC173-26-241(3)(a)(vi).

Page 20 of 25


agricultural land that does not meet the definition of agricultural activities

6.3.3 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-8 to 6-9, Section 6.3.3 Boating uses: There seem to be some inconsistencies

with the regulations and the definitions. See specifically 6.3.3.1, Regulation 11 that

says shared moorage with more than four berths will be regulated as a marina. This is

not consistent with the definitions for “marina” on page 8-11 and “shared moorage” on

page 8-18 which use a threshold of 10 moorage spaces. This is a needed change.

#2 at page 6-7 and related definitions at

Chapter 7 were made for consistency.

6.3.3.1 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-8, Section 6.3.3.1 Regulation 5: Why are provisions for no net loss restricted to

those facilities located in or over state-owned aquatic lands? No net loss is applied

throughout shoreline jurisdiction, not just to facilities over publicly owned lands. See

also Regulation 15 on Page 6-12 which speaks to grounding on state-owned aquatic

lands. In order to minimize impacts, this restriction should be applied uniformly and

not limited to state-owned aquatic lands

Struck words “state-owned” to address this

concern.

6.3.3.4 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-11, Section 6.3.3.4 Moorage Facilities: Regulation 3 has a typographical error

in the last sentence. WWDFW should be WDFW.

Change was made as noted.

6.3.3.4 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Please clarify if a residential property owner is allowed a dock, mooring buoy and boat

launch facility on a single parcel or lot. It is not clear if one of each is permitted or if

one facility in total is allowed. The Guidelines are clear that the intent is to “reduce the

adverse effects of shoreline modification, and as much as possible, limit shoreline

modifications in number and extent.” (WAC 173-26-231(2)(b)). Piers and docks are

considered shoreline modifications in the Guidelines. This is a needed change.

Page 6-11, #11 and #12 and footnote #3 at

Table 6-1 together limit new residential and

recreational docks.

6.3.3.4

Shared

Joint-

use

Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Pages 6-11 to 6-14, Section 6.3.3.4: Throughout this section the terms “joint-use”

facilities and “shared moorage” appear to be used interchangeably (see Regulations 4,

11, 12, 22, 23). However, the definition on page 8-18 for “shared or joint-use

moorage” really applies to community facilities (those serving a subdivision or a park)

and does not include the concept of a joint-use dock utilized by 2 to 4 adjacent

waterfront residential owners. You need to define residential docks serving four or

fewer single family residences (WAC 173-26-241(3)(c)) and clean up the inconsistent

terminology. This is a needed change.

Changes were made to the definition

section to note that these terms carry the

same meaning.

6-12 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Pages 6-13 to 6-14, Regulation 25: This regulation speaks to dimensional

requirements for a residential dock or pier but doesn’t have clear standards beyond

which a shoreline variance would be required. I presume these standards would apply

on both lakes and rivers but that is not clearly stated. This is a needed change.

Page 6-13, change was made to #23 as

suggested. City is proposing at (h) that a

shoreline variance is required if there is a

10% difference proposed. This matches the

city’s threshold for minor vs. major

variances under land use codes.

6-12

docks

Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-14, Regulation 25(a): A diagram would be very useful to help interpret

Regulation 25(a). I am unclear what the “landing area deck” refers to and whether

that is a different structure from the “T” portion that is parallel to shore. By

describing this structure is it your intent to prohibit other designs? Could someone

propose an “L” or a “U”? What about a joint-use dock serving two adjacent residential

Page 6-12 at #23 has proposed dimensions

to docks that do not include “T”, “L” or “U”.

Page 21 of 25


homes? Could this be a larger or longer structure? This is a needed change.

6-12 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Regulation 25(b) provides no standards for how far the landward edge of a pier or

dock should be from the OHWM nor are there any limits on how far a pier or dock it

can extend waterward. These standards need to be explicitly listed. This is a needed

change

Page 6-12 at #23 provides dimensions.

6.3.4 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-15, Section 6.3.4 Commercial Uses: Regulation 5 confuses me a bit because it

addresses commercial uses that are allowed as a conditional use and when you look at

Table 6-1 this includes water-related and water-enjoyment commercial uses in the

Rural Conservancy designations. It isn’t clear how Regulation 5(b) applies in this

circumstance. In addition, Regulation 5 appears to be partly duplicative of Regulation

3.

This is #6, page 6-14. Deleted the

repetitive statement and kept regulation

that reads “increasing public use,

enjoyment or access”.

6-15 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-15, Section 6.3.5 Forest Practices: Regulation 3 address harvest along

shorelines of statewide significance but fails to note that exceptions to the standard

requires a shoreline conditional use permit. (WAC 173-26-241(3)(e)).

This citation was added as suggested.

6-18 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-18, Section 6.3.7 Institutional Uses: Regulation 4 is confusing much like

Regulation 5 under commercial uses (see my comment above). The matrix shows

designations where water-dependent, water-related and water-enjoyment

institutional uses require a conditional use permit.

Page 6-18, Section 6.3.8. Modified #4 as

suggested and kept phrase “increasing the

public use, enjoyment or access”.

6-19 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-19, Section 6.3.8 Mining: Does Ridgefield have a mining overlay? Is this an

allowed activity within the City? If not, then I recommend identifying this as a

prohibited use and stating that upfront. While I understand the desire to be

consistent with other Clark County jurisdictions, there may be certain uses that need

to be or could be out right prohibited within cities.

Camas SMP deleted all references to

surface mining overlays in text and the

table, since we do not have this overlay.

6-19 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Regulation 3 which addresses mining within the active channel or channel migration

zone is inconsistent with Table 6-1 which prohibits the activity in the Aquatic

designation. I believe the table needs a footnote recognizing there may be an

exception. A Conditional Use permit in required in this circumstance (see WAC 173-26-

241(3)(h)(ii)(E)). This is a needed change.

Camas SMP table has a “C” for this use in

the AQ designation.

6-20 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-20 to 6-21, Section 6.3.10 Recreational Development: This section needs more

work to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and consistency with the Guidelines.

I am particularly concerned by the limited setback for trails and accessory buildings

and a lack of design standards (e.g. trail widths and surfacing materials) in the more

sensitive designations. While we support public access including recreational trails,

they often do not need to run parallel to the shoreline for extended distances. In fact

it would be hard to meet the requirement for no net loss if significant buffer areas are

impacted. This is a needed change.

This comment may not be applicable to

Camas, given that other coalition

jurisdictions do not have trail development

standards as we do. However, we inserted

additional references at the table (see

footnote #4) and at #2 page 6-20 reiterated

that the city has a Parks, Recreation, and

Open Space Plan with specific

development standards.

Table 6-

1

Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Table 6-1 allows for water-related/enjoyment structures to be within 20 feet in all

designations. A 20’ setback is minimal at best in a High Intensity designation and

Added a specific reference to the trail

development standards (noted above) and

Page 22 of 25


completely inappropriate for the Natural designation. There also appears to be

nothing distinguishing between an access/view point, which may be appropriately

close to the OHWM, and a restroom or parking area. Please provide evidence that

this will ensure no net loss in all shoreline designations and is based on science and be

specific about what kinds of structures and activities can be that close. This is a

needed change.

increased the setback as suggested.

6-26 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg You need to add a regulation that prohibits dredging for fill except when the material

is necessary for the restoration of ecological functions. When allowed, the fill site

must be located waterward of the OHWM and associated with MTCA (Model Toxics

Control Act) or CERCLA habitat restoration, or any significant restoration effort

approved by a shoreline conditional use permit. (See WAC 173-26-231(3)(f)). This is a

needed change.

Page 6-26, #9 addresses this concern.

6.4.3 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg 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.

Added a #2 with the required WAC text.

6.3.9 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg You are required to address the removal of gravel for flood control however the

checklist cites a regulation in the Mining section (6.3.8, Regulation 3). This regulation

does not adequately address the need for the activity to be consistent with a flood

hazard reduction plan and that the required studies show a long-term benefit. The

mining of gravel is often for commercial reasons and not for public safety reasons.

Please add a regulation consistent with the required standard in the Guidelines (see

WAC 173-26-221(3)(c)(v)). This is a needed change.

Per Table 6-1, the city only will allow non-

maintenance dredging and disposal as a

“C” in AQ and prohibited everywhere else.

Only GP has requested a permit for

“maintenance dredging”. We do not have

any commercial mining operations in the

city.

6.4.5 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Pages 6-32 to 6-39, Section 6.4.5 Shoreline Stabilization: In reviewing this section

against the Guidelines, and using the submittal checklist as a guide, there are a number

of missing elements that will need to be addressed to ensure consistency. WAC 173-

26-231 (3)(a)(B) has very explicit standards that must be included. These standards

apply to structural stabilization measures that are proposed: to protect existing

primary structures; in support of new nonwater-dependent development, including

single-family residences; in support of water-dependent development; and to protect

projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation

projects under MTCA (RCW 90.70.105D). This is a needed change.


6-31 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 6-32, Section 6.4.5: Regulation 5 does not address the provision that restricts

waterward encroachment of a replacement structure to those protecting residences

occupied prior to January 1, 1992 (see WAC 173-26-231(3)(a)(iii)(C) and RCW

90.58.100(6)). This is a needed change.

Residential structures are addressed at #5,

page 6-31 and at #2, page 6-21

6.4.3 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg While there is some generalized language about public access and publicly funded

projects (see Section 3.9.2, Policy 5 and Section 5.5, Regulation 1), these fall short of

Change was made as suggested to 6.4.3

and 6.4.5 at #10.

Page 23 of 25


meeting the requirement in WAC 173-26-231(3)(a)(iii)(E) that requires the SMP ensure

publicly funded shoreline erosion control measures don’t restrict appropriate public

access to the shoreline and where feasible, incorporate ecological restoration and

public access improvements into the project. This needs to be added to both Section

6.4.3 Flood Control Works and Section 6.4.5 Shoreline Stabilization. This is a needed

change.

Note: Camas SMP has Administration and Provisions are located in Appendix B.

App. B Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg WAC 173-26-140 notes that local government is required to adopt provisions for

administrative interpretation of your development regulations including master

programs. When addressing this requirement for SMPs

See Section II, page B-1.

B-1 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 7-2, Regulation 11.a has a typographical error (line 52). The reference to Chapter

4 (List of Exemptions) should be to Chapter 2.

Added a cross-reference at Section I, (B) as

suggested.

B-1 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 7-3, Section 7.2.1 Shoreline Administrator: Regulation 3 contains a typographical

error (line 74). The reference to WAC 173-16-191 should be 173-26-191. In addition, I

recommend establishing a regular reporting requirement (such as an annual report to

the Planning Commission) to ensure the documentation is accomplished in a timely

manner, and not left until the end of the 8-year update cycle.

Periodic review as required at page B-1,

Section II (B).

B-7 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 7-4, Section 7.2.5 State Department of Ecology and Attorney General: Provision 2

discusses the authority of the Attorney General to review and appeal shoreline permit

decisions. Please note that both the department and the Attorney General have this

authority. In addition, Substitute Senate Bill 5192 amended language in RCW

90.58.180 related to appeals. Appeals must be filed within twenty-one days from the

date the final decision was filed (rather than the date of receipt). This is a needed

change.

Change was made at page B-7, Section XVI

– Permit Appeal.

B-3 and

B-5

Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 7-5, Section 7.4 Public Notice Requirements: I reviewed RMC Chapter 18.810.160

and it does not contain enough detail on notice requirements for me to determine

whether your provisions are consistent with the notice requirements set forth in the

Act and in WAC 173-27. Please ensure you have procedures that are consistent with

the requirements (see WAC 173-27-110).

Camas notice requirements are consistent

with the CMC18.55, the Act and

WAC173.27. See Sections VIII and XII.

B-6 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 7-7, Section 7.6 Commencement of Development Activity and Permit Validity:

Regulation 1 needs to be revised to reflect that “date of receipt” needs to be replaced

with “date the permit decision was filed” consistent with changes in the Act per SSB

5192. This is a needed change.

The change to date of “receipt” was made

to “filing” at Section XIII – Permit Validity

and Expiration.

B-7 Aug.

18

Van Zwalenburg Page 7-10, Section 7.10 Revocation of Permits: It appears this section may not be

entirely consistent with the provision in the statute which allows for a permit to be

rescinded after a hearing and other procedural steps (see RCW 90.58.140(8).

A decision by City Council to rescind a

permit would occur at a public hearing.

See Appendix B, Section XV.

Ch. 7 Aug. Van Zwalenburg Page 8-2, Definition 12 “Aquaculture”: This definition was altered during our rule NOTE: Definitions are located in Camas

Page 24 of 25


16 amendment. Please revise your definition consistent with the rule: “Aquaculture”

means the culture or farming of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals.

Aquaculture does not include the harvest of wild geoduck associated with the state

managed wildstock geoduck fishery.” (WAC 173-26-020(6)).

SMP, Chapter 7.

Definition was changed as suggested.

7-5, #48 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 8-5, Definition 53 – Ecological Functions or Shoreline Functions: I recommend

you cross-reference this with a definition under “S” or the reader might not locate this.

Cross-reference was added as suggested.

#97 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 8-11, Definition 108 - Maintenance dredging: This definition should be revised to

include dredging that maintains the previously authorized width of a channel, boat

basin or berthing area (along with the depth).

Definition was changed as suggested.

#107 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 8-12, Definition 123 – Natural riparian habitat corridor: How is a natural riparian

corridor “designed”?

Deleted the word “designed” as suggested.

#112 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 8-13, Definition 129 – “non-maintenance dredging”: This is a rather unique

definition which fails to cover non-commercial dredging proposals to expand and/or

deepen berthing areas and channels beyond their previously approved dimensions. I

recommend you use the generally understood definition for “non-maintenance

dredging” and include a separate definition for “commercial dredging”.

Change was made as suggested, to include

adding a separated definition for

“commercial dredging”.

#144 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 8-17, Definition 163 – Residential Development: This definition includes the

phrase “normal appurtenances” but no definition is provided for this term. “Normal

appurtenance” is defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(g) as including, on a statewide basis “a

garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a ..regulated within the

applicable master program.” This is a needed change.

Definition for “normal” appurtenances”

was inserted as suggested.

#164 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 8-20 – There is no definition for “should”. This needs to be included and must be

consistent with the definition in the Guidelines: “Should” means that the particular

action is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy of

the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, against taking the action.” (WAC 173-

26-020(40)). This is a needed change.

Inserted term as suggested.

#166 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 8-20, Definition 189 “Speculative fill”: I’m not sure this definition fully captures

what is meant by speculative fill. It means the placement of fill without any associated

development proposal, commercial or otherwise. It leads to piecemeal development

which is contrary to the policy of the Act. I recommend rewording this definition.

Change was made as suggested.

#181 Aug.

16

Van Zwalenburg Page 8-22, Definition 205 “Vessel” includes a citation to a repealed WAC. WAC 173-14

was replaced by WAC 173-27 in 1996.


App. D Aug.

16

Brad Murphy,

Ecology Wetland

Specialist, DOE

Please include copies of your critical area maps in Appendix C.

[Note: All of Murphy’s comments were directed toward Ridgefield’s CAO.]

CAO maps are in App. D

#16 Aug.

18

Email to Fox from

Van Zwalenburg

Page 8-2, Definition 17 “Berm”: This definition describes a berm as being “at or

landward of the line of ordinary high tide”. I recommend you define this in a way that

is meaningful to Clark County shorelines.


#35 Aug. Email to Fox from Page 8-4, Definition 38 “Conditional Use”: There is an incorrect citation. RCW Change was made as suggested.

Page 25 of 25


18 Van Zwalenburg 90.58.160 refers to oil and gas exploration. I believe you meant to cite WAC 173-27-

160.

#40 Aug.

18

Email to Fox from

Van Zwalenburg

Page 8-5, Definition 52 “Date of Receipt”: Substitute Senate Bill 5192 changed the

trigger for shoreline permit appeals from “date of receipt” back to “date of filing”.

(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 (a). This is a needed change.

Changed to “Filing” as required.

General Aug.

18

Email to Fox from

Van Zwalenburg

Page 8-18, Definition 176 “Setback”: This is clearly a numbering error since it is placed

between 168 and 169.

All numbering errors have been corrected.

#155 Aug.

18

Email to Fox from

Van Zwalenburg

Page 8-19, Definition 181 “Shorelines Hearings Board”: This definition is correct with

regard to appeals of shoreline permits and enforcement penalties. With regard to

appeals of master programs, for local governments planning under the Growth

Management Act (RCW 36.70A), appeals go to the Growth Management Hearings

Board. For those communities not planning under RCW 36.70A, appeals go to the

Shoreline Hearings Board. Please see WAC 173-26-130. This is a needed change.

Change was made to page 7-17 given that

Camas does plan under GMA.

Documents

Camas SMP Matrix public comments 2 of 2 Camas Draft SMP – Public Comments 2011 protection of channel migration zones. requested. File 11/9/11 George Fornes, Biologist, Priority