Community Visioning Summary Report

COMMUNITY VISIONING SUMMARY REPORT

TASK 3.1

COWLITZ COUNTY SHORELINES

Cowlitz County and the Cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso, and Woodland

Prepared for: Cowlitz County Shoreline Partnership Cowlitz Wahkiakum Council of Governments 207 Fourth Avenue North Kelso, WA 98626

Prepared By: Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1010 Washington Street, Suite 260 Vancouver, WA 98660 360‐694‐2300

MARCH 18, 2012

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND ...... 1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH ...... 1 COMMUNITY VISIONING SESSIONS ...... 2 COWLITZ COUNTY VISION ...... 4 CITY OF CASTLE ROCK VISION ...... 8 CITY OF KALAMA VISION ...... 10 CITY OF KELSO VISION ...... 12 CITY OF WOODLAND VISION ...... 13 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ...... 14 SURVEY ...... 16 CONCLUSION ...... 16 APPENDIX A – PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMORANDUM ...... A‐1 APPENDIX B – TRIBAL OUTREACH ...... B‐1 APPENDIX C – POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ...... C‐1 APPENDIX D – MEETING NOTES & COMMENTS ...... D‐1 APPENDIX E – SURVEYS ...... E‐1 APPENDIX F – STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ...... F‐1

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

BACKGROUND

The local Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is a plan and set of regulations required by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), approved by Washington Voters in 1972. The SMA provides a framework for local governments and the state Department of Ecology to manage and protect shorelines through a locally tailored program. This SMA update strives to achieve three goals: 1. Responsible shoreline use and development; 2. Environmental protection of shoreline resources; and 3. Protect the public’s access to use the shorelines (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.020).

COMMUNITY OUTREACH

The County’s SMP is 35 years old. Cowlitz County formed a partnership with the Cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso, and Woodland to make the required updates to the each jurisdiction’s SMP to ensure the local goals, policies, and regulations are consistent with state guidelines. This Community Visioning Summary Report has been prepared to fulfill Task 3.1 of the current SMP Update and for compliance with the partnership’s grant awarded by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). To begin gathering public input, a series of community visioning meetings were held on the following dates at the following locations:

 November 13, 2012 at 7:00 PM for the City of Kelso at the Kelso City Hall in Kelso, Washington  November 14, 2012 at 7:00 PM for Cowlitz County at the County Administration Building in Kelso, Washington  November 15, 2012 at 7:00 PM for the City of Woodland at the Woodland Community Center in Woodland, Washington  December 5, 2012 at 6:00 PM for the City of Castle Rock at the Castle Rock Senior Center in Castle Rock, Washington  December 13, 2012 at 7:00 PM for the City of Kalama at the Kalama City Hall in Kalama, Washington  January 9, 2013 at 6:00 PM for northern Cowlitz County at Toutle Lake School in Toutle, Washington A more detailed report of public outreach for the community visioning meetings can be found in Appendix A – Public Outreach Memorandum. Public outreach for the meetings consisted of:

 Press releases to local news media outlets including both newspaper and radio;  Announcements and text provided to organizations to distribute through their membership newsletters;  Posters announcing each jurisdiction’s meeting displayed at frequently trafficked locations and businesses in each jurisdiction;

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

 Paid radio advertising on six different radio stations from November 12, 2012 to December 14, 2012;  Announcements and text for the Cowlitz‐Wahkiakum Council of Governments (COG) electronic mail blast list and the electronic mail blast list compiled for the project; and  Posting meeting schedule, frequently asked questions sheet, and other information on the www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org project website. COG also formally notified the tribes and Columbia River Inter‐Tribal Fish Commission and invited the organizations to participate in the process (see Appendix B – Tribal Outreach).

COMMUNITY VISIONING SESSIONS

At the visioning meetings, a PowerPoint presentation was provided to attendees (see Appendix B – PowerPoint Presentation). The presentation provided a SMA overview and discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. The overview of the SMA, SMP Update, and Comprehensive plan included A copy of the draft inventory analysis is available on the www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org project website. The presentation asked the participants to consider potential vision issues including:

 Integration of the SMP with Comprehensive Plan and zoning;  Consistency with shoreline goals and the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning; and  Whether or not changes to upland policies or regulations should be considered as a result of examining issues related to the shoreline The purpose of the community visioning workshops was to gather the concerns, suggestions, ideas, and desired future outcomes of the participants with respect to the future of the shorelines in their respective jurisdictions. The presentation also asked participants the following questions related to the SMP Update broad governing principles including: Use priorities

 Is there sufficient land in the community for water‐dependent, port uses?  Does the county have adequate support for maintaining navigable waters, particularly those with a maintained dredged channel?  Is there a need for recreational water‐dependent uses such as marinas?  Is there a need for water enjoyment uses that provide opportunities for the public to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline?  Are there uses especially important to local communities with specific land use code provisions that should be incorporated? Public access

 Are there specific types of public access that are not currently adequate?  Are there areas where the public should not have greater shoreline access because of sensitive ecological resources?

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

 Are there areas in public ownership that could provide additional public access?  Are there publicly financed projects that could provide additional benefits of providing public access?  Are properties that make use of public navigable waters making adequate provisions for public access?  Should new development along the shoreline provide additional public access?  Should public agencies increase public access by purchasing land and/or easements? No net loss, and

 Are there important species of fish or wildlife in the area that are threatened by current patterns of use of the shoreline?  Are there areas of the community that should be preserved in their natural state? Does this include privately owned lands?  Are there areas of the community that have been so altered that there are few natural ecological functions and future changes should be relatively unconstrained?  Are there areas of the community that have important ecological functions, but that also are important for port of other uses that should take precedent over preservation?  Are there areas of the community that have been altered but should be targeted for restoration?  If there is a need to preserve or enhance ecological values of certain areas, what is the fair share between private parties and the general public?  Are there actions that individual private property owners on the shoreline can take that will make a positive contribution to preserving or enhancing ecological functions over time? Modifications

 Shoreline stabilization guidelines template discourages “hard armoring”  Piers and docks: potential adverse impacts  Dredging and dredge material disposal – Mt. St. Helens deposits keep washing down  Shoreline stabilization guidelines template discourages “hard armoring” ‐ Are there cases where this may be necessary?  Piers and docks have potential impacts – Are there areas where they should be limited or prohibited?  Piers and docks have potential impacts – Are there design features that can limit impacts such as increased pier height, grated reduced width, reducing nearshore impacts?  Dredging and dredge material disposal – Can we identify areas where dredging will continue to be needed?  Dredging and dredge material disposal – Can we establish parameters that will speed approval?  Dredging and dredge material disposal – Can we explore “programmatic permits” for maintenance?  Dredging and dredge material disposal – Can we coordinate better with other permitting agencies?

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

In addition to input received at the visioning sessions, the Cowlitz Public Utilities District (PUD) and the Kalama Export Company submitted comments via letters to the COG (see Appendix D – Meeting Notes & Comments).

COWLITZ COUNTY VISION

At the Kelso meeting with the Cowlitz County Planning Commission, about 20 persons attended and about 15 attended the Toutle meeting. The PowerPoint presentation was given by David Sherrard of Parametrix. The comments and questions noted below were raised at the Cowlitz County visioning meetings in both Kelso and Toutle, Washington and the comments provided by the Cowlitz PUD. In addition, comments provided through the website have also been provided below. Use Priorities

 What happens if the County and Ecology disagree on the Shoreline Master Program?  How does the Shoreline Master Program relate to the Comprehensive Plan update that is underway now?  What is the difference between the Shoreline Master Program Update and the Comprehensive Plan, which takes precedence?  How does the county’s SMP relate to the cities, especially Longview and Kelso?  Ports along the Columbia River are important to the local economy, but so are industrial uses and wood products.  How will non‐water related industrial use be accommodated?  Why is Mill Pond considered a shoreline?  How does the public know what and if comments have submitted?  How will existing structures and uses be addressed in the plan? (specifically float houses, Lewis River)  The District requests clarification about what the County means by “performance standards necessary for new utilities where other locations outside of shoreline jurisdiction are not feasible” and given its unique expertise and responsibilities, the District requests to be involved in the development of those standards.  The District requests fish passage be added as an allowed shoreline use especially if the District is required to construct fish passage facilities under its FERC license for the Swift No. 2 hydroelectric project.  I have read over the SMP Draft and am concerned about the lack of inclusion of Float Homes & or Boat Houses on the Lewis River. I am an owner of 1 of 3 such properties on the Lewis River. The SMP should include these as the current SMP nor the Draft have not done so. I wish to be included in future meetings and be notified of them. I would like the above to be included. At the very least a Grandfather status clause for the current existing properties. Public Access

 More public access the shorelines is needed.

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

 More boat launches are needed.  Better access for fishing is needed.  Trails along levees should be provided where they aren’t currently present.  Can the SMP provide greater access to Cold Water Lake which has been administratively closed by the Forest Service.  Is requiring public access from property owners legal?  Who will maintain public access facilities?  We have problems supporting our existing county parks, can we afford more?  Public access for ports and industrial lands isn’t practical.  How will the public access the shorelines?  Need/want more public access to shorelines  Who will provide it (public vs. private land owners)?  Need/want better fishing access and locations  Silver Lake has no public access.  Cold Water Lake was administratively closed (Federal lands not affected by this update).  Fawn Lake – will it be accessible?  Toutle River how will safety be addressed? (Specific comments regarding lifting the moratorium, sedimentation removal, and gave example of Toutle Ridge)  Public Parks in the area – used to be 8 now only 1, will there be more?  Sorry I missed Jan 9 meeting in Toutle. I would like to see swings or other playground equipment installed at current shoreline Parks. We have three kids and after running or biking we take a break and the kids need something to do to keep them out of the roadways. The Parks trails along the river are wonderful. Wish westside by fairground and cooks ferry park had walk bridge over creek inlet to connect Parks.  Unfortunately I was unable to attend the public meeting in Toutle. The Toutle Valley Community Association has been working to implement our Community Action Plan (CAP) for several years now. One of our highest priorities has been public access to public land and resources. To supplement the CAP, we have created a "Recreational Access Plan" that I will send. We are in the unenviable position, here in Cowlitz County, to have spectacular public lands and public resources, but very little access to those areas. Public access to our public lands is key to improving quality of life, economic opportunity, and sense of place. For example, private interests control most access to our major lakes and streams, including Castle Lake, much of Silver Lake, our smaller river systems including the Toutle, Coweeman, and Kalama systems. The higher elevation lakes (Hanaford, Forest, Elk, Fawn and Tradedollar, Coweeman Lakes) are privately owned with no public access. Special places like Hollywood Gorge and most of Merrill Lake and Kalama Falls are privately owned.  Public access to the shoreline of Silver Lake is inadequate  The public has no legal access to the Green River and the Green River fish hatchery, which supports a valuable fishery that is subject to annual closures by private interests (Weyerhaeuser).

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

 Coldwater Lake is overregulated and lacks meaningful public access.  The public does not have legal access to Castle Lake area (currently the route is controlled by Weyerhaeuser)  In a county where one industry owns the majority of the rivers and shores, we must purchase access if need be. Additionally, the extend of navigability—and thus the public ownership of beds and shorelines—should be delineated based on sections of rivers and streams that have been used/ or could be used for commerce i.e. floating shake bolts. Using the standard that has been acknowledged in court will also open up grant opportunities for our smaller rivers systems, which were key modes of transportation in the past. Bolts were floated from the Coweeman, Kalama, North and South Toutle, etc. making these sections legally navigable. An additional concern I have is the lack of mitigation associated with the Corps ongoing "projects" in the Toutle River System. Just this year they raised the affective height of the sediment dam, flooding over 300 acres of wetlands, with no mitigation. The Toutle and Cowlitz has been dredged extensively and three sediment dams have been installed, without mitigation. The public lost access to tens of miles of shoreline when the largest sediment dam (SRS) was constructed. Alder Creek, Hoffstadt Creek, and Deer creek were damaged beyond repair‐‐all without mitigation or even a way around the structure.  For visioning; I would like to see a shoreline system that is accessible for public recreation, with an emphasis on lakes and rivers that are currently controlled by timber companies. I envision a streamlined and flexible regulation of shores instead of the current multi‐layered bureaucracy, with overlapping agency jurisdiction and conflicting requirements. I would like to see a fund for acquiring shoreline access for public recreation. Multi‐ agency cooperation and public‐private partnerships should be a goal for everyone. We need to acknowledge the special situation that a massive volcanic eruption has place on our rivers and streams. We must strive to rebuild our recreation on or rivers, lakes and streams that was impacted by the eruption and subsequent river erosion. We must limit building in areas prone to erosion, flooding and other natural processes that ultimately drive up costs for other taxpayers. We should not be bailing out homeowners who built in unsuitable places. Look at the Stealhead Landing development, for example, which was built on May 18th mudflow, and is being eroded by the South Toutle River. Taxpayer “fish enhancement” funds are now being used to protect these homes (and not to enhance fish). We must hold agencies like the Corp of Engineers to high standards of mitigation, instead of falling back on “emergency” declarations that then allow them to circumvent requirements that everyday citizens must comply with. No Net Loss:

 Who will decide what areas are ecologically important?  Who will pay for restoration public or private? (Fair share – public vs. private)  Existing regulations and exemptions (buffering rules) ‐ asked for clarifications on shoreline exemptions. (residential vs. industrial)  Functionality of existing wetlands (specifically Silver Lake) and restoration  What is restoration?

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

 Clarify permitting on properties within 200 feet of the shoreline – while only a small portion of the District’s substation property falls under the shoreline jurisdiction, the District has been required to obtain a Substantial Development Permit for the entire project and parcel.  To more efficiently use the District’s and County’s resources, the District recommends that the SMP be clarified to state that repair and maintenance that does not change the existing use on properties that overlap the 200 foot buffer is exempt from a Substantial Development Permit and the permitting process.  Clarify permitting process requirements under exemptions – the Public Utility District recommends that the County clarify the SMP to state that no permit application is required when the project is statutorily exempt. Modifications:

 The Columbia River and the Cowlitz River need regular dredging. How will that be accommodated?  How will dredge spoils be treated?  How with the SMP relate to other permits that are required, particularly the Corps of Engineers?  Will the cities and county be modifying their codes to reflect the changes in the changes to the SMP?  Dredge spoil sites – how will these be treated, located?  How is shading addressed for over water structures?  The Public Utility District recommends clarifying the SMP to state that weirs and other shoreline structures required under federal and state regulations and licenses are allowed modifications. Summary Participants had a range of comments generally supporting public access but also raising questions about particular areas and expressing concerns about the planning process and regulatory requirements. The County Planning Commission definition of the goals for future use of the shoreline is the focus of a series of workshop meetings addressing specific topics. This process integrates findings of the shoreline inventory and characterization report, identifies shoreline challenges and opportunities, and results in a strategy for shoreline uses, public access, resource protection, and restoration that is consistent with SMA policy and SMP Guidelines objectives. The specific topics addressed at workshop meetings include: 1. Structure of the Shoreline Master Program and relation to the Comprehensive Plan 2. Provisions for shorelines of statewide significance 3. Water oriented uses 4. Public access 5. Administrative provisions 6. Provisions for existing development 7. Maintenance and enhancement of ecological processes 8. Mitigation of cumulative impacts 9. Shoreline geographic designations

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

10. Critical areas 11. Vegetation management 12. Dimensional standards This vision will be incorporated in the initial Draft Shoreline Master Program and will undergo further agency and public review prior to adoption.

CITY OF CASTLE ROCK VISION

At the City of Castle Rock meeting, only a few participants were present other than the Planning Commission. The PowerPoint presentation was given by David Sherrard of Parametrix. The comments and questions noted below were raised at the visioning meeting in Castle Rock. The City of Castle Rock Parks and Recreation Department completed a survey for inclusion as part of the visioning process (see Appendix E – Surveys) Use Priorities:

 What is meant by navigable waters?  To what extent can we allow uses that are not water dependent?  How do we handle areas cut off from the river by levees?  How do we handle conflicts between current zoning and the Comprehensive Plan and property owner desires that might be different? Public Access:

 The city currently has public access along the levees.  Some additional public access where there are missing links would be desirable.  Public access on the school district property should be worked out.  Can the school district’s desire for outdoor classrooms on the shorelines be accommodated?  More boat launches are needed in the area but not necessarily in the city.  Better access for fishing is needed.  Is requiring public access from property owners legal? No Net Loss:

 How do we handle areas cut off from the river by levees?  Who will pay for restoration public or private? (Fair share – public vs. private)  What is restoration? Modifications:

 The Cowlitz River needs regular dredging. How will that be accommodated?  How will dredge spoils be treated?  Will the city be required to modify other codes to reflect the changes in the changes to the SMP?

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan The City of Castle Rock’s shoreline environment is predominantly recreational uses on publicly owned lands. Therefore, it is suggested the following goals and objectives from the Parks Plan Update, adopted in July, 2011 as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan be reviewed to see if any of these are appropriate to use in the Visioning report: GOALS A. Utilize the Castle Rock Riverfront Park Master Plan as a guide to the phased development of the so‐called “recreation corridor,” including development plans for the large dredge‐spoil sites on both sides of the Cowlitz River. B. Continue to promote the enhancement and extension of the Riverfront Trail network. The trails should also connect to the regional system identified in the Cowlitz Regional Trails Plan, to Seaquest Park, and to the central business district. OBJECTIVES A. Extend the Riverfront Trail on the west side southward to Arkansas Creek, cross the creek, and link to the Regional Trail System on Cowlitz County land (Camelot area). Explore opportunities to develop equestrian trails near the fairgrounds as part of the multipurpose trail system. Construction will likely occur in phases. B. Pursue opportunities to enhance multipurpose trails so they provide recreational uses for the greatest range of population (i.e. walkers, joggers, runners, bicyclists, equestrians, etc.) and also satisfy a transportation component in a multimodal transit management program. Include the safe crossing of the Cowlitz River as part of such a plan. C. Make improvements to Castle Rock/DNR land (the “High Banks” land) on the west side of the Cowlitz River. Pursue opportunities to partner with a private developer to improve and market a portion of the site as an RV Resort. Other possible improvements include parking facility construction, development of access ramps to public fishing sites on the Cowlitz River and Arkansas Creek and installation of erosion control measures. Fish habitat enhancement and educational opportunities could also result. A day‐use area along Arkansas Creek should also be provided. A bridge crossing Arkansas Creek should be constructed or installed in order to extend the city’s trails to the Regional Trail System. D. Continue developing and constructing the regional boat launch on the Cowlitz River. E. Work towards developing a community park at the city‐owned dredge spoil site on the east side of the Cowlitz River in the area known as “The Big Bend,” using the Riverfront Park Master Plan as a guide. F. Add additional features to the Al Helenberg Memorial Boat Launch including a canoe/kayak slip, ADA accessible restrooms, a fish cleaning station and sufficient paved parking. Castle Rock School District Objectives

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

The Castle Rock School District #401 in partnership with the City of Castle Rock, seeks to accomplish the following Objectives: 1. Continue to improve and expand the community garden, orchard and berry patch. 2. Construct an outdoor classroom. 3. Complete and expand the Riverfront Trail and exercise stations, adding open and covered picnic facilities and a playground supported by community volunteers, donations and grants. Summary Comments included a few questions from citizens but largely reflected Planning Commission questions about the process and how the SMP will fit into other programs. The Castle Rock Parks and Recreation survey focused primarily on outdoor recreation, sports, and park facilities and amenities versus shoreline uses. However, in addition to increasing athletic fields, community center facilities, etc. the survey did indicate a desire to have some increased access to the Cowlitz River and more water related activities and trails developed. The Castle Rock Planning Commission definition of the goals for future use of the shoreline is the focus of a series of workshop meetings addressing specific topics. This process integrates findings of the shoreline inventory and characterization report, identifies shoreline challenges and opportunities, and results in a strategy for shoreline uses, public access, resource protection, and restoration that is consistent with SMA policy and SMP Guidelines objectives. The specific topics addressed at workshop meetings include: 1. Structure of the Shoreline Master Program in relation to the Comprehensive Plan 2. Provisions for shorelines of statewide significance 3. Water oriented uses 4. Public access 5. Administrative provisions 6. Provisions for existing development 7. Maintenance and enhancement of ecological processes 8. Mitigation of cumulative impacts 9. Shoreline geographic designations 10. Critical areas 11. Vegetation management 12. Dimensional standards This vision will be incorporated in the initial Draft Shoreline Master Program and will undergo further agency and public review prior to adoption.

CITY OF KALAMA VISION

At the City of Kalama meeting, approximately five participants attended in addition to the Planning Commission members. The PowerPoint presentation was given by Jennifer Hughes of Parametrix. The

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update comments and questions noted below were raised at the visioning meeting in Kalama as well as comments submitted by Kalama Exports Company. Use Priorities:

 Continue to recognize and support the important role of water‐dependent industries.  The existing grain terminal at Kalama Export Company is consistent with the Urban High Intensity definition, and we request that the Urban shoreline designation remain for our industrial property.  Shoreline development standards should be developed with a job growth focus that promotes industrial expansion for water‐dependent industries.  It is very important that water‐dependent industries be allowed to maintain and expand operations consistent with their long‐term development plans and allow development within the inner riparian buffer that abuts the Columbia River for upland development to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Public Access:

 Concerns about Camp Kalama, adjacent to I‐5. The property owners have had difficulty managing the site with respect to regulatory requirements.  What is the public comment process for this work? No Net Loss:

 None.  Most of Columbia shoreline is built out. Modifications:

 How will dredge spoils be treated? The Port has beach nourishment planned in the near future. Summary Comments included a few questions from citizens but largely reflected Planning Commission questions about the process and how the SMP will fit into other programs. The Planning Commission definition of the goals for future use of the shoreline is the focus of a series of workshop meetings addressing specific topics. This process integrates findings of the shoreline inventory and characterization report, identifies shoreline challenges and opportunities, and results in a strategy for shoreline uses, public access, resource protection, and restoration that is consistent with SMA policy and SMP Guidelines objectives. The specific topics addressed at workshop meetings include: 1. Structure of the Shoreline Master Program in relation to the Comprehensive Plan 2. Provisions for shorelines of statewide significance 3. Water oriented uses 4. Public access 5. Administrative provisions 6. Provisions for existing development

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

7. Maintenance and enhancement of ecological processes 8. Mitigation of cumulative impacts 9. Shoreline geographic designations 10. Critical areas 11. Vegetation management 12. Dimensional standards This vision will be incorporated in the initial Draft Shoreline Master Program and will undergo further agency and public review prior to adoption.

CITY OF KELSO VISION

At the City of Kelso meeting, approximately three participants were in attendance in addition to the Planning Commission members. The PowerPoint presentation was given by David Sherrard and Jennifer Hughes of Parametrix. The comments and questions noted below were raised at the visioning meeting in Kelso. Use Priorities:

 Kelso has to follow everything that is already established, and then choose what we want to do?  Unique area with part of Kelso in County – how will this mix together?  Where the railroad owns land along the river, how do we work with them? Public Access:

 Is there sufficient Public Access to the shoreline now?  Access is sufficient, but we don’t have enough boat launches.  Need to consider in larger area than Kelso.  Think trails are great.  Lacking in boat launches in Kelso, but they exist nearby.  Is there a formula used to determine if there is enough access?  For swimming areas, we don’t have those there. How do we address that? We don’t have good safe areas.  So, if you identify where to place these things, where does the money come from?  People are waiting up to an hour at boat launches during high fishing times, one on the Cowlitz isn’t usable due to siltation…need better access. No Net Loss:

 How do you determine OHWM?  Associated wetlands vs. potentially associated wetlands?  What do these ratings define? Modifications:

 Any significant changes being recommended?

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

Summary Comments included a few questions from citizens but largely reflected Planning Commission questions about the process and how the SMP will fit into other programs. The Planning Commission definition of the goals for future use of the shoreline is the focus of a series of workshop meetings addressing specific topics. This process integrates findings of the shoreline inventory and characterization report, identifies shoreline challenges and opportunities, and results in a strategy for shoreline uses, public access, resource protection, and restoration that is consistent with SMA policy and SMP Guidelines objectives. The specific topics addressed at workshop meetings include: 1. Structure of the Shoreline Master Program in relation to the Comprehensive Plan 2. Provisions for shorelines of statewide significance 3. Water oriented uses 4. Public access 5. Administrative provisions 6. Provisions for existing development 7. Maintenance and enhancement of ecological processes 8. Mitigation of cumulative impacts 9. Shoreline geographic designations 10. Critical areas 11. Vegetation management 12. Dimensional standards This vision will be incorporated in the initial Draft Shoreline Master Program and will undergo further agency and public review prior to adoption.

CITY OF WOODLAND VISION

The City of Woodland Planning Commission participated in the meeting in addition to one City Council member. The PowerPoint presentation was given by Derek Chisholm of Parametrix. The comments and questions noted below were raised at the visioning meeting in Woodland. Use Priorities:

 Woodland, will our plan supersede the county’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP)? Will we have input for the County SMP? What happens to property outside the UGB that the County may deem natural, and we annex in that portion, is there some way to change it?  Existing/nonconforming use, will it be part of SMP?  What is the best tool to use to contact and get information?  Water dependent use, we would like to put something on our property. Hired consultants, and do not want any more changes made. Public Access:

 Concern about provision of public access potentially through private property.

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

 Will the City be building trails on public land? No Net Loss:

 Already platted lots in floodplain may be affected any new regulations. Modifications:

 Substantial development goes to public hearing.  Interest in having administrative provisions simplified and heard by hearings examiner.  How would the physical barriers be addressed? Such as roads which run through the middle of the shoreline area. Summary Comments included a few questions from citizens but largely reflected Planning Commission questions about the process and how the SMP will fit into other programs. Marilee McCall, City Council Member, also participated. The Planning Commission definition of the goals for future use of the shoreline is the focus of a series of workshop meetings addressing specific topics. This process integrates findings of the shoreline inventory and characterization report, identifies shoreline challenges and opportunities, and results in a strategy for shoreline uses, public access, resource protection, and restoration that is consistent with SMA policy and SMP Guidelines objectives. The specific topics addressed at workshop meetings include: 1. Structure of the Shoreline Master Program in relation to comprehensive plan 2. Provisions for shorelines of statewide significance 3. Water oriented uses 4. Public access 5. Administrative provisions 6. Provisions for existing development 7. Maintenance and enhancement of ecological processes 8. Mitigation of cumulative impacts 9. Shoreline geographic designations 10. Critical areas 11. Vegetation management 12. Dimensional standards This vision will be incorporated in the initial Draft Shoreline Master Program and will undergo further agency and public review prior to adoption.

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

During August and September 2012 over 30 stakeholder interviews were conducted to obtain input and identify key issues for the Cowlitz County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update. The

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update stakeholders were identified by the project management team and the interviews were conducted by the consultant team. The interviewees were contacted by phone and sent the project frequently asked questions (FAQ) via email. Most interviews occurred over the phone. The interviewees were generally asked about their experience with the shorelines program, their experience with the permitting process, their opinion of what the update should accomplish and the details of their shoreline property. The detailed questionnaire and responses are attached to this document as Appendix F. Key Findings

 Those stakeholders who have familiarity with the current SMP generally had a favorable view of the program. Though some stakeholders pointed out there could be improvements around how port and industrial activities are permitted, including conditional uses and the threshold for requiring a permit.  There were generally more complaints about other natural resource permits, particularly US Army Corps of Engineers requirements then there were about the SMP process.  There is some concern about changes to the current system and the addition of more regulations and most stakeholders want the updated SMP to provide flexibility. A common example was the permitting of activities behind a dike should have different requirements than those activities not protected by a dike.  Striking a balance between economic development and environmental protection is a key issue with most stakeholders, particularly larger land owners. Most realize environmental protections are needed but want to make sure the need for new development in the county is not stifled. There was a suggestion to include the goal of economic development within the new program and clearly state the intent to balance protection with the growth of shoreline dependent uses.  Amongst the city stakeholders, most did not have any experience with the shorelines process, but they generally thought there needed to be flexibility with the establishment of any new regulations.  Due to the stagnant economy, some development has been permitted but building has not started and now the shoreline permit has expired. There is a desire to insure shoreline permits are valid for the same amount of time as other development permits.  Numerous restoration opportunities and specific shoreline conditions were identified by stakeholders, and as appropriate, those opportunities are being included in the Inventory Report.  In a few cases, stakeholders are considering development within the shoreline buffer and are weighing whether to start development under the current program or wait until the new program is in place.  Public access was discussed by many of the stakeholders, but was particularly prevalent in Kelso where most stakeholders identified the need for additional public access.  When asked about how to involve the public in the update process, most stakeholders indicated public meetings were not very effective, but there were few suggestions about how effectively reach people.

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

SURVEY

A survey was posted to the www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org project website (see Appendix E – Surveys). Six participants completed the online project survey. Survey Results

The participants lived in areas throughout Cowlitz County. They were all concerned citizens interested in public access and parks. Two respondents were shoreline property owners and two represented business interests. One participant was interested in environmental quality and one completed the survey as a recreational boater. Half the respondents stated they did not own shoreline property. However, one‐third of the participants were property owners and one noted their employer as a shoreline property owner. The participants described their recreational uses of the shoreline and most would like to see more visual and physical access to the shoreline. One respondent works on or near the shoreline and another accesses their residence on or near the shoreline. The opinions were diverse on whether avoidance, minimization, or mitigation is the best way to accomplish environmental protection. However, the respondents unanimously deemed shoreline restoration as a joint effort between private property owners and government agencies. The respondents seemed to favor shoreline parks, trails with access to the shoreline, boating and other water related activities and swimming to enhance the recreation experience. Two respondents each favored public docks, urban commercial areas for restaurants, etc. and undeveloped open space. The opinions were split on whether additional waterfront development for ports is needed. Several would like to see a waterfront restaurant and additional water related activities for boating, canoeing, kayaking, etc. developed. Only two participants believe replacement docks should be smaller or have design features to accommodate salmon and other aquatic species. Most did not answer or need additional information regarding modifications to regulation of docks. Most of the respondents stated regulations prohibiting lawn and ornamental plants on the shoreline should occur and three participants believe it should only apply to new or substantial remodeling of existing development. Overall, the survey responses seemed to emphasize the importance of recreation and increased public access. CONCLUSION

While the participants in each jurisdiction’s visioning process have concerns about specific areas and impacts of additional regulations, virtually all areas would like to see a heavier emphasis on public access and increased opportunities for water related recreation such as boating, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, etc. and some trail development as part of the vision for their community’s future use of the shorelines. Private property owners will need to continue to be engaged throughout the process to ensure they understand the process, have opportunities to ask questions, and provide input. Several participants throughout all jurisdictions requested additional information about the SMP Update process. Future public information materials and the project website would be ideal to accommodate this need.

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

APPENDIX A – PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMORANDUM

A‐1

TO: Steve Harvey, CWCOG TJ Keiran, CWCOG Matt Herman, CWCOG and City of Kalama Phil Rupp, Cowlitz County Ron Melin, Cowlitz County Nancy Malone, City of Kelso Carolyn Johnson, City of Woodland CC: David Sherrard, Parametrix FROM: Dena Horton, Normandeau Associates DATE: 1/25/13 RE: Cowlitz SMP Project Update

This information is provided to give the Project Management Team (PMT) an update on the cumulative public involvement activities to date..

1. List of all the products we have prepared and the PMT has reviewed to date: • Public involvement plans for each jurisdiction • Background and frequently asked questions for the website • Newsletter text (both 100 and 250 word verssions) • Draft press releases (11/6/12 and 12/28/12) • Draft radio public service announcements • Draft survey • Draft text for CWCOG email blast • Meeting announcement posters for each jurisdiction (except Castle Rock) • Radio station and advertising pricing information sheet • MP3 recordings of the radio advertising public service announcements

2. List of items that have been released to date: • Organizational newsletter text, both 100 and 250 word versions, was sent to: o Chambers of commerce for Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso-Longview, Woodland o Cowlitz Economic Development Council (CCEDC) o Lower Columbia Contractors Association (LCCA) o Cowlitz PUD o Amalak o Altrusa of Cowlitz County and Kelso/Longview o Longview Kiwanis Club o Lions Clubs of Kalama and Woodland o Rotary Clubs of Kelso, Longview, Woodland o Columbia Riverkeeper o Fish First o Vancouver (SW WA) Audubon o Longview Yacht Club (forwarded to Columbia River Yachting Association and Recreational Boaters of Washington) • Press release was sent on 11/2/12 (and revised 11/6/12) to the following media outlets: o The Daily News o The Oregonian o The Columbian o Bicoastal Media (covering KPPK 98.3 FM, KBAM 1270 AM, KEDO 1400 AM, Magic 94.5 FM, and Rocket 107 FM radio stations) o KLOG media (covering KLOG 1490 AM, KUKN 105.5 FM, and The Wave 101.5 FM) o KLTV o Lewis River Review o Revised press release was also sent to the Valley Bugler’s new contact information • Press release was sent on 12/28/12 to the following media outlets: o The Daily News o Bicoastal Media (covering KPPK 98.3 FM, KBAM 1270 AM, KEDO 1400 AM, Magic 94.5 FM, and Rocket 107 FM radio stations) o KLOG media (covering KLOG 1490 AM, KUKN 105.5 FM, and The Wave 101.5 FM) o Lewis River Review o Valley Bugler • Press release was also sent on 12/2812 to the project email blast list • Radio advertisement public service announcements were purchased and aired on six different radio stations between 11/12/12 through 12/14/12. The stations confirmed they just mailed affidavits that detail the exact dates, times, and duration of the ads to be included in the public outreach records. The affidavits have not arrived in the mail yet but are anticipated soon. • Email text for the CWCOG newsletter distribution list. The CWCOG will be responsible for sending the email, providing the opt-in features on the website, gathering contact information (name, email, address, and phone number at a minimum), and maintenance of the database of opt-in participants. The CWCOG forwarded the list of opt-in email addresses to include in the email blast list and will send an update of opt-ins before each round of press releases, open houses, and other public materials are distributed. • We send the same text information out to the email list we’ve compiled so the messaging is consistent. Our email list was compiled from the following sources: o Cowlitz County Commissioners o Cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso, and Woodland contacts provided o PacifiCorp email list for the Lewis River Hydroelectric project o Port of Longview o Chambers of commerce for Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso-Longview, and Woodland o CEDC o LCCA o Service organizations (Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Amalak and Altrusa) o Non-governmental organizations (Riverkeepers, Fish First, Audubon, recreational boating clubs)

3. Currently, the following items have been completed: • Updating the master comment log • Draft survey questions for the website • Draft take home information for the Public Visualization meetings • Meeting announcement poster for Castle Rock

4. Pending input from the PMT • Nothing at this time.

Cowlitz County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update

Background and Frequently Asked Questions

Cowlitz County along with the cities of Castle Rock, Kelso, Kalama and Woodland and the Cowlitz‐Wahkiakum Council of Governments (CWCOG) have formed a partnership to update the county Shoreline Master Program.

The purpose of the Shoreline Master Program project is to update the County’s 35‐year old plan for managing shorelines throughout the county. The Shoreline Management Act was a referendum first approved by voters in 1972. The Shoreline Management Act provides a statewide framework for managing, accessing and protecting shorelines throughout the state. The Act is implemented through local development regulations. The statute requires each county and city within the state to update their Shoreline Master Program periodically. Cowlitz County and the Cities within the county are required to update their Shoreline Master Program by December 1, 2014 and have begun the process to do so. To complete this work, the Department of Ecology provided the County and Cities with a grant.

To streamline the process and use public funds efficiently, Cowlitz County and the cities of Castle Rock, Kelso, Kalama and Woodland and the Cowlitz‐Wahkiakum Council of Governments are generating one shoreline inventory for all the jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction will then utilize this inventory information, in addition to input from its community and stakeholders, to craft individual Shoreline Master Programs. After the updated Programs are adopted, they will be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology for approval.

The project is anticipated to be complete by June 30, 2014, and will be conducted in the following phases:

Phase 1 Identification of preliminary shoreline jurisdictions, April to June 2012 development of public participation program, and complete the shoreline inventory Phase 2 Conduct shoreline analysis and characterization and June to December 2012 initial stakeholder outreach Phase 3 Develop the Shoreline Master Program including September 2012 to December shoreline environmental designation, policies, and 2013 regulations Phase 4 Prepare a cumulative impacts analysis and November 2012 to January restoration plans 2014 Phase 5 Each jurisdiction adopts their local Shoreline January to June 2014 Master Program and sends to the State Department of Ecology for approval Phase 6 Ecology conducts the state approval process June to November 2014

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the purpose of the Shoreline Master Program update? A: The Shoreline Master Program update will help the County and Cities within the County plan for future of their shoreline areas. The shoreline program is a combination of policies, regulations, and permits that guide shoreline use within Cowlitz County and the Cities within the County. It will balance shoreline development with environmental protection, and provide for access to public shores and waters.

The Shoreline Master Program will balance local and statewide interests in achieving the following goals:  Plan for water‐dependent, water‐related and other uses  Identify appropriate public access  Maintain and enhance ecological conditions of the shoreline

Q: Why are the County and Cities updating the Shoreline Master Program now? A: The County and the cities of Castle Rock, Kelso, Kalama and Woodland are required to update the Shoreline Master Program on a timetable established by the legislature. Most jurisdictions, including Cowlitz County, haven’t updated their programs comprehensively since the 1970’s. The update is required to address current conditions, consider new science and to be aligned with current laws. The deadline to complete the update is December 1, 2014.

Q: What is the role of the County and Cities in shoreline management? A: Cowlitz County and the cities of Castle Rock, Kelso, Kalama and Woodland are responsible for deciding which optional areas to include in shoreline jurisdiction, analyzing the present uses and long‐term needs for water‐dependent uses on the shorelines, and adopting policies and regulations to govern future use and development. The County and Cities must consult with the public, other agencies, tribal governments, and others interested in developing their shoreline master programs. Once adopted, the County and Cities will administrator the program and review new development proposals for consistency with the local program.

Q: What is considered a “shoreline” area? A: The areas subject to the Shoreline Management Act are defined by state statute. These generally include:  Rivers and streams with mean annual flow over 20 cubic feet per second  Lakes and reservoirs exceeding 20 acres  Lands extending landward 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, and the portion of floodplains extending 200 feet from the floodway

Q: How will the public be involved in the Shoreline Master Program update? A: Cowlitz County and the cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso, and Woodland will each be providing notice to the public and interested parties, conducting public meetings on their respective SMPs and soliciting input from the public through a variety of channels including open house meetings. Information about the project will be posted available on the project website throughout the process. The project website address is (INSERT WEBSITE ADDRESS LINK HERE).

Q: If I own property or a business along the shoreline, what can I expect? A: Existing requirements for permits will not change. Existing buildings and other development, including landscaping can be maintained in its current status. If you propose new development on your property there may be new requirements, including setbacks and buffers from the water and new regulations for docks, and other facilities.

Q: Where did the money come from to pay for this project? A: Cowlitz County and the cities of Castle Rock, Kelso, Kalama and Woodland received a grant from Ecology to complete the update to the Shoreline Master Program. The grant funding is being administered through the Cowlitz‐Wahkiakum Council of Governments.

Q: Who do I contact if I have any questions? Comment [JF1]: Should I be the contact? And should we add contact info for each jurisdiction? A: The consultant project manager is Jason Franklin of Parametrix Inc. He can be reached at [email protected] or by phone at 503‐416‐6167. All questions and responses will be noted and kept as part of the public comment log for the project.

Cowlitz County Partnership Draft Newsletter Text

100 word version

As required by the Shoreline Management Act, Cowlitz County and the cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso and Woodland, Washington, are updating their 35‐year‐old county Shoreline Master Program. The public is invited to provide input at community visioning meetings starting in November. These meetings will present preliminary shoreline inventory information, identify challenges and opportunities, answer questions, and solicit input from business, industries, ports, property owners, residents and others. Information gathered will help develop strategies for each jurisdiction for shoreline uses, public access, resource protection, and restoration. Visit (www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org) for the meeting calendar, or contact David Sherrard at [email protected] or 425‐458‐6374.

250 word version

As required by the Shoreline Management Act, Cowlitz County and the cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso and Woodland, Washington, are updating their 35‐year‐old county Shoreline Master Program. The act was approved by Washington voters in 1972 and provides a statewide framework for local governments to manage and protect shorelines. The goals of the act "are to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines," and encourage the siting of water‐dependent uses, protect shoreline natural resources, and promote public access.

Cowlitz County must complete the update by December 1, 2014. The Washington State Department of Ecology provided the County and cities with a three‐year grant for the update. To streamline the process and use public funds efficiently, one shoreline inventory for all the partnership jurisdictions is being generated. Each entity will use this one inventory and coordinate public and stakeholder input to develop individual programs. First meeting will be:

Cowlitz County Planning Commission

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

7:00pm

County Administration Building – 3rd Floor Commissioner’s Hearing Room

207 Fourth Avenue North, Kelso, WA 98626 Property owners, water‐dependent businesses, and interested citizens are strongly encouraged to provide input at community visioning meetings starting in November. These meetings will present preliminary shoreline inventory information, identify challenges and opportunities, answer questions, and solicit input. Information gathered will help develop strategies for each jurisdiction for shoreline uses, public access, resource protection, and restoration. For the full meeting calendar, visit (www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org) or contact David Sherrard at [email protected] or 425‐458‐ 6374.

For Immediate Release

DATE: November 6, 2012

CONTACT: For more information contact David Sherrard, Parametrix 425-458-6374 or [email protected] Cowlitz County Partnership Seeks Public Input On Shorelines

Cowlitz County and the cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso, and Woodland, Washington, have formed a partnership to update the 35-year-old county Shoreline Master Program. The public is invited to attend a series of community visioning meetings starting in November to provide input. These sessions will be held in conjunction with the Planning Commission meetings for Cowlitz County and the cities of Kelso and Woodland. Staff from the County and City Planning Departments and Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments (CWCOG) as well as the project consultant team will be on hand at the meetings to present local shoreline characteristics, identify challenges and opportunities, answer questions, and solicit input from business, industries, ports, property owners, residents and other participants. The information gathered at these meetings will be used to develop a tailored strategy for each jurisdiction for shoreline uses, public access, resource protection, and restoration.

Additional meetings will be held Castle Rock and Kalama in December and in the northern part of Cowlitz County at a date to be determined.

 Encourage water-dependent uses: "Uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the states' shorelines...”  Protect shoreline natural resources, including: "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..."  Promote public access: "The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally."

The act requires each county and city to periodically update their program. For Cowlitz County, this must be accomplished by December 1, 2014. The Washington State Department of Ecology provided the County and cities with a three-year grant to complete the update. To streamline the process and use public funds efficiently, one shoreline inventory for all the partnership jurisdictions is being generated. Each entity will apply this inventory and coordinate public and stakeholder input to develop individual programs.

Property owners, water-dependent businesses, and interested citizens are strongly encouraged to attend and participate. “This partnership project represents an exciting opportunity for stakeholders, citizens, and others to participate in shaping the future from the ground up in terms of how their community interacts with waterfronts and shoreline environments. We want to hear from the entire spectrum of people, businesses, and organizations that have an active interest in those areas,” said Steve Harvey, CWCOG Executive Director.

Answers to frequently asked questions for this project can be found at www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org in addition to other project information.

MEETING CALENDAR (meetings scheduled to date)

City of Kelso, Washington What: Community Visioning Meeting with the Kelso Planning Commission regarding the Shoreline Master Program Update for the City of Kelso When: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 Time: 7:00pm Location: Kelso City Hall Council Chambers Address: 203 S. Pacific Avenue, Kelso, WA 98626

Cowlitz County, Washington What: Community Visioning Meeting with the Cowlitz County Planning Commission regarding the Shoreline Master Program Update for Cowlitz County When: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 Time: 7:00pm Location: Cowlitz County Administration Building, Third Floor Commissioner’s Hearing Room Address: 207 Fourth Avenue N., Kelso, Washington 98626

City of Woodland, Washington, Southern Cowlitz County What: Community Visioning Meeting with the Woodland Planning Commission and addressing issues in southern Cowlitz County regarding the Shoreline Master Program Update for the City of Woodland When: Thursday, November 15, 2012 Time: 7:00pm Location: Woodland Community Center Address: 782 Park Street, Woodland, WA 98674

City of Castle Rock, Washington What: Community Visioning Meeting with the Castle Rock Planning Commission regarding the Shoreline Master Program Update for the City of Castle Rock When: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 Time: 6:00pm Location: Castle Rock Senior Center Address: 222 Second Avenue, Castle Rock, WA 98656

City of Kalama, Washington What: Community Visioning Meeting with the Kalama Planning Commission regarding the Shoreline Master Program Update for the City of Kalama When: Thursday, December 13, 2012 Time: 7:00pm Location: Kalama City Hall Address: 320 N. First Street, Kalama, WA 98625

Northern Cowlitz County, Washington What: Community Visioning Meeting with Toutle, northern Cowlitz County communities and Cowlitz County Planning Commission regarding the Shoreline Master Program Update for Cowlitz County When: To be determined # # #

Cowlitz County Partnership PSA Text

30 second version B

As required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, Cowlitz County and the cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso and Woodland are updating their Shoreline Master Programs. If you live, work, recreate or own property near any of the rivers, lakes, and streams in Cowlitz County, please attend a series of community visioning meetings starting in November. These meetings will present the preliminary shoreline inventory and solicit input from business, ports, property owners, and residents. Your input will help develop strategies for future management and protection of the shorelines. For the meeting schedule, visit www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org or contact 360‐577‐3041. DRAFT Survey Please note – We probably put the check-off boxes in two columns and get this survey down to only 2 pages in length.

Survey –Shoreline Master Program Update

A. Please Tell Us About Yourself 1 Where do you live, or what is the area that you are primarily interested in? (check all that apply)

Northwest Cowlitz County/Ryderwood Upper Chehalis River/Toutle River/Silver Lake Kelso/Longview Area Kalama River Lower Columbia Lewis River City of Castle Rock City of Kelso City of Kalama City of Woodland

2. What is your primary interest in the Shoreline Master Program (check all that apply) Shoreline property owner Interested citizen Business interest Interested in environmental quality Recreational boater Interested in public access and parks Other

3. How did you hear about the Shoreline Master Program update project? (check all that apply) Newspapers Business organization/newsletter Radio Email Word of mouth Other

4. What is the best way to keep you informed? (check only one) Public meetings Email Newspapers Business organization/newsletter Radio Other

B. Please Share your Concerns with Us 1. Environmental protection of the shorelines is a goal of the Shoreline Management Act. What do you believe is the best way to accomplish this? (check only one) Avoid impacts by keeping the shoreline in a natural state Minimize impacts in the shoreline areas by using appropriate standards Continue developing using existing standards and set aside areas for mitigation and improvement Other options as appropriate

Comments: 2. Providing public access to the water and enhancing recreation are goals of the Shoreline Management Act. If public access is important to you, what kind of additional facilities would you like? (check all that apply) Shoreline parks Trails Boat launches Public swimming areas Public Docks Undeveloped open space Urban commercial areas with uses such as restaurants and shoreline access No opinion

Comments: 3. The Columbia River system and the ports located on the Columbia River are our region’s connection to international trade and commerce centers, support industrial businesses, and provide many good paying, local jobs. What is your opinion on the need for additional waterfront development by the ports? More development by the ports is needed Keep the current amount of development as is Focus on public access rather than private/business use No Opinion

Comments: 5. What kinds of commercial development do you prefer to see on the shorelines? Any business should be allowed to develop along the shorelines Commercial/industrial and shipping uses Boating, canoeing or other water-related activities Restaurants with outside dining and/or shoreline viewing access Concessionaires – recreation oriented businesses or food businesses Preserve the shorelines as is No Opinion

Comments: 6. Large docks on both residential and commercial/industrial properties have been identified as a possible contributor to declines in salmon and other species for a number of reasons. Do you think docks should be restricted or special design and construction should be employed? (check only one) Yes – Regulations should aim at fewer docks Yes – Replacement docks should be smaller or have other design features that accommodate salmon and other aquatic species No – Docks are important to shoreline property owners and businesses and should be retained Need more information No Opinion

Comments: 7. Native plants on the shoreline have a number of benefits for aquatic life, such as providing habitat and a variety of food sources. Lawn and ornamental plants generally do not provide these benefits, and can also degrade water quality linked to fertilizers and herbicides. Do you think lawns and ornamental plants should be restricted on the shoreline and more native plants be used? (check only one) Yes – Regulations should prohibit lawn and ornamental plantings at the shoreline Yes – But requirements should apply only to new development or substantial remodeling of existing development Yes – But requirements should allow existing residential use, provide some area for lawn, and not restrict views of the shoreline No – Shoreline property owners should be able to have whatever kind of lawn and plants they wish Need more information No Opinion

Comments:

As required by the Shoreline Management Act, Cowlitz County and the cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso and Woodland, Washington, are updating their 35‐year‐old county Shoreline Master Program. The act was approved by Washington voters in 1972 and provides a statewide framework for local governments to manage and protect shorelines. The goals of the act "are to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines," and encourage the siting of water‐dependent uses, protect shoreline natural resources, and promote public access.

Property owners, water‐dependent businesses, and interested citizens are strongly encouraged to provide input at community visioning meetings starting in November. These meetings will present preliminary shoreline inventory information, identify challenges and opportunities, answer questions, and solicit input. Information gathered will help develop strategies for each jurisdiction for shoreline uses, public access, resource protection, and restoration.

If you would like to be kept informed about upcoming meetings and project announcements, please click here to be added to our project email distribution list. If you have any questions regarding the project, please visit www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org or contact David Sherrard at [email protected] or 425‐458‐6374.

MEETING CALENDAR (meetings scheduled to date)

Cowlitz County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update

"7/<Ê "1 /9ÊÊUÊÊ -/ Ê," ÊÊUÊÊ ÊÊUÊÊ -"ÊÊUÊÊ7""

Public Meeting on Shorelines Plan Community Visioning owlitz County is starting the process to update its 35-year-old county Shoreline Master Program and is Cseeking public input throughout the process. The local Shoreline Master Programs is a plan and set of regulations required by the Shore- line Management Act (SMA), which was approved by Washington voters in 1972. The Act provides a framework for local governments and the state Department of Ecology to manage and protect shorelines through a locally tailored program. The Act strives to achieve responsible shoreline use and development, environmental protection, and public access. The purposes of the community visioning INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING meetings are: County Planning Commission • To better understanding the framework Wednesday for the Shoreline Master Program update including state requirements November 14, 2012 7:00 PM • Identify community goals and aspirations for management of local shorelines County Administration Building • Identify information resources Third Floor Commissioner’s Hearing Room • Help to develop shoreline environment 207 Fourth Avenue North, designation, policies and regulations Kelso, Washington

Photo Credit: Wikipedia/Sam Beebe, Ecotrust

www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org Cowlitz County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update

"7/<Ê "1 /9ÊÊUÊÊ -/ Ê," ÊÊUÊÊ ÊÊUÊÊ -"ÊÊUÊÊ7""

Photo Credit: Kalama Chamber of Commerce

Public Meeting on Shorelines Plan Community Visioning he City of Kalama and Cowlitz County are starting the process to update the 35-year-old county Shoreline Master Pro- Tgram and are seeking public input throughout the process. The local Shoreline Master Programs is a plan and set of regulations required by the Shore- line Management Act (SMA), which was approved by Washington voters in 1972. The Act provides a framework for local governments and the state Department of Ecology to manage and protect shorelines through a locally tailored program. The Act strives to achieve responsible shoreline use and development, environmental protection, INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING and public access. Community Visioning Meeting with Kalama Planning Commission The purposes of the community visioning regarding Shoreline Master meetings are: Program Update for • To better understanding the framework the City of Kalama for the Shoreline Master Program update including state requirements Thursday • Identify community goals and aspirations December 13, 2012 for management of local shorelines 7:00 PM • Identify information resources Kalama City Hall • Help to develop shoreline environment 320 N. First Street, Kalama, WA designation, policies and regulations

Photo Credit: Wikipedia/Sam Beebe, Ecotrust

www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org Cowlitz County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update

"7/<Ê "1 /9ÊÊUÊÊ -/ Ê," ÊÊUÊÊ ÊÊUÊÊ -"ÊÊUÊÊ7""

Public Meeting on Shorelines Plan Community Visioning he City of Kelso and Cowlitz County are starting the process to update the 35-year-old county Shoreline Master Program Tand are seeking public input throughout the process. The local Shoreline Master Programs is a plan and set of regulations required by the Shore- line Management Act (SMA), which was approved by Washington voters in 1972. The Act provides a framework for local governments and the state Department of Ecology to manage and protect shorelines through a locally tailored program. The Act strives to achieve responsible shoreline use and development, environmental protection, INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING and public access. Community Visioning Meeting with Kelso Planning Commission The purposes of the community visioning regarding Shoreline Master meetings are: Program Update for • To better understanding the framework the City of Kelso for the Shoreline Master Program update including state requirements Tuesday • Identify community goals and aspirations November 13, 2012 for management of local shorelines 7:00 PM • Identify information resources Kelso City Hall • Help to develop shoreline environment Council Chambers designation, policies and regulations 203 S. Paciﬁ c Avenue, Kelso, WA

Photo Credit: Wikipedia/Sam Beebe, Ecotrust

www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org Cowlitz County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update

"7/<Ê "1 /9ÊÊUÊÊ -/ Ê," ÊÊUÊÊ ÊÊUÊÊ -"ÊÊUÊÊ7""

Public Meeting on Shorelines Plan Community Visioning he City of Woodland and Cowlitz County are starting the process to update the 35-year-old county Shoreline Master Pro- Tgram and are seeking public input throughout the process. The local Shoreline Master Programs is a plan and set of regulations required by the Shore- line Management Act (SMA), which was approved by Washington voters in 1972. The Act provides a framework for local governments and the state Department of Ecology to manage and protect shorelines through a locally tailored program. The Act strives to achieve responsible shoreline use and development, environmental protection, INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING and public access. Community Visioning Meeting with The purposes of the community visioning Woodland and Cowlitz County meetings are: Planning Commissions regarding Shoreline Master Program Update • To better understanding the framework for the City of Woodland for the Shoreline Master Program update including state requirements Thursday • Identify community goals and aspirations November 15, 2012 for management of local shorelines 7:00 PM • Identify information resources Woodland Community Center • Help to develop shoreline environment 782 Park Street, Woodland, WA designation, policies and regulations

www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org Radio Advertising Information:

Both radio media outlets stated they will likely read information from any press release during the newscast portions of the programming. However, this information will only be read on one day. In order to have the information played several times throughout the day and over several days, they suggested buying 30 second advertising. For our public service announcements, they would only charge the government/non‐profit rates. Advertising dollars on radio go pretty far. There is no way we could mail something to as many households as cheaply as can be tagged by radio.

Bicoastal Media Stations: 98.3 FM “The Peak”, 1270 AM KBAM (Country‐Western), AM 1400 KEDO (Newstalk/Sportstalk), Magic 94.5 FM (Adult Contemporary), Rocket 107 FM (Classic Rock)

KLOG Radio Stations: 1490 AM KLOG (Kelso/Longview News/Sports), 105.5 FM KUKN (County‐Western) and 101.5FM “The Wave” (Classic Rock)

The rate sheet provided by KLOG is pretty comparable to the prices quoted on Bicoastal Media. Each of the stations also provides the information they have available in terms of the demographic each station serves. In terms of cost, it could look like this for a 5 day run:

KUKN M‐F AM Drive $20 X 4 (it will air 4 times during that AM block) = $80 x 5 days = $400

M‐F Evening $10 x 5 = $50 x 5 days = $250

KLOG M‐F AM Drive $14 x 4 = $56 x 5 days = $280

M‐F Prime $12 x 2 = $24 x 5 days = $120

M‐F Evening $7 x 5 = $35 x 5 days = $175

M‐F Weekend $8 x 8 = $64 x 2 days = $128

For a week’s worth of coverage on two stations = $1, 353 – 10% discount for buying 2 stations = $1,217.70 (there is a 25% discount if we advertise on all three stations)

Longview - Kelso NON PROFIT RATE CARD 2012 Net to Station KUKN 105.5 FM and HD COOKIN’ COUNTRY Contemporary Hot Hit Country

:60-sec :30-sec :15-sec AM DRIVE M-F 6a-10a $22 $20 $10 MIDDAY M-F 10a-3p $20 $18 $9 PM DRIVE M-F 3p-7 $21 $19 $9 PRIME M-F 6a-7p $20 $18 $9 EVENING M-F 7p-12m $12 $10 $5

WWW.KUKN.COM WEEKENDS Sat Sun 6a-7p $14 $11 $6

KUKNCountry ROS M-Su 6a-Mid $14 $12 $6 OVERNIGHT M-Su Mid-5a $7 $5 $3 KLOG 1490 AM HOME TEAM STATION Local News, Local Sports, and Classic Hits

:60-sec :30-sec AM DRIVE M-F 6a-10a $16 $14 $7 MIDDAY M-F 10a-3p $14 $12 $6 PM DRIVE M-F 3p-7p $15 $13 $7 PRIME M-F 6a-7p $14 $12 $6 EVENING M-F 7p-12m $9 $7 $4

WWW.KLOG.COM WEEKENDS Sat Sun 6a-7p $10 $8 $5

KLOGHomeTeam ROS M-Su 6a-Mid $11 $9 $5 OVERNIGHT M-Su Mid-5a $5 $3 $3 KLOG1490 101.5 FM and 105.5HD2 IT’S YOUR CLASSIC ROCK

:60-sec :30-sec :15-sec AM DRIVE M-F 6a-10a $13 $11 $6 MIDDAY M-F 10a-3p $11 $9 $5 PM DRIVE M-F 3p-7 $12 $10 $5 PRIME M-F 6a-7p $11 $9 $5 EVENING M-F 7p-12m $7 $5 $3 WEEKENDS Sat Sun 6a-7p $8 $6 $4 WWW.1015THEWAVE.COM ROS M-Su 6a-Mid $9 $7 $4 1015theWAVE OVERNIGHT M-Su Mid-5a $5 $2 $2 * Combo Discounts * Buy any 2 Stations and Deduct 10% from Combined Total

Buy any 3 Stations and Deduct 25% from Combined Total

* PO Box 90 - Kelso, Washington 98626 * 360-636-0110 * Fax 360-577-6949

For Immediate Release

DATE: December 28, 2012

CONTACT: For more information contact David Sherrrrard, Parametrix 425-458-6374 or [email protected] Cowlitz County Partnership Seeks Public Input On Shorelines

A public visioning workshop for Toutle and northern Cowlitz County communities regarding the Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program update is scheduled for Wednesday, January 9, 2013 in Toutle. The special meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. and will be held in the Toutle Lake School Multipurpose Room, 5050 Spirit Lake Highway, Toutle, Washington. Staff from the County Planning Departments and Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments (CWCOG) as well as the project consultant team will be on hand at the meeting to present local shoreline characteristics, identify challenges and opportunities, answer questions, and solicit input from business, industries, ports, property owners, residents and other participants. The information gathered at these meetings will be used to develop a tailored strategy for each jurisdiction for shoreline uses, public access, resource protection, and restoration.

The Shoreline Management Act, which was approved by Washington voters in 1972, provides a statewide framework for local governments to manage and protect shorelines in their jurisdictions. The goals of the act "are to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines," and has three broad policies: • Encourage water-dependent uses: "Uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the states' shorelines...” • Protect shoreline natural resources, including: "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..." • Promote public access: "The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally."

Answers to frequently asked questions for this project can be found at www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org in addition to other project information.

MEETING:

Northern Cowlitz County, Washington What: Community Visioning Meeting with northern Cowlitz County communities regarding the Shoreline Master Program Update for Cowlitz County When: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 Time: 6:00pm Location: Toutle Lake School Multi-purpose Room Address: 5050 Spirit Lake Highway, Toutle, WA 98649 # # # Bicoastal Media Longview WA KLYK-FM, KRQT-FM, KPPK-FM, KEDO-AM, KBAM-AM 1130 14th Avenue Longview, WA 98632 Phone: (360)425-1500 F INVOICE: 12647

Advertiser No.: 1033 CWCOG CWCOG Attn: SHANDA WAGNER Order: 5699 Invoice Date: 12/31/2012 207 FOURTH AVE. N. Co-op: No Payment Due: 01/30/2013 KELSO, WA 98626 AE: DEE DEE DUPRE

Billing Type: Calendar

Note 1: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CPE

Invoice Summary: # of Spots: 60 Gross Spot Billing: $500.00 Agency Commission: $0.00 Net Spot Billing: $500.00

This invoice is in accordance with the official log and the announcements/programs indicated below were aired on the dates and the times shown. Per your advertising agreement, the actual times may have run within 10 minutes of the scheduled time.

4of1Page Invoice: 12647 Advertiser: CWCOG

Market: Longview Station: KLYK-FM

Order Line Days By Week Revenue Type Ordered Bind To Rate

4 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $0.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/10/12 07:48 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 12/11/12 08:03 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/12/12 06:42 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 12/13/12 07:54 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/14/12 07:48 AM 30 $0.00

6 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $15.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 12/03/12 07:54 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 12/04/12 08:45 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 12/05/12 08:46 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 12/06/12 06:02 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/07/12 07:49 AM 30 $15.00

13 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $0.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/10/12 03:18 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/11/12 04:19 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/12/12 03:21 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/13/12 05:02 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/14/12 06:40 PM 30 $0.00

15 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $15.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/03/12 03:38 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/04/12 04:23 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/05/12 04:33 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/06/12 06:30 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/07/12 06:55 PM 30 $15.00

Totals for Station: KLYK-FM No. of Spots/Misc: 20/0 Gross Amt: $150.00

Page 2 4of Invoice: 12647 Advertiser: CWCOG

Market: Longview Station: KPPK-FM

Order Line Days By Week Revenue Type Ordered Bind To Rate

1 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $17.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/03/12 08:19 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/04/12 07:18 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/05/12 07:55 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 12/06/12 06:02 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 12/07/12 07:49 AM 30 $17.00

3 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $0.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/10/12 08:18 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/11/12 08:54 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/12/12 07:17 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/13/12 07:20 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/14/12 08:56 AM 30 $0.00

10 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $17.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/03/12 03:40 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/04/12 04:52 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/05/12 06:54 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 12/06/12 06:30 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 12/07/12 06:55 PM 30 $17.00

12 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $0.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/10/12 06:19 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/11/12 03:16 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/12/12 03:26 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/13/12 05:18 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/14/12 03:21 PM 30 $0.00

Totals for Station: KPPK-FM No. of Spots/Misc: 20/0 Gross Amt: $170.00

Page 3 4of Invoice: 12647 Advertiser: CWCOG

Market: Longview Station: KRQT-FM

Order Line Days By Week Revenue Type Ordered Bind To Rate

5 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $0.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/10/12 06:54 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/11/12 07:19 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/12/12 06:21 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/13/12 08:37 AM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/14/12 06:39 AM 30 $0.00

7 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $18.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/03/12 08:40 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/04/12 06:20 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/05/12 06:04 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/06/12 07:22 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/07/12 08:37 AM 30 $18.00

14 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $0.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/10/12 06:42 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/11/12 04:18 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/12/12 04:49 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/13/12 05:53 PM 30 $0.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/14/12 06:35 PM 30 $0.00

18 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $18.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/03/12 06:23 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/04/12 06:21 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/05/12 04:20 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/06/12 04:52 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 12/07/12 05:50 PM 30 $18.00

Totals for Station: KRQT-FM No. of Spots/Misc: 20/0 Gross Amt: $180.00

Totals for Market: Longview No. of Spots/Misc: 60/0 Gross Amt: $500.00

Totals for Invoice: No. of Spots/Misc: 60/0 Gross Amt: $500.00

Page 4 4of Bicoastal Media Longview WA KLYK-FM, KRQT-FM, KPPK-FM, KEDO-AM, KBAM-AM 1130 14th Avenue Longview, WA 98632 Phone: (360)425-1500 F INVOICE: 12381

Advertiser No.: 1033 CWCOG CWCOG Attn: SHANDA WAGNER Order: 5699 Invoice Date: 11/30/2012 207 FOURTH AVE. N. Co-op: No Payment Due: 12/30/2012 KELSO, WA 98626 AE: DEE DEE DUPRE

Billing Type: Calendar

Note 1: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CPE

Invoice Summary: # of Spots: 60 Gross Spot Billing: $1,000.00 Agency Commission: $0.00 Net Spot Billing: $1,000.00

4of1Page Invoice: 12381 Advertiser: CWCOG

Market: Longview Station: KLYK-FM

Order Line Days By Week Revenue Type Ordered Bind To Rate

6 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $15.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/26/12 07:19 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 11/27/12 06:54 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/28/12 08:45 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 11/29/12 06:41 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/30/12 06:56 AM 30 $15.00

8 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $15.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/12/12 06:37 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 11/13/12 06:46 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/14/12 07:36 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT 11/15/12 07:49 AM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/16/12 08:59 AM 30 $15.00

15 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $15.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/26/12 06:52 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/27/12 03:22 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/28/12 05:00 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/29/12 05:35 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/30/12 06:37 PM 30 $15.00

16 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $15.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/12/12 06:32 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/13/12 05:31 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/14/12 04:54 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/15/12 05:32 PM 30 $15.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/16/12 06:32 PM 30 $15.00

Totals for Station: KLYK-FM No. of Spots/Misc: 20/0 Gross Amt: $300.00

Page 2 4of Invoice: 12381 Advertiser: CWCOG

Market: Longview Station: KPPK-FM

Order Line Days By Week Revenue Type Ordered Bind To Rate

1 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $17.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/26/12 07:20 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/27/12 06:20 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/28/12 08:18 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/29/12 08:20 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/30/12 06:19 AM 30 $17.00

2 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $17.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/12/12 08:53 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/13/12 08:48 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/14/12 06:19 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/15/12 07:15 AM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/16/12 08:20 AM 30 $17.00

10 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $17.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/26/12 03:22 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/27/12 03:35 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/28/12 05:55 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/29/12 06:20 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/30/12 06:23 PM 30 $17.00

11 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $17.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/12/12 06:17 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/13/12 03:33 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/14/12 04:54 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/15/12 05:54 PM 30 $17.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/16/12 03:20 PM 30 $17.00

Totals for Station: KPPK-FM No. of Spots/Misc: 20/0 Gross Amt: $340.00

Page 3 4of Invoice: 12381 Advertiser: CWCOG

Market: Longview Station: KRQT-FM

Order Line Days By Week Revenue Type Ordered Bind To Rate

7 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $18.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/26/12 08:03 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/27/12 08:36 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/28/12 06:41 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/29/12 07:19 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Network Other 11/30/12 07:17 AM 30 $18.00

9 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial 06:00:00-09:00:00 $18.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/12/12 08:02 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/13/12 06:03 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/14/12 07:19 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/15/12 07:41 AM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/16/12 08:39 AM 30 $18.00

17 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $18.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/12/12 06:22 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/13/12 06:21 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/14/12 04:21 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/15/12 05:21 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/16/12 05:52 PM 30 $18.00

18 MTWThF 5 Local Direct Commercial PMD $18.00 ISCI / SPOT TITLE AIRED DATE TIME LEN MG RATE

CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/26/12 05:53 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/27/12 06:18 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/28/12 03:44 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/29/12 04:19 PM 30 $18.00 CWCOG-SHORELINE MNGMNT ACT Commercial 11/30/12 05:22 PM 30 $18.00

Totals for Station: KRQT-FM No. of Spots/Misc: 20/0 Gross Amt: $360.00

Totals for Market: Longview No. of Spots/Misc: 60/0 Gross Amt: $1,000.00

Totals for Invoice: No. of Spots/Misc: 60/0 Gross Amt: $1,000.00

Page 4 4of

Cowlitz County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update

"7/<Ê "1 /9ÊÊUÊÊ -/ Ê," ÊÊUÊÊ ÊÊUÊÊ -"ÊÊUÊÊ7""

Public Meeting on Shorelines Plan Community Visioning he City of Castle Rock and Cowlitz County are starting the process to update the 35-year-old county Shoreline Master Pro- Tgram and are seeking public input throughout the process. The local Shoreline Master Programs is a plan and set of regulations required by the Shore- line Management Act (SMA), which was approved by Washington voters in 1972. The Act provides a framework for local governments and the state Department of Ecology to manage and protect shorelines through a locally tailored program. The Act strives to achieve responsible shoreline use and development, environmental protection, INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING and public access. Community Visioning Meeting with Castle Rock Planning Commission The purposes of the community visioning regarding Shoreline Master meetings are: Program Update for the • To better understanding the framework City of Castle Rock for the Shoreline Master Program update including state requirements Wednesday • Identify community goals and aspirations December 5, 2012 for management of local shorelines 6:00 PM • Identify information resources Castle Rock Senior Center • Help to develop shoreline environment 222 Second Avenue, Castle Rock, WA designation, policies and regulations

Questions or Concerns? Contact TJ Keiran, City Planner, at 577-3041 or [email protected].

www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org DRAFT NOTE: This is the FOURTH and BACK page of a booklet format DRAFT NOTE: This is the FIRST page of a double sided folded single 11x 17 sheet

Frequently Asked Questions? Shoreline Master Program Update Please see www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org for more questions and answers. 1. What is meant by a “water oriented use” and why is do they get preference? LOCAL Water oriented uses are uses that (1) can only be located near water, (2) depend on the waterfront for economic purposes even if they are not located directly on the waterfront, or (3) JURISDICTION LOGO that the main function of the use is to enable public access to the shoreline. When alterations of the shoreline is permitted, the act policy from RCW 90.58.020 requires that preference or priority be given to:

• Single family residences and their structures

• Ports • Shoreline recreational uses including, but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements that provide public access to shorelines What is the Shoreline Management Act? Washington's Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was passed by the legislature in 1971 and • Industrial and commercial developments that depend on being located on the shoreline affirmed by voters in 1972. It is intended to "prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and or depend on use of the shorelines piecemeal development of the state's shorelines," and has four broad purposes: • Other development that will provide an opportunity for many people to enjoy the Encourage water-dependent uses: "Uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control shorelines of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or 2. What is meant by “no net loss” of ecological functions? dependent upon use of the states' shorelines...” Under the no net loss standard policies in RCW 90.58.020, the permitted uses of the Protect shoreline natural resources, including: "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and shoreline will be designed and built in a way that minimizes damage to the environment the water of the state and their aquatic life..." including plants, wildlife, and the functions of the environment to sustain the plants and Promote public access: "The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities wildlife. of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally." No net loss means the environmental functions are maintained within a watershed or other Provide for the restoration of shoreline ecological functions that have been impaired by past natural water system. Regulations may result in localized cumulative impacts or loss of some human activities. localized ecological processes and functions, as long as the over environmental functions of the system are maintained. No net loss is achieved through avoidance and minimization of Why are we doing this? How Can I Get Involved adverse impacts as well as compensation for impacts that cannot be avoided. Compensation There will be opportunities for the public to be may include on-site or off-site restoration of the environment. In 2003, the state Legislature set up a timetable for local governments to update local involved throughout the update process 3. Will private docks be limited or prohibited? shoreline master programs. The state including: Piers and docks play a major role in commerce at ports and can provide public recreational Department of Ecology adopted new shoreline Visit our website: opportunities at parks. Docks serving residences are common, particularly on lakes and are master program guidelines specifying www.cowlitzshorelineupdate.org comprehensive program updates for the often thought of by property owners as part of their enjoyment of the waterfront. However, Sign up for the notification by email. docks can have adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitats including altering natural light, Shoreline Master Program. wave energy, soil/ground disturbance, and water quality. Attend a public meeting: see website The update is required to address current and local notices. The public is invited to Shoreline Management Programs are required to address docks. Prohibition of docks may be conditions and consider new science. all Planning Commission workshops and appropriate in very sensitive areas that have many environmental functions. In areas of high The deadline to complete the update is other meetings throughout the process. intensity residential use, dock regulations are most likely to require design features that December 1, 2014. Comment on the Shoreline Inventory and minimize adverse impacts such as increasing pier height, grated decks to increase light The state provided grant funding to support Analysis and other work products (on penetration, reducing width, placement to avoid nearshore environments and decrease website). scouring, as well as other measures. this update. Comment on the proposed Shoreline Master Program (available Spring 2013).

This is the SECOND page of a booklet format double sided folded single 11x 17 sheet This is the THIRD page of a booklet format double sided folded single 11x 17 sheet

What property is affected by the Shoreline Management Act? What is the Update Process The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) applies to the following areas: The New Shoreline Management Guidelines (WAC 173-26) provide a process for updating the SMP that includes the following steps: Lakes and reservoirs greater than 20 acres in area

Phase 1 Identification of preliminary shoreline jurisdictions, This has been Completed development of public participation program, and complete the shoreline inventory Phase 2 Shoreline analysis and characterization June to December 2012 involves: This is currently being Gathering relevant existing information, reviewed by agencies and and the public. Copies are Synthesizing this information into a map available at the project portfolio and Shoreline Characterization website and the Kelso and Report that describes both ecological Longview Libraries functions and human use of the shoreline. Streams with greater than 20 cubic feet per second mean annual flow Phase 3 Develop the Shoreline Master Program September 2012 to including shoreline environmental designation, December 2013 policies, and regulations Opportunities for public An initial draft will be prepared in the involvement and input will Spring of 2012 for public review be provided throughout the The final Draft will be prepared in late 2013 process and incorporate changes in response to comments Phase 4 Prepare a cumulative impacts analysis and November 2012 to January restoration plans 2014 Phase 5 Each jurisdiction adopts their local Shoreline January to June 2014 Master Program and sends to the State Department of Ecology for approval Phase 6 Ecology conducts the state approval process June to November 2014 Upland areas called “shorelands” extending 200 feet landward from the edge of these waters as indicated in the figure below.

The following areas, where they are associated with one of the above: ° Biological wetlands and river deltas; and ° Some or all of the 100-year floodplain, including all wetlands within the 100 year floodplain. DRAFT #2 Survey

Survey –Shoreline Master Program Updaate

A. Please Tell Us About Yourself 1 Where do you live, or what is the area that you are primarily interested in? (check all that apply)

Upper Chehalis River/Toutle River/Silver Lake Kelso/Longview Area Kalama River Lower Columbia Lewis River City of Castle Rock City of Kelso City of Kalama City of Woodland Northwest Cowlitz County Western Cowlitz County

3. Do you own property within the shoreline? (check all that apply) Yes No My employer owns property within the shoreline Comments:

4. How did you hear about the Shoreline Master Program update project? (check all that apply) Newspapers Business organization/newsletter Radio Email Word of mouth Other

5. What is the best way to keep you informed? (check only one) Public meetings Email Newspapers Business organization/newsletter Radio Other

6. How do you currently use the shoreline and how often? Activity Daily Weekly Monthly Occasionally Never Passive viewing Fishing Walking Biking Boating Parks or recreational areas Canoeing/kayaking/rafting Community events Swimming Other ______

B. Please Share your Concerns with Us 1. Visual access is defined as the ability to see the shoreline. How do you feel about your current level of visual access to the shoreline? (check only one) There are enough opportunities to view the shoreline There are some opportunities to view the shoreline but I wish there were more There needs to be more opportunities to view the shoreline No opinion

Comments:

2. Physical access is defined as the ability to get down to the shoreline. How do you feel about your current level of physical access to the shoreline? (check only one) There are enough opportunities to physical get to the shoreline There are some opportunities to get to the shoreline but I wish there were more There needs to be more opportunities to get down to the shoreline No opinion

Comments:

3. What other locations should additional or improved public access be provided? Comments: ______

4. What is the one location you would like to see additional or improved public access be provided? Comments:

5. What type of shoreline use do you typically enjoy along the shoreline? (check all that apply) I live on or near the shoreline and access it from my residence I work on or near the shoreline I use the shorelines along trails, viewpoints, parks, etc. I use the shoreline for commercial/industrial purposes Other

Comments:

6. Environmental protection of the shorelines is a goal of the Shoreline Management Act. What do you believe is the best way to accomplish this? (check only one) Avoid impacts by keeping the shoreline in a natural state Minimize impacts in the shoreline areas by using appropriate standards Continue developing using existing standards and set aside areas for mitigation and improvement Other options as appropriate

Comments:

7. Which shoreline areas/locations do you think should be preserved in its current condition? Comments: ______

8. Which shoreline areas/locations do you think should be restored in its natural condition? Comments: ______

9. What is your greatest concern, if any, about the shorelines and their future? Comments: ______

10. Who should be responsible for shoreline restoration? Private property owners Government agencies Joint effort between private property owners and government agencies

Comments:

11. Providing public access to the water and enhancing recreation are goals of the Shoreline Management Act. If public access is important to you, what kind of additional facilities would you like to see in the future? (check all that apply) Shoreline parks Trails with access to the shoreline Boat launches for boating, canoeing, or other water related-activities Public swimming areas Public Docks Access for commercial/industrial businesses and shipping Urban commercial areas with uses such as restaurants with shoreline access and viewing Concessions (recreational oriented businesses and/or food) Undeveloped open space No opinion

Comments:

12. The Columbia River system and the ports located on the Columbia River are our region’s connection to international trade and commerce centers, support industrial businesses, and provide many good paying, local jobs. What is your opinion on the need for additional waterfront development by the ports? More development by the ports is needed Keep the current amount of development as is Focus on public access rather than private/business use No Opinion

Comments:

13. What kinds of commercial development do you prefer to see on the shorelines? Any business should be allowed to develop along the shorelines Commercial/industrial and shipping uses Boating, canoeing or other water-related activities Restaurants with outside dining and/or shoreline viewing access Concessionaires – recreation oriented businesses or food businesses Preserve the shorelines as is No Opinion

Comments: 14. Large docks on both residential and commercial/industrial properties have been identified as a possible contributor to declines in salmon and other species for a number of reasons. Do you think docks should be restricted or special design and construction should be employed? (check only one) Yes – Regulations should aim at allowing fewer docks Yes – Replacement docks should be smaller or have other design features that accommodate salmon and other aquatic species No – Docks are important to shoreline property owners and businesses and should be retained Need more information No Opinion

Comments:

15. Native plants on the shoreline have a number of benefits for aquatic life, such as providing habitat and a variety of food sources. Lawn and ornamental plants generally do not provide these benefits, and can also degrade water quality linked to fertilizers and herbicides. Do you think lawns and ornamental plants should be restricted on the shoreline and more native plants be used? (check only one) Yes – Regulations should prohibit lawn and ornamental plantings at the shoreline Yes – But requirements should apply only to new development or substantial remodeling of existing development Yes – But requirements should allow existing residential use, provide some area for lawn, and not restrict views of the shoreline No – Shoreline property owners should be able to have whatever kind of lawn and plants they wish Need more information No Opinion

Comments:

16. What is your long-term vision for the shoreline (what kinds of uses and activities do you want to see happen there in the future)?

Comments:______

17. Do you have any additional comments to share with us?

Comments:______Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

APPENDIX B – TRIBAL OUTREACH

B‐1

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

APPENDIX C – POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

C‐1

Shoreline Master Program Update Public Visioning Cowlitz County Visioning Questions SMA Overview Comprehensive Plan Potential Vision Issues Integrate the SMP with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning? Ensure consistency with shoreline goals and the Comprehensive Plan and zoning? Are there insights from looking at issues relating to the shoreline that indicate that the county should consider upland changes to policies or regulations? SMA Overview Governing Principles – Use Priority Potential Vision Issues – Is there sufficient land in the community for water‐dependent, port uses? – Does the county have adequate support for maintaining navigable waters, particularly those with a maintained dredged channel? – Is there a need for recreational water‐ dependent uses such as marinas? SMA Overview Governing Principles – Use Priority Potential Vision Issues – Is there a need for water enjoyment uses that provide opportunities for the public to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline? – Are there uses especially important to local communities with specific land use code provisions that should be incorporated? SMA Overview Governing Principles – Public Access Potential Vision Issues – Are there specific types of public access that are not currently adequate? • parks • boat launches • trails • swimming areas • other recreation areas SMA Overview Governing Principles – Public Access Potential Vision Issues – Are there areas where the public should not have greater shoreline access because of sensitive ecological resources? – Are there areas in public ownership that could provide additional public access? – Are there publicly financed projects that could provide additional benefits of providing public access? SMA Overview Governing Principles – Public Access Potential Vision Issues – Are properties that make use of public navigable waters making adequate provisions for public access? – Should new development along the shoreline provide additional public access? – Should public agencies increase public access by purchasing land and/or easements? SMA Overview Governing Principles – No Net Loss Potential Vision Issues – Are there important species of fish or wildlife in the area that are threatened by current patterns of use of the shoreline? – Are there areas of the community that should be preserved in their natural state? Does this include privately owned lands? SMA Overview Governing Principles – No Net Loss Potential Vision Issues – Are there areas of the community that have been so altered that there are few natural ecological functions and future changes should be relatively unconstrained? – Are there areas of the community that have important ecological functions, but that also are important for port of other uses that should take precedent over preservation? SMA Overview Governing Principles – No Net Loss Potential Vision Issues – Are there areas of the community that have been altered but should be targeted for restoration? – If there is a need to preserve or enhance ecological values of certain areas, what is the fair share between private parties and the general public? SMA Overview Governing Principles – No Net Loss Potential Vision Issues – Are there actions that individual private property owners on the shoreline can take that will make a positive contribution to preserving or enhancing ecological functions over time? SMA Overview Governing Principles – Modifications Potential Vision Issues – Shoreline stabilization guidelines template discourages “hard armoring” – Piers and docks: potential adverse impacts – Dredging and dredge material disposal –Mt. St. Helens deposits keep washing down SMA Overview Governing Principles – Modifications Potential Vision Issues Shoreline stabilization guidelines template discourages “hard armoring.” Are there cases where this may be necessary. Piers and docks have potential impacts. Are there areas where they should be limited or prohibited Are there design features that can limit impacts such as increased pier height, grated reduced width, reducing nearshore impacts SMA Overview Governing Principles – Modifications Potential Vision Issues Dredging and dredge material disposal Can we identify areas where dredging will continue to be needed Can we establish parameters that will speed approval Can we explore “programmatic permits” for maintenance Can we coordinate better with other permitting agencies Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

APPENDIX D – MEETING NOTES & COMMENTS

D‐1

Cowlitz County Planning Commission SMP Visioning Meeting – November 14, 2012

Comments/Questions from Participants:

What happens in the County and Ecology disagree on the Shoreline Master Program? How does the Shoreline Master Program relate to the Comprehensive Plan update that is underway now? What is the difference between the Shoreline Master Program Update and the Comprehensive Plan, which takes precedence? How does the county’s SMP relate to the cities, especially Longview and Kelso? Ports along the Columbia River are important to the local economy, but so are industrial uses and wood products. How will non‐water related industrial use be accommodated. Why is Mill Pond considered a shoreline. The Columbia River and the Cowlitz River need regular dredging. How will that be accommodated? How will dredge spoils be treated. More public access the shorelines is needed More boat launches are needed. Better access for fishing is needed. Trails along levees should be provided where they aren’t currently present. Can the SMP provide greater access to Cold Water Lake which has been administratively closed by the Forest service. Is requiring public access from property owners legal? Who will maintain public access facilities? We have problems supporting our existing county parks, can we afford more. Public access for ports and industrial lands isn’t practical. Who will decide what areas are ecologically important. How with the SMP relate to other permits that are required, particularly the Corps of Engineers. Who will play for restoration public or private? Toutle SMP Visioning Meeting – January 9, 2013

Comments/Questions from Participants:

Q. How does the public know what and if comments have submitted?

Q. How will existing structures and uses be addressed in the plan? (specifically float houses, Lewis River)

Q. What is the difference between the Shoreline Master Program Update and the Comprehensive Plan Update?

Q. Will the cities and county be modifying their codes to reflect the changes in the changes to the SMP?

Q. Existing regulations and exemptions (buffering rules). Asked for clarifications on shoreline exemptions (residential vs. industrial)

Q. Access – how will the public access the shorelines ‐ comments: ‐ need/want more public access to shorelines ‐ who will provide it (public vs. private land owners) ‐ need/want better fishing access and locations ‐ Silver Lake has no public access ‐ Access to: ~ Cold Water Lake – administratively closed (Federal lands not affected by this update); ~ Fawn Lake – will it be accessible ~ Toutle River and Safety: how will this be addressed? (cmnts regarding lifting of the moratorium, sedimentation removal, ex. given Toutle Ridge) ~ Public Parks in the area – used to be 8 now only 1, will there be more?

Q/C: Comments related to: ‐ functionality of existing wetlands (specifically Silver Lake) and restoration ‐ dredge spoil sites: how will these be treated, located ‐ costs of restoration – fair share (public vs. private) ‐ what is restoration ‐ how is shading addressed for over water structures

City of Kelso Planning Commission Meeting Notes (from audio) 11/13/2012

Parametrix – retained by cities and Cowlitz Wahkiakum council of governments to help with Shoreline Master Program update

Kalama will have own shoreline master program unique to your needs

1. How do you determine OHWM? Legal definition 1850s federal court case, on site investigation, mark on vegetation made by waters so usual and frequent that it leaves it mark. 2. Associated wetlands vs potentially associated wetlands? Decided on case by case basis, must be hydrologically connected to the stream under jurisdiction. Need qualified wetland professional. Most wetlands are covered by critical areas ordinances. 3. What do these ratings define? Hydrologic, Hyporheic – groundwater movement, Habitat, Vegetative – how dense, how wide, how complex 4. Kelso has to follow everything that is already established, and then choose what we want to do? a. Guidelines say you must provide public access on all commercial/industrial projects where it doesn’t present a hazard b. But it also says, instead of that option, you can adopt a plan to designate exactly where you want public access, then you don’t have to have it everywhere c. Most jurisdictions handle it similar to a sidewalk, where adjacent owner is responsible for the maintance. 5. Unique area with part of Kelso in County – how will this mix together? a. That’s part of our job (David), they don’t have to match exactly, when you annex something, your designations then apply. The county can just adopt your designations in the UGA b. Clarify this is an UPDATE of existing program in place since the 1970s. 6. Any significant changes being recommended? a. Is this the 7 year cycle. Catching up to the 7 year cycle… b. Guidelines now so different from what we did in the 1970s that the update will be substantially different, but the purpose is overall the same. c. We think we can make it much more tailored to existing conditions. 7. Is there sufficient Public Access to the shoreline now? a. Access is sufficient, but we don’t have enough boat launches b. Need to consider in larger area than Kelso c. Think trails are great d. Lacking in boat launches in Kelso, but they exist nearby e. Is there a formula used to determine if there is enough access? There are all kinds of formulas out there, most jurisdictions reference them in capital improvement plans, but what is important here is what people are telling us. f. For swimming areas, we don’t have those there. How do we address that? Do you think it’s important? Yes, but we don’t have good safe areas. g. So, if you identify where to place these things, where does the money come from? This process plans the areas, however, putting designations and priorities in a plan and park and recreation plan makes it easier to get grant funding. One of the highest priorities for state funds is for public access to the water. h. People are waiting up to an hour at boat launches during high fishing times, one on the Cowlitz isn’t usable due to siltation…need better access 8. Where the railroad owns land along the river, how do we work with them? You decide what you need (additional bridges over RR), put it in your plan, have more leverage with Utilities Commission. They have authority to require access. 9. 51.41

WOODLAND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Thursday, January 17, 2013

Woodland Community Center 782 Park Street, Woodland, Washington

CALL TO ORDER

APPROVAL OF MINUTES • November 13, 2012 • November 15, 2012

WORKSHOP 1) Shoreline Master Plan Update

2) C-1 Use Overhaul • Review Outcomes of Public Workshop • Possible Gateway Re-Zoning Request in 2013 • Review Draft Ordinance

UPDATES/REPORTS 1) 4th Quarter 2012 Report 2) 2012 Progress Report and Proposed 2013 Work Items

ADJOURN

cc: Post (City Hall Annex, Library, Post Office, City Hall) City of Woodland website Planning Commission (5) City Council (7) Mayor Those who attended the 9/20/2012 workshop Those who have expressed interest in the workshop topics Department Heads

G:\Planning\Commission\2013\01-17\PCAgenda_Jan.17.2013.doc

WOODLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Planning Commission Public Hearing 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Woodland City Hall, Council Chambers 100 Davidson Avenue, Woodland, Washington

Present: Chair David Simpson Commissioner Sharon Watt Commissioner Nancy Trevena

Absent: Commissioner Murali Amirineni

Also Present: Secretary JoAnn Heinrichs Community Development Planner Carolyn Johnson

CALL TO ORDER 5:40:01 PM

The public hearing for the Liberty Evans Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and concurrent rezone was called to order at 5:42 PM.

Carolyn Johnson, Community Development Planner, gave the staff report. Johnson summarized main points of the staff report and the Development Review Committee’s (DRC) recommendation. She addressed one correction on page two (2) of the staff report. She clarified that the site is accessible via Schurman Way, not Dike Access Road. Johnson clarified that concerns regarding transportation concurrency raised in the staff report are not unique to the subject site. In explaining the 2012 land use inventory completed by staff, Johnson explained that land considered somewhat restricted by critical areas did not mean the land was undevelopable.

The DRC recommended against the proposal because of conflicts between the proposal and the stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

The meeting was opened to statements by the proponent at 5:56 PM 5:55:47 PM

Mark Fleischauer, the Applicant and Co-Manager for Liberty Evans LLC, testified in support of the proposal. Fleischauer testified that he disagreed with the recommendation of the staff report. He explained that Liberty Evans purchased the property from the Schnitzer Investment Corporation in December 2010 and immediately paid all due System Development Charges (SDCs) and Local Development Charges (LDCs). He explained that Schnitzer was never able to attract tenants or employers to the site. Fleischauer explained Liberty Evan’s active role in promoting industrial development in Woodland since 1999. He explained that the development concept is to construct concrete tilt-ups on the portion of the subject property that would remain Light Industrial and to continue the development of commercial uses along Dike Access Road. Their original request was to rezone approximately 6 acres. This was reduced based on feedback from staff and the Planning Commission.

The area to be reclassified was reduced to 3.4 acres to better match up with the north-south boundaries of the Highway Commercial property on the west side of Schurman Way (i.e. Les Schwab). He went on to state that 1) the staff report affords undue attention to comments in opposition and brushes aside comments and documentation in support, 2) ignores the track record of Liberty Evans with regards to industrial development, and 3) considered transportation concurrency when that was an issue that should be addressed during site plan review process. He went on to say that based on site plans shared with staff and development concepts that the project is compatible with the economic development goal of making Woodland the commercial center for Cowlitz County. He went on to say that the proposal is measured and that there is a vast surplus of industrial lands within city limits. He stated that the proposal actually facilitates light industrial development by making the parcel more cost competitive and that the proposal supports far more provisions of the Comprehensive Plan than it conflicts with.

The meeting was opened to public comment at 6:02 PM. 6:02:38 PM

Don Work, an employee of American Paper Converting, spoke in support of the proposal saying it was reasonable and that adequate facilities were needed to attract industrial employers. The lack of commercial amenities has prevented American Paper Converting from attracting some employees. He stated that the site had good freeway visibility and was proximate to other commercial areas. He explained the subject site as being part of a commercial corridor into the industrial district.

Nelson Holmberg, Executive Director Port of Woodland, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Holmberg read the Port of Woodland’s mission statement and explained that the Port would not support the rezoning of industrial land. He explained that the subject land is “shovel ready” unlike other sites and that industrial jobs are family-wage jobs.

Darlene Johnson, PO box 1808, Woodland, Co-owner of Woodland Truck Lines, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She expressed a concern for the loss of future family wage jobs. She said that there was a strong feeling that land south of Dike Access should remain industrial.

Skip Urling, PO Box 1213, Longview, spoke in support of the proposal. Urling said that if the city really wants to become the commercial and tourist center of southern Cowlitz County, then commercial uses must be easily accessible. He said that the subject site is easily accessible and visible from the freeway. In response to comments that the jobs that would be created by the rezoned commercial land would be minimum wage jobs, Urling said that he did not think it was accurate to speculate that the jobs to be created would all be minimum wage. He said that the market it favorable right now for the commercial development of the land and that the proposal should not wait another four years for consideration.

The public comment portion of the hearing was colsed at 6:13 PM. 6:13:22 PM

The Planning Commission began their deliberation at 6:14 PM. 6:13:37 PM

• Commissioner Watt asked Don Work to clarify what he meant by “amenities”.

o Don Work clarified that when American Paper Converting has guests come to Woodland, they feel like they need to take them to the golf course or to Vancouver for a meal. He said that an upscale restaurant is needed in Woodland close to the industrial area. • Commissioner Watt went on to ask Work to specify if he was talking only about a restaurant. o Work said that we was talking about a restaurant or upscale commercial development. • Commissioner Trevena said that her concern was with access. Specifically, her concern was for having personal vehicle traffic coming onto Schurman Way and mixing with heavy truck traffic. She said that the existing commercial land on Dike Access is accessible via Dike Access whereas the subject site is accessible via Schurman Way. She also said that when the proposal is measured against the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the inconsistencies are significant. She said that the most glaring inconsistency was with the goal of using existing commercial properties before rezoning new commercial properties and with the goal of preserving prime industrial land. • Commissioner Watt said that she thought it was significant that the subject site is serviced and ready to develop whereas other industrial lands within the city are not. • Commissioner Simpson said that he saw both sides of the proposal. He said that the proposal would only be changing 3 acres and that having services close to industrial uses is important. • Richard Rosentredor, American Paper Converting, asked where the undeveloped industrial land was located in the city. He said that nothing else should be developed in south Woodland because of heavy traffic at exit 21. He said that the rezone my ease traffic at Exit 21 by directing more towards Exit 22. • Commissioner Trevena asked Fleischauer if access would be off of Schurman Way. o Mark Fleischauer said that access was something that could be worked out at the time of site plan approval and that it wasn’t a rezoning question. • Commissioner Simpson asked if there was right of way from the subject property to Dike Access. o Fleischauer said that there was currently no right of way onto Dike Access. • Commissioner Watt asked about the WSDOT comment letter regarding the difficultly of implementing a traffic improvement. o Fleischauer said that that was something that would be addressed during the site planning process. • Commissioner Trevena said that the issue for her was still access being off of Schurman Way rather than Dike Access. She said that the Commission didn’t want to turn away development and jobs in these hard times but that it was a decision that cannot be undone. • Paul Klein, Port of Woodland, asked if commercial property on the east side of the freeway had been considered by the developer. • Judy Grant, Topper Industries, said that the restaurants in town are adequate for her business which also has out-of-town guests visit.

Commissioner Trevena moved to deny the application per the staff report and submit the recommendation to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watt. The motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Trevena moved to adjourn. Commissioner Watt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

The Meeting was Adjourned at 6:32 PM. 6:32:11 PM

______JoAnn Heinrichs, Planning Commission Secretary Date

These minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings. A recording is available in the office of the Clerk-Treasurer WOODLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Thursday, November 15, 2012

Woodland Community Center 782 Park Street, Woodland, Washington

Present: Chair David Simpson Commissioner Sharon Watt Commissioner Nancy Trevena

Absent: Commissioner Murali Amirineni

Also Present: Secretary JoAnn Heinrichs Community Development Planner Carolyn Johnson Public Works Director Bart Stepp

Shoreline Presentation 7:06:46 PM Consultant Presentation on 2014 Shoreline Master Management Program Update

Carolyn introduced Derek Chisholm, consultant. • Derek represents the Cities of Woodland and Castle Rock. • Topics being covered: o Scheduling o Jurisdiction o Inventory Analysis o Visioning Topics Process Governing Principles Structure of the SMP Constitutional Issues/Existing Development Required Steps:

• Inventory data sets reviewed: zoning, Comprehensive Plan, land use intentions the city may have along with recent building permits effecting shorelines. Most of the information was pulled data sets from the state and federal government. Data can be found on the CD. • Restoration opportunities will be addressed, partially for mitigation purposes. • This is a State Department of Ecology plan that is implemented at the local level. • Water dependent use vs. Water related use vs. Water enjoyment use vs. Non‐water oriented use, is a big part of the conversation. Public access is a very high priority. • The goal is: No matter how much you develop, you will have no net loss of the ecological function of the shoreline. • Draft of this plan will be available in April. The plans need to match up with the intentions. • After we have done then they will do a No Net Loss Analysis. It may come back that more ecological uplift is needed, or how other shoreline enhancements and modification could be managed or where weak points may be. • If anyone needs to contact me, my phone number is 971‐322‐7942.

Questions: • Dave Simpson: Woodland, will our plan supersede the county’s plan? Will we have input for the county portion? What happens to property outside the UGB that the county may deem natural, and we annex in that portion, is there some way to change it? o Derek Chisholm: Inside the city you have complete control, in the UGB you have a great deal of control, but it is somewhat negotiated in Cowlitz County. The county seems to be open to discussion about borderland areas. No net loss analysis will be specific to Woodland, and the county’s will be specific to the county. • Carolyn Johnson: Substantial development goes to PH, How would the physical barriers be address. o Derek Chisholm: Berm seems to be one of the problem issues. • Existing/nonconforming use, will it be part of code? o Derek Chisholm: You cannot make a nonconforming use more nonconforming. • What is the best tool to use to contact and get information? o Derek: Email will work fine. Written comments will be part of the record. • Marilee McCall: Concern about provision of public access potentially through private property. Will the city be building trails on public land, it seems to be an issue. • Water dependent use, we would like to put something on our property. Hired consultants, and do not want any more changes made. o Derek: Have your hired professionals look into the new regulations coming out 8:10:18 PM

Call to order 8:21:30 PM

Approval of Minutes Commissioner Trevena moved to accept the September 20, 2012 minutes as written, Commissioner Watt seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.

Public Hearings

1. Proposed Comprehensive Stormwater Ordinance, LU #212‐909. 8:23:10 PM

Staff report given by Community Development Planner Carolyn Johnson. The draft ordinance will be used to address inconsistencies in our code. La Center’s stormwater ordinance was adapted for Woodland’s proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission expressed concerns about the impacts of the proposed ordinance on single family home construction. The concern was for any regulation that would require someone constructing a single family home to hire an engineer to develop a stormwater report and plan. Instead, the City will create white sheets/drawings that contain pre‐approved storm water designs that home owners can use. Staff also clarified that the draft ordinance did not create any conflicts with Woodland’s Critical Areas Ordinance.

Chairperson Simpson: Dave Simpson asked a question about the applicability of “daisy chaining” development or small, piecemeal projects that do not trigger the threshold for stormwater review but that, when considered cumulatively, have an impact. Simpson asked if this needed to be addressed in the ordinance. Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: The 1992 Stormwater Manual does address some of this under guidance for Redevelopment.

Chairperson Simpson: Would this be triggered through a building permit? Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: Yes, we will be looking at each small piece through the permitting process.

OPENED PUBLIC COMMENT AT 8:32 PM.

Jeff Richter: What is the prescriptive stormwater system for a standard or larger lot? Would the city be giving direction? I also think the thresholds are very low. Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: Stepp explained that different systems would work such as a dry well or swale. Stepp explained that the City would have drawings explaining different pre‐ approved treatments that could be used to meet code requirements.

Jeff Richter: Businesses will have to hire an engineer if they want to pave. Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: Established businesses will already have a stormwater system in place. If the existing system can manage additional runoff from new impervious surfaces, no change/upgrade would be required.

Commissioner Trevena: questioned why WMC 15.12.020 set a threshold level for Single Family Dwellings of 2,000 square feet of new impervious surfaces while the threshold for commercial and industrial was lower, 1,000 square feet. Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: Stepp explained that the difference was due to the difference in uses and the greater potential for impacts from industrial and commercial users. One example given was the use of chemicals.

Darlene Johnson: It sounds good but it is burdensome. When you impede or take time in processing applications, it affects businesses, and reduces the amount of jobs. I also think the thresholds are too low. Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: explained that the draft ordinance did not set new or different thresholds from what is currently used. He stated that the 1992 Manual is the simplest/easiest manual in the state and that in many other cities and counties the 2005 Manual must be met.

Jeff Richter: If a coffee shop wants to put pavement around it, they would need engineering. They would have additional costs trying to meet this ordinance. Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: Yes, but it would not be a large cost.

Jeff Richter: We need to know the costs when we come in to apply for a permit. We need prescriptive information. What does the ordinance require in terms of low impact development? The Department of Ecology (DOE) seems to be pushing this. Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: You could utilize low‐impact development (LID) to meet code requirements. DOE is pushing LID because it is the only way to meet newer policies of pre‐ industrial runoff in some areas.

Jeff Richter: With a dry well, does the stormwater go into the ground or go into some other system that can take the stormwater? Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: It goes into the ground. Because Woodland is so flat, it is hard to get storm systems that can be pumped to either the river or the lake. The High School, for example, will have a subterranean piping system that detains water. It will hold the runoff and release it at a proper rate.

Jeff Richter: Would ponds be something that a single family residence would have to implement? Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: A single family residence would not be required to construct a stormwater pond. They may have to install a dry well or some other system. If you can show your runoff is not leaving the site, that will solve the problem. Chairperson Simpson: Possibly rain gutters or a French drain system. Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: Keep in mind that subdivisions already have storm water systems in place, it would only be larger single lots, a half acre or larger.

Darlene Johnson: Does it trigger anything if you redo your roof? Bart Stepp, Public Works Director: No, if you have an existing roof, you do not have to worry about triggering stormwater requirements when re‐roofing.

CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT 8:42 PM

Chairman Simpson stated that the proposed ordinance will not change existing development requirements. He stated that SEPA is also a vehicle for mitigating impacts.

Commissioner Watt moved to send the Comprehensive Stormwater Ordinance to City Council as written. Commissioner Trevena seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. A Do‐Pass recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council.

2. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, LU #212‐921 8:55:29 PM

Staff report given by Carolyn Johnson. The ordinance makes electric vehicle charging stations an outright permitted use in some zones, and integrates electric vehicle infrastructure into the parking requirements of the WMC. The Ordinance includes definitions related to electric vehicle infrastructure.

Discussion: • Commissioner Trevena pointed out a section of the proposed ordinance that did not make sense. The definition for “electric vehicle charging station—public” included several examples, one of them being multi‐family apartment lots. The example was confusing because generally, if not always, these would be restricted to apartment residents and their guests. The decision was made to strike that specific example from the definition.

Open Public Comment: 9:03:02 PM

Close Public Comments. 9:03:14 PM

Commissioner Trevena moved to send the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure ordinance to City Council deleting the “non‐reserved parking in multi‐family parking lots” from the definition for Electric Vehicle Charging Station –Public section. Commissioner Watt seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.

ADJOURN

Commissioner Trevena moved to adjourn to our next regularly scheduled meeting on October 18, 2012, Commissioner Watt seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.

______JoAnn Heinrichs, Planning Commission Secretary Date

These minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings. A recording is available in the office of the Clerk-Treasurer

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 8, 2013 TO: Woodland Planning Commission FROM: David Sherrard, Parametrix Derek Chisholm, Parametrix SUBJECT: Regulatory Approach Options – First Memorandum We propose to provide the Planning Commission with a series of Technical Memoranda to address the framework of decisions needed to implement the 2003 Shoreline Guidelines WAC 173-26 as part of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. In our November 2012 memorandum we provided an overview of the following: 1. Schedule 2. Shoreline Master Program Planning (SMP) Process a) Local Jurisdiction and State (Ecology) Roles b) Relation to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning 3. Basic Goals of the SMP a) Use Preference – Water Oriented Uses b) Public Access c) Maintenance and Enhancement of Ecological Processes 4. Structure of the SMP a) Shoreline Environment Designations b) Modification Regulations c) Use Regulations d) Critical Areas 5. Constitutional Issues/Provisions for existing development Issues to be discussed in the January, February and March memos include:

January 2013 – This Memo 1. Structure of the Shoreline Master Program – Relation to Comprehensive Plan 2. Provisions for Shorelines of Statewide Significance 3. Water Oriented Uses 4. Public Access February 2013

Woodland SMP 1 of 15 Option Overview 2012-01-02 5. Maintenance and Enhancement of Ecological Processes 6. Mitigation of Cumulative Impacts 7. Shoreline Geographic Designations March 2013 8. Critical Areas 9. Vegetation Management 10. Bulk/Dimensional Requirements 11. Administrative provisions and provisions for existing development

More detailed discussion of each of the issues for the January memo is provided below.

1. Relationship of the Shoreline Master Program to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations SMA Guidelines The 2003 Shoreline Guidelines (WAC 173-26-191 (2)(b); WAC 173-26-211(3); WAC 173-26- 221; WAC 173-26-251) allow: a) Adoption of a separate SMP as a stand alone document containing policies and regulations b) Adoption as a package of separate policies and regulations in various sections of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. The most significant requirement of this approach is the ability to clearly designate shoreline regulations and procedures from other non-shoreline provisions and drafting clear provisions for assuring Ecology review and approval of all amendments. Note: Although Cowlitz County and the cities in the county are not jurisdictions in which conformance with all provisions of the Growth Management Act are applicable, anywhere the statute references requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), those provisions are applicable. This is also true in other areas of the GMA, such as Critical Areas. Existing SMP Policies and regulations that govern the land under the jurisdiction of the state SMA currently are found in two places: a) The existing SMP. b) Regulations found in the Zoning Code provide for allowed land uses in various zoning districts that cover the same geographic areas as the SMP. In most cases the zoning regulations are more extensive and specific than the SMP.

Options a) Keep the existing system – This approach is not recommended due to the complexity and the potential for confusion and overlap. b) Provide one self-contained Shoreline Master Program – This approach is not recommended because of the many cases where shoreline jurisdiction cuts across

Woodland SMP Options Memo 2 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 properties and also because of the desirability of integrating shoreline policies and regulations into an integrated vision and integrated set of regulations. c) Provide the entire policy framework in the Comprehensive Plan and the entire set of regulations in the Zoning Code. Recommendation: Option (c) is the recommended approach. There would be a separate chapter in the Comprehensive Plan that would contain all policies, and all regulations would be in the Zoning or Land Use Codes (likely in Title 15 and 17).

2. Provisions for Shorelines of Statewide Significance The Lewis River in Woodland qualifies as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance (SSWS). It is listed as such in WAC 173-18-120 (34). SMA Guidelines: a) Shorelines of Statewide Significance (relevant to Woodland) are defined in statute (RCW 90.58.020) as: (iv) Those lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of one thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary high water mark; (v) Those natural rivers or segments thereof as follows: (A) Any west of the crest of the Cascade range downstream of a point where the mean annual flow is measured at one thousand cubic feet per second or more, (vi) Those shorelands associated with (i), (ii), (iv), and (v) of this subsection (2)(f); b) The following specific direction is provided for implementing policies for preference to uses in the following order: (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary." d) The SMA calls for a higher level of effort in implementing its objectives on shorelines of statewide significance. RCW 90.58.090(5) states: "The department shall approve those segments of the master program relating to shorelines of statewide significance only after determining the program provides the optimum implementation of the policy of this chapter to satisfy the statewide interest." WAC 173-26-251(2) further states that optimum implementation involves special emphasis on statewide objectives and consultation with state agencies. The State's interests may vary, depending upon the geographic region, type of shoreline, and local conditions. Optimum implementation may

Woodland SMP Options Memo 3 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 involve ensuring that other comprehensive planning policies and regulations support Shoreline Management Act objectives. Because shoreline ecological resources are linked to other environments, implementation of ecological objectives requires effective management of whole ecosystems. Optimum implementation places a greater imperative on identifying, understanding, and managing ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions that sustain resources of statewide importance. e) For shorelines of statewide significance master program provisions shall establish development standards that ensure the long-term protection of ecological resources of statewide importance. Standards shall consider incremental and cumulative impacts of permitted development and include provisions to insure no net loss of shoreline ecosystems and ecosystem-wide processes. (WAC 173-26-251(3)(d)(i)). Existing: The 1977 Shoreline Master Program in the Overall Goals section on page 2 lists the first 6 statutory criteria. Reference is made to Shorelines of Statewide Significance (SSWS) in the following:

• Forest management (page 6) – references the limitations on clear cutting established in RCW 90.58.150.

• Ports and Water-Related Industry (page 8) – references statewide needs for port services

• Public Access (page 17) – references SSWS as having specific requirements

• Forest Practices (page 37) – references the limitations on clear cutting established in RCW 90.58.150.

Options: The following options are available: a) The SMP can employ a separate overlay of additional criteria for Shorelines of Statewide Significance. b) Separate regulations can be developed for areas defined as Shorelines of Statewide Significance that recognize and incorporate the additional criteria for those areas. Recommendation: Pursue both options to the extent feasible.

• A set of general criteria would require consideration on a project level at permit review.

• Some use and modification subsections would require additional criteria for Shorelines of Statewide Significance. This will largely apply to water-oriented uses and public access, discussed below.

3. Water Oriented Uses SMA Guidelines: Preferred uses are addressed in a number of provisions: a) The statute in RCW 90.58.020 provides a preference for uses that are “unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline.” b) The SMA Guidelines in WAC 173-26-020 and .201(2)(d) provide an explicit hierarchy of preference for uses that are particularly dependent on shoreline location or use in the following:

Woodland SMP Options Memo 4 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 • Water dependent uses are those that “cannot exist in any other location and are dependent on the water by intrinsic nature of its operation”. Examples of water- dependent uses include shipyards and dry docks, ferry terminals, waterborne cargo terminals, marinas, log booming, and aquaculture. • Water-related uses are those not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose operation cannot occur economically without a shoreline location. Examples include vessel parts and equipment manufacture, container shipping yards, seafood processing plants, marine salvage yards and similar uses. • Water enjoyment uses provide the opportunity for a significant number of people to enjoy the shoreline. They must be located, designed and operated to assure the public’s ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and they must be open to the public with shoreline space devoted to public shoreline enjoyment. Examples include parks, fishing piers, museums, restaurants (depending on design) interpretive centers and resorts (depending upon design). • Non-water-oriented uses have no functional relationship to the shoreline and are not designed to enhance the public’s enjoyment of the shoreline. c) WAC 173-26-201(2)(d) requires that a SMP: • Reserve appropriate areas for water dependent uses (including harbor areas, and other areas that have reasonable commercial navigational accessibility and necessary support facilities such as transportation and utilities) unless the local government can demonstrate that adequate shoreline is reserved for future water dependent and water related uses; or that there are no navigable waters, or that such areas are not compatible with ecological protection and restoration objectives; • Reserve areas for water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible with water-dependent uses and ecological protection and restoration objectives; • Limit non-water oriented uses to those locations where either water-oriented uses are inappropriate or where non-water-dependent uses demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the SMA. d) WAC 13-26-211(5)(d) contains the following provisions: • Master programs should require that public access and ecological restoration be considered as potential mitigation of impacts to shoreline resources and values for all water-related or water-dependent commercial development unless such improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or inappropriate. Where commercial use is proposed for location on land in public ownership, public access should be required. • In regulating uses in the "high-intensity" environment, first priority should be given to water-dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water-related and water-enjoyment uses. • Limit nonwater-oriented uses to those locations where the above described uses are inappropriate or where nonwater-oriented uses demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act. [Note – those objectives are public access or ecological restoration. See WAC 173-26-241(3)(d)]. e) If an analysis of water-dependent use needs as described in WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(ii) demonstrates the needs of existing and envisioned water-dependent uses for the planning

Woodland SMP Options Memo 5 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 period are met, then provisions allowing for a mix of water-dependent and nonwater- dependent uses may be established. If those shoreline areas also provide ecological functions, standards must be applied to assure no net loss of those functions.(WAC 173- 26-211(5)(d)(iii)(A)) f) Nonwater-oriented uses should not be allowed except as part of mixed use developments. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline. Such specific situations should be identified in shoreline use analysis or special area planning, as described in WAC 173-26-200 (WAC 173-26-211(5)(d)(iii)(A)) g) Master programs should prohibit nonwater-oriented commercial uses on the shoreline unless they meet the following criteria: i) The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent uses and provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration; or ii) Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site; and the commercial use provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration. In areas designated for commercial use, nonwater-oriented commercial development may be allowed if the site is physically separated from the shoreline by another property or public right of way. (WAC 173-26-241(3)(d)) h) Land use policies and regulations should protect preferred shoreline uses from being impacted by incompatible uses. The intent is to prevent water-oriented uses, especially water-dependent uses, from being restricted on shoreline areas because of impacts to nearby nonwater-oriented uses. To be consistent, master programs, comprehensive plans, and development regulations should prevent new uses that are not compatible with preferred uses from locating where they may restrict preferred uses or development. (WAC 173-26-211(3)(b)) i) Single-family residences are identified as an appropriate shoreline use by the statute in RCW 90.58.020. Multi-family residential use is not a preferred use and is not water- dependent or water oriented. Existing SMP: The existing SMP policies include the preference for “water dependent” use in: • Commercial policies in the Economic Development subsection (page 6) – provides a preference statement similar to the statute • Port and water related industry (page 8) - contains a provision that piers should not interfere with other water-dependent uses but does not provide a preference for “water dependent” uses. • Landfill regulations (pages 19 and 44) – provide a priority for water-dependent uses and for public uses. • Commercial regulations for the “urban” district (page 32) provides for an emphasis on water-dependent uses. Conservancy and Rural districts provide an exception to setbacks for water-dependent uses.

Woodland SMP Options Memo 6 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 • Shoreline works and structures (page 57) are prohibited on conservancy shorelines, except where they do not substantially change the character of that district and where they are a necessary part of a project which is clearly dependent on a location near or adjacent to a body of water.

Options: The 2003 Shoreline Guidelines include detailed criteria for water-dependent and other uses. The way the city frames these criteria is quite flexible. a) The SMP must include the preference hierarchy for water-dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment and non-water-oriented uses for all but single-family uses. This means that future non-water-dependent uses would not be allowed on navigable waters without a component of water-related or water enjoyment use or other “public benefit” such as ecological restoration or public access. Areas where this policy will have the most application include vacant and under- developed parcels. For example: i) The western, outer shoreline of Horseshoe Lake, especially the northern end, has vacant properties with different zoning designations including C-1 Central Business District and HDR High Density Residential. (Reach 8) ii) Areas near the State Airport are vacant, have a modicum of highway exposure, and have commercial zoning. Other commercial properties along Goerig Street N are also vacant. (Reach 11 and 12) b) In areas where navigation is limited, it is incumbent on the SMP to identify those areas and indicate the types of water-related and water-enjoyment uses that should be evaluated prior to allowing non-water-dependent uses. In Woodland, this would apply to areas with vacant property around Horseshoe Lake. Should we also add a bullet about the limited potential for industrial use on the Lewis River, navigability, etc. c) Water-oriented uses may be practical in areas designated for commercial or recreational uses. Water-enjoyment use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. d) Uses at or near the water/land interface must be developed in a manner compatible with ecological protection (no net loss). Practically speaking, this means development likely would be required to provide mitigation if they alter ecologically important features of the shoreline. This expense may work against encouraging water oriented use and lead to development of uses that turn their back on the shoreline, unless specific incentives are provided in the SMP. This will be addressed in more detail at the February meeting when we address “no net loss” of ecological functions. e) Criteria for Shorelines of Statewide Significance are likely to require reserving land adjacent to the water to exclusive water-dependent uses. This relates to areas with water access and the potential for water-dependent use, of which there are few in Woodland, due to the lack of industrially zoned shoreline properties.

Woodland SMP Options Memo 7 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 Recommendation: a) Provide the appropriate criteria in the SMP for water dependent uses for commercial and industrial uses consistent with WAC 173-26-241(3)(d) and (3)(f) as well as other provisions for specific uses. b) As part of the SPM update, distinguish by specific Shoreline Environmental Designation or by geographic identification areas where water-dependent uses are the exclusive use allowed. c) As part of the SPM update, distinguish by specific Shoreline Environmental Designation, or by geographic identification, areas where water-dependent uses are not likely to be practical. The areas that may be appropriate for application of this policy include those around Horseshoe Lake, and the Low Density Residential area south of McCracken Road (Reach 15). d) Evaluate upland zoning to determine whether they are consistent in the range of uses allowed. Evaluate the following areas for consideration of mixed use with a water enjoyment component: i) Areas near and north of the State airport, along the Lewis River (Reaches 7 and 11) ii) The small commercially zoned area on the west of Horseshoe Lake (behind Coffee Cove Café and the other uses in the buildings east of 2nd Street - Reach 10) If the Planning Commission should wish to consider these areas, amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and upland zoning should also be considered.

4. Public Access SMA Guidelines The 2003 Shoreline Guidelines have multiple provisions for public access. The most important include:

WAC 173-26 221(4) Public access. (a) Applicability. Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Public access provisions below apply to all shorelines of the state unless stated otherwise. (b) Principles. Local master programs shall: (i) Promote and enhance the public interest with regard to rights to access waters held in public trust by the state while protecting private property rights and public safety. (ii) Protect the rights of navigation and space necessary for water-dependent uses. (iii) To the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally, protect the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of shorelines of the state, including views of the water. (iv) Regulate the design, construction, and operation of permitted uses in the shorelines of the state to minimize, insofar as practical, interference with the public's use of the water.

Woodland SMP Options Memo 8 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 (c) Planning process to address public access. Local governments should plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system that identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access. Such a system can often be more effective and economical than applying uniform public access requirements to all development. This planning should be integrated with other relevant comprehensive plan elements, especially transportation and recreation. The planning process shall also comply with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations that protect private property rights. Where a port district or other public entity has incorporated public access planning into its master plan through an open public process, that plan may serve as a portion of the local government's public access planning, provided it meets the provisions of this chapter. The planning may also justify more flexible off-site or special area public access provisions in the master program. Public participation requirements in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(b)(i) apply to public access planning. At a minimum, the public access planning should result in public access requirements for shoreline permits, recommended projects, port master plans, and/or actions to be taken to develop public shoreline access to shorelines on public property. The planning should identify a variety of shoreline access opportunities and circulation for pedestrians (including disabled persons), bicycles, and vehicles between shoreline access points, consistent with other comprehensive plan elements. (d) Standards. Shoreline master programs should implement the following standards: (i) Based on the public access planning described in (c) of this subsection, establish policies and regulations that protect and enhance both physical and visual public access. The master program shall address public access on public lands. The master program should seek to increase the amount and diversity of public access to the state's shorelines consistent with the natural shoreline character, property rights, public rights under the Public Trust Doctrine, and public safety. (ii) Require that shoreline development by public entities, including local governments, port districts, state agencies, and public utility districts, include public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, or impact to the shoreline environment. Where public access planning as described in WAC 173-26-221 (4)(c) demonstrates that a more effective public access system can be achieved through alternate means, such as focusing public access at the most desirable locations, local governments may institute master program provisions for public access based on that approach in lieu of uniform site-by-site public access requirements. (iii) Provide standards for the dedication and improvement of public access in developments for water-enjoyment, water-related, and nonwater-dependent uses and for the subdivision of land into more than four parcels. In these cases, public access should be required except: (A) Where the local government provides more effective public access through a public access planning process described in WAC 173-26-221 (4)(c). (B) Where it is demonstrated to be infeasible due to reasons of incompatible uses, safety, security, or impact to the shoreline environment or due to constitutional or other legal limitations that may be applicable.

Woodland SMP Options Memo 9 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 In determining the infeasibility, undesirability, or incompatibility of public access in a given situation, local governments shall consider alternate methods of providing public access, such as off-site improvements, viewing platforms, separation of uses through site planning and design, and restricting hours of public access. (C) For individual single-family residences not part of a development planned for more than four parcels. (iv) Adopt provisions, such as maximum height limits, setbacks, and view corridors, to minimize the impacts to existing views from public property or substantial numbers of residences. Where there is an irreconcilable conflict between water-dependent shoreline uses or physical public access and maintenance of views from adjacent properties, the water-dependent uses and physical public access shall have priority, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary. (v) Assure that public access improvements do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. WAC 173-26-211(5)(d) "High-intensity" environment. (ii) Management policies. (A) In regulating uses in the "high-intensity" environment, first priority should be given to water-dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water-related and water- enjoyment uses. Nonwater-oriented uses should not be allowed except as part of mixed use developments. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline. Such specific situations should be identified in shoreline use analysis or special area planning, as described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d). If an analysis of water-dependent use needs as described in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(d)(ii) demonstrates the needs of existing and envisioned water-dependent uses for the planning period are met, then provisions allowing for a mix of water-dependent and nonwater-dependent uses may be established. If those shoreline areas also provide ecological functions, apply standards to assure no net loss of those functions. (D) Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as provided for in WAC 173-26-221 (4)(d). WAC 173-26-211(5)(d) "Shoreline residential" environment. (ii) Management policies. (B) Multi-family and multi-lot residential and recreational developments should provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities. WAC 173-26-241(3)(d) Commercial development. Master programs should require that public access and ecological restoration be considered as potential mitigation of impacts to shoreline resources and values for all water-related or water-dependent commercial development unless such improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or inappropriate. Where commercial use is proposed for location on land in public ownership, public access should be required. Refer to WAC 173-26-221(4) for public access provisions. Master programs should prohibit nonwater-oriented commercial uses on the shoreline unless they meet the following criteria: (i) The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent uses and provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration; or

Woodland SMP Options Memo 10 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 (ii) Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site; and the commercial use provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration. Similar provisions for industrial development are provided in WAC 173-26-241(3)(f) Industrial development. WAC 173-26-241(3)(j) Residential development. New multi-unit residential development, including the subdivision of land for more than four parcels, should provide community and/or public access in conformance to the local government's public access planning and this chapter. 173-26-251 Shorelines of statewide significance. (3)(c)(iii) Base public access and recreation requirements on demand projections that take into account the activities of state agencies and the interests of the citizens of the state to visit public shorelines with special scenic qualities or cultural or recreational opportunities. Existing SMP Policies and regulations for public access in the Shoreline Master program (SMP) are found in: Public access subsection (page 17) – policies include: 1. To retain existing public access and develop additional access where such will not endanger life or property nor interfere with the rights inherent with private property. 2. Such access should not have an adverse effect on unique or fragile natural features, nor alter ecological systems of the area. 3. Future roads, when built paralleling shorelines, shall provide multiple point access to the shoreline wherever possible to ease concentration. Public access is mentioned in a variety of sections, but specific requirements are notably absent. Shoreline, except for retaining existing public access. Typical are provisions for residential development (page 15) which includes “Subdividers should be encouraged to provide public pedestrian access to the shorelines.” Existing Plans An important additional consideration is the public access plans that have been prepared for various areas: • I did not see any specific area plans, nor did I see reference to such in the City of Woodland Park and Recreation Plan. The Plan does include objectives of completing a plan for Horseshoe Lake park (by 09) and for the City owned property along the Lewis River (by 08) If these were completed plans, we could assess how they designed new water access. Other public access opportunities not included in existing park and recreation plans, but with potential for enhancing public access include: • The limited areas of high density residentially zoned property along Horseshoe Lake and the Lewis River (south of Cherry Blossom Lane). Multi-family residential use is not a preferred use or a water-dependent use and is subject to the requirements for public access for development of more than four units in WAC 173-26-241(3)(j). Options Two options are proposed for consideration:

Woodland SMP Options Memo 11 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 a) Establish public access as part of review of new development. This approach is consistent with the new Shoreline Guidelines, except for the provisions in 173-26-251 (3)(c)(iii) mandating public access and recreation requirements be based on demand projections. b) Provide an integrated plan for a shoreline area public access system that identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access as provided as an option in WAC 176-23-221(4)(c). This approach is discussed in more detail below. Recommendation a) Provide general regulations that meet the public access requirements for water- dependent use for commercial and industrial use in WAC 173-26-241(3)(d) and (3)(f) as well as other provisions for specific uses such as multi-family residential. b) Develop guidance for the type of public access that is appropriate on a reach-by reach basis. This will serve, in part, as an integrated plan for a shoreline area public access system that identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access as provided as an option in WAC 176-23-221(4)(c). This approach would also specify the type of public access expected of private development (particularly non-water- dependent use) and address whether public access in a particular area should be visual access, a continuous corridor along the waterfront, and the extent to which shoreline ecological enhancement should be incorporated. • The City of Woodland Park and Recreation Plan documents the results of a Park and Recreation Survey. Trails and other passive recreation were very popular in the survey results. Also, many participants indicated a desire for increased access to the Lewis River. • Land in the Lewis River floodplain that is in City ownership. c) Provide a reach-by-reach designation of the appropriate balance between public access and ecological preservation and restoration. This will be especially important for “nonwater dependent” uses to provide specific guidance to meet the requirement for public access and/or ecologic restoration pursuant to WAC 173-26-241(3)(d). This will avoid uncertainty for applicants and the city in review of future applications.

Woodland SMP Options Memo 12 of 15 CITY REVIEW 2012-01-08 ATTACHMENT A – EXISTING SMP MAP

ATTACHMENT B – EXISTING ZONING

ATTACHMENT C EXCERPTS FROM CITY OF WOODLAND PARK AND RECREATION PLAN

Goals 1. Provide for year round use of walking, biking and jogging trails throughout Woodland. 2. Provide and encourage adequate boat launch and handicapped fishing access sites at Horseshoe Lake and on the Lewis River and other regional facilities. 4. Provide additional public access to the banks of the Lewis River.

Objectives 3. Repair and upgrade the boat launch at Horseshoe Lake Park by 2009. 9. Develop a Lewis River shoreline trail and access maintenance program. 12. Develop a walking, biking and jogging trail system around Horseshoe Lake Park and throughout the city through construction of additional trail phases from 2007-2012.

September 20, 2012 Workshop Results

Question 1: Without reviewing the list of uses, brainstorm 3 businesses or uses you’d like to see downtown. Then, go through the proposed changes and see if the uses you’ve identified are listed as permitted uses.

1. Bakeries (permitted under draft code) 2. Daycare (draft ordinance lists this as an administrative conditional use) 3. Drive‐through restaurants / fast food (not permitted under current code and listed as a conditional use in draft code) 4. Family recreation (permitted under draft code) 5. Gas station/service station (not permitted under current code and listed as a conditional use in draft code) 6. Hardware stores (permitted under draft code) 7. Library and city facilities (permitted under draft code) 8. Micro breweries and restaurants (permitted under draft code) 9. National chain restaurants (permitted under draft code) 10. Residential, live‐work units, flex space, mixed use (Code allows for residential units above but doesn’t address other types of live‐work arrangements) 11. Retail, antiques, etc. (permitted under draft code)

Question 2: Read through the list of conditional uses proposed. Discuss the conditional uses listed and whether or not you feel they are appropriate.

1. All listed “conditional uses” should be listed as “permitted” uses 2. Wireless communication facilities should need to go through design review (note: City of Woodland does not currently have a design review process in place) 3. Wholesale sales should be a permitted use 4. Daycare should be a permitted use 5. Towing should be a prohibited use 6. (Wholesale) lumber and building yards should be listed as prohibited 7. Land consumptive uses and uses that don’t bring people downtown could be a reason for requiring a conditional use permit.

Question 3: Without reviewing the list of prohibited uses, brainstorm 3 businesses/uses that you would absolutely not want to locate downtown. Then, go through the proposed list of prohibited uses to see if the ones you’ve identified are listed.

1. Any commercial use should be listed as a “permitted” use 2. Drug treatment facilities (not prohibited under draft code) 3. Kennels (prohibited under draft code) 4. Marijuana‐related businesses (prohibited under draft code) 5. Ministorage (prohibited under draft code) 6. Sexually oriented businesses, strip clubs, etc. (prohibited under draft code) 7. Some manufacturing uses should be allowed as a permitted use i.e. high tech, start ups, small operations, etc. (besides artisanal manufacturing this is not permitted under draft code)

Question 4: Working individually, read through the list of permitted uses paying attention only to those in red font. Identify any uses that don’t seem to be a good fit for downtown. Share your thoughts with the group.

1. Shelters should be a “Conditional Use” or “Prohibited Use” 2. Large scale recycling centers should not be allowed 3. The event center threshold should be raised above the 200 person limit for a permitted use 4. Make a threshold limit for manufacturing based on square footage or number of employees so that it can be a permitted use. Make manufacturing above that threshold a conditional use.

Question 5: As a group, brainstorm uses that are most appropriate or ideally located downtown as opposed to other commercial areas in the City. See if you can develop a list of 3 or 4.

1. 2nd story offices 2. Art and artisanal goods 3. Bakeries 4. Brew pub 5. Coffee shops 6. Government facilities and public offices 7. Jewelry stores 8. Lakefront restaurant 9. Live/work spaces 10. Offices 11. Restaurants, wine, good chefs

Woodland Zoning Map - January 2013

R BUC E KE IV YE R IS EW N L A

M F F

D O

O H B O UC W

K L EYE A

P/Q-P/I D

N C-2

S HDR

TR UTH

E L LDR-6 A D RO BB I G Legend NS I R E O LOVES G Zoning C-1

A P C-1 C-2

BOZARTH P A C-3

D FW

N 2 P/Q-P/I L HDR A K E S

D I-1 H

R O

3 DAVIDSON R Property owners are interested E I-2

4 in applying to re-zone these properties LDR-6 from C-1 (Central Business District) I-1 to C-2 (Highway Commercial). LDR-7.2 D UNHAM LDR-8.5 HDR MDR UZ P/Q-P/I LDR-6 UZ

Disclaimer: The City of Woodland, WA, assumes no legal liability or responsibility for accuracy and completeness of this map. This map 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 is to be used as a reference tool only. It is not a survey and the Miles property and lines are not to be construed as being accurate. / STAFF REPORT – Amending the Allowed, Conditionally Allowed, and Prohibited Land Uses in the C-1 District (Central Business)

January 10, 2013

SUMMARY On September 20, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public workshop attended by eleven people. The outcomes of this workshop session are included in this packet. A number of the suggestions made were incorporated into the proposed draft (see yellow highlighted text). Also highlighted in yellow are other changes suggested by staff.

Some ideas that came out of the workshop have not yet been incorporated into the draft. Direction from the Planning Commission is needed on the following items that were discussed at the workshop:

1. Drive-through restaurant, fast food – During the workshop, someone mentioned that they would like to see fast food restaurants with drive-through windows allowed in the C-1 District. The current code prohibits the use and the proposed code changes would make it a conditional use. As per the Comprehensive Plan, in the Downtown Commercial District, “discouraged uses are those that are land consumptive such as warehouses, automobile sales lots, and individual business parking lots that diminish the area’s compactness and convenience as an integrated shopping goods and services area. Also discouraged are uses that are strictly automobile-access oriented, such as drive-in restaurants and gas stations, as opposed to pedestrian oriented.” Staff recommends that this use either: 1) continue to be listed as a prohibited use, or 2) be listed as a conditional use. Staff could support drive-through fast food restaurants being listed as a conditional use because conditional uses must show that design is “compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design (page 1-41).” With the possible rezone in the Gateway, there would be areas near downtown where fast food restaurants were outright permitted uses.

2. Gas station/service station – During the workshop, someone mentioned gas stations as being a use they would like to see in the C-1. The current code prohibits the use and the proposed code would make it a conditional use. Staff recommends that this use either: 1) continue to be listed as a prohibited use, or 2) be listed as a conditional use. Staff would support this use being listed as a conditional use because conditional uses must show that design is “compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design”. As per the Comprehensive Plan, in the Downtown Commercial District, “discouraged uses are those that are land consumptive such as warehouses, automobile sales lots, and individual business parking lots that diminish the area’s compactness and convenience as an integrated shopping goods and services area. Also discouraged are uses that are strictly automobile-access oriented, such as drive-in restaurants and gas stations, as opposed to pedestrian oriented (page 1-41).” Also, with the possible rezone in the Gateway, there would be areas near downtown where gas stations would be outright permitted uses.

3. Wholesale sales – During the workshop this was listed as a use someone would like to see in the C-1. This use is not currently listed in the C-1 code section and would be looked at as a prohibited use today. Wholesale is not a use that would attract shoppers, residents, or tourists downtown and the Comprehensive Plan discourages this use in the C-1. As per the Comprehensive Plan, in the Downtown Commercial District, “discouraged uses are those that are land consumptive such as warehouses, automobile sales lots, and individual business parking lots that diminish the area’s compactness and convenience as an integrated shopping goods and services area. Also discouraged are uses that are strictly automobile-access oriented, such as drive-in restaurants and gas stations, as opposed to pedestrian oriented (page 1-41).”

4. Manufacturing – During the workshop it was mentioned that some manufacturing uses should be permitted (i.e. high tech, start ups, mall operations, etc.). It was mentioned that a threshold limit based on square footage or employment could be set and that anything above that level would need a conditional use permit. Permitted Uses

1. Art galleries* 21. Farmers’ markets, a. Accessory to a 2. Artisanal/craft shop bazaars, and open air permitted use on site, 3. Arts and cultural markets b. Storage area does not facilities, institutions, 22. Funeral homes and exceed 50% of the area and businesses such as mortuaries of the permitted use on a museums, theaters, art 23. Grocery stores, square foot basis, and galleries, and art studios delicatessens, butcher c. Storage areas is 4. Automatic teller shops, and indoor located behind buildings machines (ATM) markets selling food and and screened by 5. Automobile sales farm products landscaping or an (Indoor) 24. Health spas* architectural wall at least 6. Bakeries with retail 25. Hardware and building six feet in height. If service supply stores (retail) appropriate, some 7. Banks and financial 26. Hotels and hostels viewing of activity may services 27. Laundry and dry be allowed through gaps 8. Bed and breakfast inns cleaning operations in screening. 9. Commercial recreation (retail and self) 38. Personal and business and entertainment 28. Libraries* services facilities* 29. Live-work units 39. Pet stores and animal 10. Community clubs, 30. Medical clinics and grooming businesses fraternal societies, and offices 40. Plant nurseries other places of assembly 31. Microbreweries, 41. Printing shops for membership groups microdistilleries, and 42. Professional and and memorial buildings microwineries business offices 11. Community Public and 32. Motorcycle, scooter, 43. Public and private off- commercial recreation bicycle, and other small street parking facilities swimming pool motorized or non- 44. Public Government and facilities, gyms, and motorized means of quasi-public buildings sports complexes transportation (indoor and uses such as post 12. Dance studios* and outdoor sales) offices, libraries, and 13. Daycare center 33. Museums* government offices 14. Drive-through lane, 34. Newspaper offices* 45. Public parks and open when associated with a 35. On-site hazardous waste spaces, courtyards financial institution or treatment and storage 46. Public transportation pharmacy facilities as an facilities such as bus 15. Electric vehicle charging accessory use to any stations, train stations, stations activity generating and transit shelters 16. Entertainment facilities hazardous waste and 47. Public utility offices* such as indoor theaters lawfully permitted in 48. Recycling collection and playhouses this zone, provided that point 17. Event center, 200 300 such facilities must meet 49. Religious institutions person occupancy the state siting criteria Churches 18. Existing, legally adopted pursuant to the 50. Repair shops for small established, automotive requirements of RCW equipment and items repair and towing 70.105.210 as now or Appliance and repair business located at 535 hereafter amended. 51. Restaurants and cafes Park Street 36. Outdoor eating and/or and other eating and 19. Existing, legally drinking areas associated drinking establishments established, machine and with an indoor facility except for drive-in and fabrication shop located are permitted pursuant to fast food restaurants. at 400 2nd Street state law 52. Retail stores 20. Farm and garden stores 37. Outdoor storage of establishments, less than product when: 50,001 sf 53. Shelters, Temporary 58. Uses similar to the passage of the ordinance Housing - Emergency above that are not codified in this title shall 54. Signs and outdoor otherwise listed in this be allowed to remain, advertising displays chapter and any additions or pursuant to Chapter *RESIDENTIAL* improvements thereto 17.52 59. Dwelling units; provided shall meet the standards 55. Taverns and liquor residential uses are of the LDR-6 district establishments located above a 61. Home occupations Establishments selling permissible C-1 provided they are alcoholic beverages by commercial use and accessory to single- virtue of a class C, D, E, adequate off-street family dwellings and F or H liquor license parking is provided meet the requirements of issued by the state; pursuant to Chapter WMC 17.16.100 56. Upholstery and furniture 17.56. Lobbies for repair residential uses on upper 57. Veterinary offices and floors may be located on clinics without outdoor the ground floor; animal runs 60. Single-family dwellings existing at the time of

*Redundant use covered under a broader category/title

Conditional Uses – Administrative

1. Day care center 2. Public utility uses except electrical substations and transfer facilities and power-generating units; and 3. Vending stands and kiosks

Conditional Uses – Hearing examiner

1. Automobile diagnostic and repair facilities, major and minor repairs; and towing businesses 2. Automobile sales (Outdoor); 3. Automobile service stations (gas station) and car washes; 2. Drive-through restaurant, fast food 3. Event center, greater than 200 301 person occupancy; 4. Farm machinery sales and services; 5. Hospital, psychiatric facility sanitarium, rest home, home for the aged, nursing home, or convalescent home 6. Schools, public, parochial, private, vocational, technical, business and others, nonprofit or operated for profit; 7. Shelters, Temporary Housing, Emergency Housing; and 8. Wireless communication facilities

Prohibited Uses

1. Animal kennel, 9. Drive-in and fast food mobile homes;, and commercial/boarding; restaurants; related equipment Dog kennels and the 10. Drug treatment facilities; 17. Recreational vehicle outdoor housing of dogs 11. Junkyards and wrecking park; when associated with a yards; 18. Recycling center or veterinary office or 12. Laundry/dry cleaning plant; clinic (industrial); 19. Sand, soil, gravel sales 2. Animal shelter; 13. Lumber yards and other and storage; 3. Any use whose building material sales 20. Sexually oriented operation constitutes a that sell primarily to businesses; nuisance by reason of contractors (wholesale); 21. Storage, distribution and smoke, fumes, odors, 14. Manufacturing and warehousing when such steam, gases, vibration, production, except those use is not a part of and noise hazards or other specifically listed as not essential to a causes readily detectable permitted uses in this permitted use; also, beyond property lines; chapter; , and except when it is proposed to be 4. Automobile and light those establishments independently sited and/or heavy truck permitted before the within the C-1 district or repair facilities; passage of this independently owned 5. Automobile, motorcycle, ordinance and operated within a and boat dealerships and 15. Storage facilities, such permitted structure, i.e. servicing establishments as self-storage or using a second floor of a 6. Bowling alleys; recreational vehicle building; 7. Collective garden, storage businesses 22. Towing; and medical marijuana; 16. Outdoor sales of 23. Wholesale businesses 8. Commercial dispatch vehicles, boats, campers, and maintenance motor homes, and facilities;

Temporary Uses – Administrative

1. Agricultural stands; 2. Mobile vending carts; 3. Parking lot sales that are not ancillary to the indoor sale of similar goods and services; and 4. Uses similar to the above to be located on a temporary basis in the C-1 District

New Definitions

“Animal Shelter” means a place where dogs, cats or other stray or homeless animals are sheltered. Activities and services may include kenneling, animal clinic, pet counseling and sales, as well as animal disposal.

“Artisan/craft shop” means a retail store selling art glass, ceramics, clothing, jewelry, paintings, sculpture, and other handcrafted items, where the facility includes an area for the crafting of the items being sold.

“Electric vehicle charging station” means a public or private parking space that is served by battery charging station equipment that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle.

“Event center” means a building used primarily by groups for celebratory events, meetings, and other events. Typically food service and alcohol are associated with this use.

“Laundry/dry cleaning (Industrial)” means a business supplying bulk laundry services, such as linen and uniform services on a rental or contract basis. May also include cleaning carpets and upholstery.

"Live-work unit" means a structure or portion of a structure: (1) that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner's employee, and that person's household; (2) where the resident owner or employee of the business is responsible for the commercial or manufacturing activity performed; and (3) where the commercial or manufacturing activity conducted takes place subject to a valid business license associated with the premises.

“Manufacturing and production” means firms involved in the manufacturing, processing, fabrication, packaging, or assembly of goods. Natural, man-made, raw, secondary, or partially completed materials may be used. Products may be finished or semi-finished and are generally made for the wholesale market, for transfer to other plants, or to order for firm or consumers. Goods are generally not displayed or sold on site, but if so, they are a subordinate part of sales. Relatively few customers come to the manufacturing site.

“Microbrewery, microdistillery, or microwinery” means a small-scale business located in a building where the primary use is for restaurant, retail, or tasting room, and which specializes in producing limited quantities of wine, beer, or other alcoholic beverage.

“Wholesale sales” means firms involved in the sale, lease, or rent of products primarily intended for industrial, institutional, or commercial businesses. The uses emphasize on-site sales or order taking and often include display areas. Businesses may or may not be open to the general public but sales to the general public are limited as a result of the way in which the firm operates. Products may be picked up on site or delivered to the customer.

“Wrecking yard” means the dismantling or disassembling of motor vehicles, or the storage, sale, or dumping of dismantled, partially dismantled, obsolete, or wrecked vehicles or their parts.

Building & Planning 4th Quarter Report 2012

Our quarterly report will provide you with This report summarizes information about current development trends department activity for the in the City of Woodland. months of October, November and December 2012. The Building and Planning Within the past year, the City of Woodland has issued 17 Department is a division of single-family residential building permits. Public Works and is staffed by JoAnn Heinrichs, Permit Clerk; 7 Webb Wilbanks, Building 6 Official; and Carolyn Johnson, 5

Community Development 4 3 Planner. 2 1 0 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4

Single Family Residential Permits

The trend in single family construction over the past six

years is shown in the chart below. In 2007, 35 new single family homes were permitted. This number dropped significantly the following year and continued dropping until 2011 when permits numbers began ticking upwards. 2012 saw the highest number of new home starts since 2007.

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Single Family Residential Permits

Building and Planning 4th Quarter 2012 Report

The chart below shows construction valuation trends by quarter for 2012.

$10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 4th Quarter Construction Valuation

The split between residential and industrial/commercial construction in 2012 is shown below.

$9,000,000 Residential Industrial & Commercial $8,000,000

$7,000,000

$6,000,000

$5,000,000

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$0 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 Construction Valuation Mix

Building and Planning 4th Quarter 2012 Report

A number of important development and zoning code

updates went to City Council in th the 4 Quarter. The Council approved amendments to the city’s pet and domestic animal Construction value over the last six years is shown below. The code and an ordinance amending increase in 2012 is largely due to large industrial projects the city’s SEPA and such as the Columbia Colstor and Mac Chain expansions. Administrative appeal procedures. The Council also $25,000,000 approved first readings of an electric vehicle infrastructure $20,000,000 ordinance and a comprehensive stormwater ordinance, paving the $15,000,000 way for their passage in January 2013. $10,000,000 The Planning Commission had a th $5,000,000 busy 4 quarter. The Commission moved two $0 ordinances forward to Council 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 with do-pass recommendations,

hosted a public meeting on the Shoreline Master Program The share of residential and industrial/commercial update, and hosted a training construction valuation over the last six years is shown below. course focused on local land use planning. The Commission also $18,000,000 welcomed Deborah Deans to the Residential $16,000,000 group. Deans has filled the Ind/Comm vacant seat previously held by $14,000,000 Jim Yount. $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Construction Valuation Mix

Building and Planning 4th Quarter 2012 Report

Progress Report on 2012 Planning Commission Work Items

1. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update (ONGOING UNTIL 2014)

• The City received a $50,000 grant to update its SMP by June 2014. Consultant work Non products must be reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission. It is estimated that ‐ ne five of the Planning Commission’s agendas in 2013 will include Shoreline issues. g otiable 2. Comprehensive Plan and Map Amendments (COMPLETED)

• The city is required to consider proposed comprehensive plan amendments annually. In 2012

2012, the City received one application, the Liberty Evans Proposal. The Planning Work Commission’s recommendation went to Council on Dec. 17, 2012.

Items 3. Amend Code To Address Electric Vehicle Battery Charging Stations (COMPLETED) • The City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance on Dec. 17, 2012.

4. Expirations for Variances and Site Plan Approval (LU# 210‐912) (CANCELLED) • Staff is recommending that this land use file be cancelled. There is still a need to set expiration periods, however staff is proposing this be accomplished through the drafting of a comprehensive site plan review ordinance that, amongst other things, addresses the expiration period for approvals, revisions, and extensions. Variance expiration would be handled as a separate land use application.

5. Creation of a Historic Preservation Ordinance (LU# 211‐906) (COMPLETED) • The Planning Commission made a recommendation against the passage of a historic preservation ordinance on Oct. 1, 2012.

6. Pet and Domestic Animal Code Amendment (LU# 211‐912) (COMPLETED) 2011 • City Council approved pet and domestic animal code revisions on Oct. 1, 2012 but asked

that the Planning Commission come back with a recommendation on beekeeping. Work

7. Non‐conforming Uses Zoning Code Text Change (LU# 211‐913) (IN PROCESS) Items • Amendments are being sought to address a number of issues. The existing code uses

terms such as “actively used” that are undefined and difficult to interpret. Further, our existing code is unclear on what changes in use are (un)acceptable when dealing with a property with non‐conforming use rights. Finally, the Hearing Examiner’s Final Order on the 208 Buckeye (Foglia House) matter called into question current code language and the way the ordinance has been administered. An ordinance has been drafted but a legal review is needed before taking the ordinance any further.

8. An Ordinance That Would Amend The Administrative Appeals Process (LU# 210‐917) (COMPLETED) • City Council approved this code amendment on Nov. 17, 2012.

9. Revise Woodland’s Critical Areas Ordinance to Address Department of Ecology Concerns (NO PROGRESS TO DATE) • Following a Department of Ecology review of Woodland’s Critical Areas Ordinance, we received an analysis of changes that need to be made so that the WMC is consistent with Ecology’s guidance on wetland protections. Further, the WMC does not adequately address wetland mitigation bank credit use. This is an option highly recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers and Ecology, and an option that business has expressed interest in using.

10. Review and Provide a Recommendation on the Ad Hoc Committee’s List of Expanded Uses for the C‐1 (Central Business) District (Possible Zoning Code Text Change) (IN PROCESS) • In the latter part of 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed list of revised downtown uses and a well attended public workshop was held to get feedback on the 2012 proposed list. Staff has been in discussions with property owners in the Gateway about

long‐term development plans and zoning. Once the Planning Commission is comfortable Work with a draft ordinance, staff will go through the SEPA process and set a public hearing

date. Items

11. Develop Procedures for Processing Boundary Line Adjustments and Requirements for Approval (COMPLETED) • The City Council approved a BLA ordinance on Aug. 20, 2012.

12. Stormwater Ordinance (COMPLETED) • The City Council approved a first reading of a comprehensive stormwater ordinance on Dec. 17, 2012.

13. Sign Code Review (NO WORK TO DATE) • Council approved review on May 7, 2012 to address vehicles used as signs. In addition, staff has become aware of a number of conflicting or confusing provisions of the sign code that should be clarified. This includes provisions related to: the size of “for sale” / “for lease” signs, the location of special event signs, signs in the right of way, and off‐ premise commercial signs.

PROGRESS REPORT ‐ 2012 Planning Commission Work Priorities Proposed 2013 Work Items

Non 1. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update ‐ ne • The City received a $50,000 grant to update its SMP by June 2014. Consultant work g products must be reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission. The City’s consultant otiable made one presentation to the Planning Commission in 2012. It is estimated that five of

the Planning Commission’s agendas in 2013 will include Shoreline issues. 2013

Work 2. Comprehensive Plan and Map Amendments

• The city is required to consider proposed comprehensive plan amendments annually. It Items is currently unknown if the City will see amendment proposals in 2013.

3. Review and Provide a Recommendation on the Ad Hoc Committee’s List of Expanded Uses for the C‐1 (Central Business) District • In the latter part of 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed list of revised downtown uses and held a well‐attended public workshop where the City got feedback on the proposed list. Staff has been in discussions with property owners in the Gateway about long‐term development plans and zoning. Once the Planning Commission is comfortable with a draft ordinance, staff will take a draft ordinance through the SEPA process and set a public hearing date.

4. Revise Woodland’s Critical Areas Ordinance to Address Department of Ecology Concerns (NO PROGRESS TO DATE) Committed • Following a Department of Ecology review of Woodland’s Critical Areas Ordinance, we received an analysis of changes that need to be made so that the WMC is consistent with Ecology’s guidance on wetland protections. Further, the WMC does not adequately

address wetland mitigation bank credit use. This is an option highly recommended by to

Com the Army Corps of Engineers and Ecology, and an option that business has expressed p

interest in using. letin g

5. Sign Code Review in

• Council approved a review of the sign code on May 7, 2012. The purpose of the review is 2013 to address vehicles used as signs. In addition, staff has become aware of a number of conflicting or confusing provisions of the sign code that should be clarified. This includes provisions related to: the size of “for sale” / “for lease” signs, the location of special event signs, signs in the right of way, and off‐premise commercial signs. Although this was added to the list of 2012 work items, no work has been done on this item to date.

6. Non‐conforming Uses Zoning Code Text Change (LU# 211‐913) • Amendments are being sought to address a number of issues. The existing code uses terms such as “actively used” that are undefined and difficult to interpret. Further, our existing code is unclear on what changes in use are (un)acceptable when dealing with a property with non‐conforming use rights. Finally, the Hearing Examiner’s Final Order on the 208 Buckeye (Foglia House) matter called into question current code language and the way the ordinance has been administered.

7. Comprehensive Site Plan Review Ordinance • For all intensive purposes, the City has been operating without a site plan review ordinance. The current code says little to nothing about what site plan approval is, when it is required, submittal requirements, the approval process, the expiration period on approvals, revisions to approved plans, and approval extensions. Site plan approval is the most common land use process in the City of Woodland and there is a need to address the inadequacies of the current code. Pro p

8. Expiration on Approved Variances osed • The code is currently silent on the period for which variance approval extends. This issue

was first brought up in 2010. 2013

9. Beekeeping Amendment to the Pet and Domestic Animal Code Work • City Council approved pet and domestic animal code revisions on Oct. 1, 2012 but asked

that the Planning Commission come back with a recommendation on beekeeping within Items city limits.

10. Subdivision Phasing After Preliminary Approval • During the 2012 Joint Session, Commissioner Simpson asked that subdivision phasing after preliminary approval be added to the list of possible 2013 work items. Review would entail looking at the provisions in WMC 16.14.030 that allows for the modification of an existing subdivision plan to allow phasing.

Appendix A – Future Work Items

1. Update WMC Title 12, Streets and Sidewalks, Particularly Chapters 12.06, 12.10, 12.14, and 12.16 2. Develop Standards for Solar Panels and Wind Turbines 3. Repeal Without Replacement the Condominium Code (WMC 16.20) 4. Adopt Annexation Ordinance 5. Develop Flag Lot Standards 6. Review Code on Accessory Structure in Residential Zoning Districts to Allow Sheds/Accessory Structures in Side Yards 7. Adopt Landscaping Standards for Commercial and Residential Zoning Districts 8. Define “Legal Lot” 9. Clarify Lot Frontage Requirements

G:\Planning\Commission\Goals and Priorities\2013 Goals and Priorities\Appendix A - Future Work Items.doc Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

APPENDIX E – SURVEYS

E‐1

Shoreline Master Program Update Survey

1. Where do you live, or what is the area that you are primarily interested in? (check all that apply)

Response Response

Percent Count

Upper Chehalis River/Toutle 50.0% 3 River/Silver Lake

Kelso/Longview 33.3% 2

Kalama River 33.3% 2

Lower Columbia/Woodland 16.7% 1

Lewis River 33.3% 2

City of Castle Rock 0.0% 0

City of Kelso 0.0% 0

City of Kalama 16.7% 1

City of Woodland 16.7% 1

Northwest Cowlitz County 0.0% 0

Western Cowlitz County 16.7% 1

answered question 6

skipped question 0

1 of 18 2. What is your primary interest in the Shoreline Master Program? (check all that apply)

Response Response

Percent Count

Shoreline property owner 40.0% 2

Interested citizen 100.0% 5

Business interest 40.0% 2

Interested in environmental quality 20.0% 1

Recreational boater 20.0% 1

Interested in public access and 100.0% 5 parks

Other (please specify) 2

answered question 5

skipped question 1

3. Do you own property within the shoreline? (check all that apply)

Response Response

Percent Count

Yes 33.3% 2

No 50.0% 3

My employer owns property within 16.7% 1 the shoreline

Comments 1

answered question 6

skipped question 0

2 of 18 4. How did you hear about the Shoreline Master Program update project? (check all that apply)

Response Response

Percent Count

Newspapers 20.0% 1

Business organization/newsletter 0.0% 0

Radio 40.0% 2

Email 60.0% 3

Word of mouth 40.0% 2

Other (please specify) 0

answered question 5

skipped question 1

5. What is the best way to keep you informed?

Response Response

Percent Count

Public meetings 20.0% 1

Email 60.0% 3

Newspapers 20.0% 1

Business organization/newsletter 0.0% 0

Radio 0.0% 0

Other (please specify) 0

answered question 5

skipped question 1

3 of 18 6. How do you use the shoreline and how often?

Rating Daily Weekly Monthly Occasionally Never Count

Passive viewing 66.7% (4) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 6

Fishing 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 33.3% (2) 6

Walking 0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 6

Biking 20.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (1) 20.0% (1) 40.0% (2) 5

Boating 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 50.0% (3) 6

Parks or recreational areas 0.0% (0) 20.0% (1) 40.0% (2) 20.0% (1) 20.0% (1) 5

Canoeing/kayaking/rafting 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (1) 80.0% (4) 5

Community events 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (1) 60.0% (3) 20.0% (1) 5

Swimming 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 33.3% (2) 50.0% (3) 6

Other 33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 3

Specify other 3

answered question 6

skipped question 0

4 of 18 7. Visual access is defined as the ability to see the shoreline. How do you feel about your current level of visual access to the shoreline? (check only one)

Response Response

Percent Count

There are enough opportunities to 16.7% 1 view the shoreline.

There are some opportunities to view the shoreline, but I wish 33.3% 2 there were more.

There needs to be more opportunities to view the 33.3% 2 shoreline.

No opinion. 16.7% 1

Comments: 1

answered question 6

skipped question 0

5 of 18 8. Physical access is defined as the ability to get down to the shoreline. How do you feel about your current level of physical access to the shoreline? (check only one)

Response Response

Percent Count

There are enough opportunities to 0.0% 0 physically get to the shoreline.

There are some opportunities to get to the shoreline, but I wish there 16.7% 1 were more.

There needs to be more opportunities to get down to the 66.7% 4 shoreline.

No opinion. 16.7% 1

Comments: 2

answered question 6

skipped question 0

9. In what other locations should additional or improved access be provided?

Response

Count

answered question 2

skipped question 4

6 of 18 10. What type of shoreline use do you typically enjoy along the shoreline? (check all that apply)

Response Response

Percent Count

I live on or near the shoreline and 20.0% 1 access it from my residence.

I work on or near the shoreline. 20.0% 1

I use the shorelines along trails, 80.0% 4 viewpoints, parks, etc.

I use the shoreline for 0.0% 0 commercial/industrial purposes.

Other (please specify) 3

answered question 5

skipped question 1

7 of 18 11. Environmental protection of the shoreline is a goal of the Shoreline Management Act. What do you believe is the best way to accomplish this? (check only one)

Response Response

Percent Count

Avoid impacts by keeping the 20.0% 1 shoreline in a natural state.

Minimize impacts in the shoreline areas by using 40.0% 2 appropriate standards.

Continue developing using existing standards and set aside areas for 20.0% 1 mitigation and improvement.

Other options are appropriate. 20.0% 1

Comments: 2

answered question 5

skipped question 1

12. Who should be responsible for shoreline restoration? (check only one)

Response Response

Percent Count

Private property owners 0.0% 0

Government agencies 0.0% 0

Joint effort between private property owners and 100.0% 5 government agencies

Comments: 2

answered question 5

skipped question 1

8 of 18 13. Providing public access to the water and enhancing recreation are goals of the Shoreline Management Act. If public access is important to you, what kind of additional facilities would you like to see in the future? (check all that apply)

Response Response

Percent Count

Shoreline parks 66.7% 4

Trails with access to the 66.7% 4 shoreline

Boat launches for boating, canoeing, or other water-related 50.0% 3 activities

Public swimming areas 50.0% 3

Public docks 33.3% 2

Access for commercial/industrial 0.0% 0 businesses and shipping

Urban commercial areas with uses such as restaurants with shoreline 33.3% 2 access and viewing

Concessions (recreation-oriented 16.7% 1 businesses and/or food)

Undeveloped open space 33.3% 2

No opinion 16.7% 1

Comments: 3

answered question 6

skipped question 0

9 of 18 14. The Columbia River system and the ports located on the Columbia River are our region's connection to international trade and commerce centers, support industrial businesses, and provide many good paying, local jobs. What is your opinion on the need for additional waterfront development by the ports? (check only one)

Response Response

Percent Count

More development by the ports 33.3% 2 is needed

Keep the current amount of 33.3% 2 development as is

Focus on public access rather than 16.7% 1 private/business use

No opinion 16.7% 1

Comments: 2

answered question 6

skipped question 0

10 of 18 15. What kinds of commercial development do you prefer to see on the shorelines? (check all that apply)

Response Response

Percent Count

Commercial/industrial and shipping 16.7% 1 uses

Boating, canoeing or other water- 50.0% 3 related activities

Restaurants with outside dining 66.7% 4 and/or shoreline viewing access

Concessionaires - recreation- oriented businesses or food 16.7% 1 businesses

Preserve the shorelines as is 16.7% 1

No opinion 16.7% 1

Comments: 2

answered question 6

skipped question 0

11 of 18 16. Large docks on both residential and commercial/industrial properties have been identified as a possible contributor to declines in salmon and other species for a number of reasons. Do you think docks should be restricted or should a special design and construction be used? (check only one)

Response Response

Percent Count

Yes - regulations should aim at 0.0% 0 allowing fewer docks

Yes - replacement docks should be smaller or have other design features that accommodate 33.3% 2 salmon and other aquatic species

No - docks are important to shoreline property owners and 16.7% 1 businesses and should be retained

Need more information 33.3% 2

No opinion 16.7% 1

Comments: 1

answered question 6

skipped question 0

12 of 18 17. Native plants on the shoreline have a number of benefits for aquatic life, such as providing habitat and a variety of food sources. Lawn and ornamental plants generally do not provide these benefits, and can also degrade water quality linked to fertilizers and herbicides. Do you think lawns and ornamental plants should be restricted on the shoreline and more native plants be used? (check only one)

Response Response

Percent Count

Yes - regulations should prohibit lawn and ornamental plants at the 16.7% 1 shoreline

Yes - but requirements should apply only to new development 50.0% 3 or substantial remodeling of exisitng development

Yes - but requirements should allow existing residential use, provide 0.0% 0 some area for lawn, and not restrict view of the shoreline

No - shoreline property owners should be able to have whatever 16.7% 1 kind of lawn and plants they wish

Need more information 0.0% 0

No opinion 16.7% 1

Comments 1

answered question 6

skipped question 0

13 of 18 18. Do you have any additional comments to share with us?

Response

Count

answered question 2

skipped question 4

14 of 18 Page 1, Q2. What is your primary interest in the Shoreline Master Program? (check all that apply)

1 FloatHome/Boathouse owner Jan 9, 2013 11:38 PM

2 none Jan 9, 2013 3:05 PM

Page 1, Q3. Do you own property within the shoreline? (check all that apply)

1 Relatives own shoreline property. Jan 10, 2013 10:20 AM

Page 1, Q6. How do you use the shoreline and how often?

1 Hunting waterfowl. Jan 10, 2013 10:20 AM

2 FloatHome/Boathouse owner Jan 9, 2013 11:38 PM

3 Wildlife viewing, aget hunting, getting kids outdoors, traveling through to other Jan 9, 2013 1:29 PM area

Page 2, Q1. Visual access is defined as the ability to see the shoreline. How do you feel about your current level of visual access to the shoreline? (check only one)

1 FloatHome/Boathouse owner Jan 9, 2013 11:40 PM

Page 2, Q2. Physical access is defined as the ability to get down to the shoreline. How do you feel about your current level of physical access to the shoreline? (check only one)

1 We need more public access for recreation (hiking, fishing, hunting). Jan 10, 2013 10:36 AM

2 Access is controoled almost exclusively by timber companies, and can be Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM permanently closed at any time by Weyerhaeuser

15 of 18 Page 2, Q3. In what other locations should additional or improved access be provided?

1 Permanent easements across private lands need to be acquired for public Jan 10, 2013 10:36 AM recreation on federal and state lands (ie Easment accross Weyerhaeuser to access USFS or DNR land).

2 Everywhere: Silver lake south shoreline Green River fish hatchery and the entire Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM Green river has no legal public access Fawn Lake--no access to public, as well as other high lakes Hollywood Gorge on the Toutle Toutle River system Upper Coweeman river, Kalama Falls, Merrill Lake, Kalama River

Page 2, Q4. What type of shoreline use do you typically enjoy along the shoreline? (check all that apply)

1 Fishing, hunting, hiking. Jan 10, 2013 10:36 AM

2 I go to the coast to view the ocean shoreline Jan 9, 2013 3:06 PM

3 timberland shores: fishing, swimming, boating etc. Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM

Page 2, Q5. Environmental protection of the shoreline is a goal of the Shoreline Management Act. What do you believe is the best way to accomplish this? (check only one)

1 Encourage timber production by having less regulation. Require public access Jan 10, 2013 10:36 AM when regulations are decreased for timber production. Do not allow housing developments within shoreline.

2 Instead of creating wetlands from cattle pastures, take those dollars and buy real Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM wetlands

Page 2, Q6. Who should be responsible for shoreline restoration? (check only one)

1 Provide incentives for public access and big penalties for houses within shoreline Jan 10, 2013 10:36 AM area.

2 Take mitigation money and buy pristine shorlines instead of pouring dollars to Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM restore an isolated place

16 of 18 Page 2, Q7. Providing public access to the water and enhancing recreation are goals of the Shoreline Management Act. If public access is important to you, what kind of additional facilities would you like to see in the future? (check all that apply)

1 Access across private property and ability to recreate on all shorelines of the Jan 10, 2013 10:36 AM state. Fishing, Hunting, Hiking.

2 All these are good: but in Cowlitz County we put jails along our shorelines Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM

3 undeveloped open space is not a facility Nov 14, 2012 11:42 AM

Page 2, Q8. The Columbia River system and the ports located on the Columbia River are our region's connection to international trade and commerce centers, support industrial businesses, and provide many good paying, local jobs. What is your opinion on the need for additional waterfront development by the po...

1 Port development needs to be balanced (and fund) public access along shores Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM in other areas

2 Another choice: Allow additional port development while increasing recreational Nov 14, 2012 11:42 AM access to other shoreline areas.

Page 2, Q9. What kinds of commercial development do you prefer to see on the shorelines? (check all that apply)

1 We need a mix of all of these. Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM

2 Duplicates earlier question Nov 14, 2012 11:42 AM

Page 2, Q10. Large docks on both residential and commercial/industrial properties have been identified as a possible contributor to declines in salmon and other species for a number of reasons. Do you think docks should be restricted or should a special design and construction be used? (check only one)

1 Each landowner on a lake, river doesn't need their own personal dock, but group Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM docks would work

Page 2, Q11. Native plants on the shoreline have a number of benefits for aquatic life, such as providing habitat and a variety of food sources. Lawn and ornamental plants generally do not provide these benefits, and can also degrade water quality linked to fertilizers and herbicides. Do you think lawns and o...

1 Regulations here conflict. Dikes MUST cut down native trees whose roots cause Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM problems, so if the most benefitial native plants must be cut anyway, why bother

17 of 18 Page 2, Q11. Native plants on the shoreline have a number of benefits for aquatic life, such as providing habitat and a variety of food sources. Lawn and ornamental plants generally do not provide these benefits, and can also degrade water quality linked to fertilizers and herbicides. Do you think lawns and o...

with more regulations on homeowners.

Page 2, Q12. Do you have any additional comments to share with us?

1 Work with private landowners to acquire more public access to shorelines for Jan 10, 2013 10:36 AM recreation.

2 Public access is sorely lacking, especially in timberland areas. Timber Jan 9, 2013 1:48 PM companies could lock out all public access, or charge fees at any time. They already gated most access to public rivers, shores, and lakes. Publically funded fishing (salmon/stealhead) can be cut off by the Weyerhaeusers of the world on a whim. It happened this year when no our rivers were off limits. We must take a firmer stand with the Army Corps of Engineers and insist on mitigation for their dams and dredging of the Toutle System. We have thousands of acres of the upper Toutle used as a sediment catch basin with NO MITIGATION. They could take a small portion of those funds and purchase shorelined (which are virtually useless for building because of their instability) along the Toutle for public recreation and mitigation. The county, cities, and Federal government have sacrificed the entire upper Toutle without any compensation or mitigation--not even fish passage through the dam.

18 of 18 CASTLE ROCK PARKS & RECREATION SURVEY RESULTS

Question 1

In the past 12 months, about how many times if ever, has anyone in your household used the following community parks and recreation areas and facilities? Response Answer Options 0 1-4 5-10 11-15 16+ Weekly Daily Count Riverfront Trail 204 151 73 34 80 56 31 629 Lions Pride Park 357 128 54 20 23 18 4 604 Senior Center 449 84 28 8 14 19 6 608 Coldwater Park 474 69 17 6 6 4 4 580 "The Rock" Community Park 340 150 57 20 13 8 5 593 Lion's Club Volunteer Park 494 58 17 9 5 3 3 589 Memorial Volunteer Park 499 61 15 4 2 4 2 587 Skate Park 331 124 67 34 34 17 20 627 BMX Bike Track 352 115 62 28 31 7 18 613 Library 362 132 43 11 25 22 7 602 Exhibit Hall 451 102 19 11 4 8 3 598 High School Recreation Fields 242 122 84 41 78 27 31 625 Elementary School Playgrounds 290 134 58 35 39 23 35 614 Junior High Playgrounds 397 46 34 14 26 29 54 600 Fitness Center at the Middle School 397 44 27 18 29 55 32 602 Dredge Spoil Land 435 64 32 21 17 8 4 581 Fairground Facilities 332 186 49 18 15 3 3 606 Mt. St. Helen's Motorcycle Club 474 65 32 10 8 6 3 598 Grounds Boat Launch 367 128 43 22 21 14 6 601 North County Sports Complex 352 79 45 30 56 23 14 599 answered question 678 skipped question 32

In the past 12 months, about how many times if ever, has anyone in your household used the following community parks and recreation areas and facilities?

700 600 500 0 400 1-4 300 5-10 200 11-15 100 16+ 0 Weekly Daily Senior… Fitness… Memorial… Riverfront… BMX Bike… Fairground… "The Rock"… Exhibit Hall Elementary… Boat Launch

Question 2

How would you rate the parks/facilities listed below using the following scale?

Response Answer Options A-Excellent B-Good C-Fair D-Poor Count Riverfront Trail 186 261 97 25 569 Lions Pride Park 73 234 142 42 491 Senior Center 84 207 129 46 466 Coldwater Park 47 188 139 59 433 "The Rock" Community Park 65 220 143 35 463 Lion's Club Volunteer Park 40 200 141 46 427 Memorial Volunteer Park 37 199 142 46 424 Skate Park 50 143 148 159 500 BMX Bike Track 49 164 169 118 500 Library 60 211 148 70 489 Exhibit Hall 61 215 132 49 457 High School Recreation Fields 140 236 98 33 507 Elementary School Playgrounds 136 232 112 26 506 Junior High School Playgrounds 56 141 164 116 477 Fitness Center at the Middle School 160 176 90 33 459 Dredge Spoil Land 41 162 163 77 443 Fairground Facilities 57 192 169 61 479 Mt. St. Helen's Motorcycle Club 43 202 128 53 426 Grounds Boat Launch 169 187 82 48 486 North County Sports Complex 162 202 76 43 483 Comments 132 answered question 617 skipped question 93

How would you rate the parks/facilities listed below using the following scale?

600 500 400 A-Excellent B-Good 300 C-Fair 200 D-Poor 100 0 Fitness… Memorial… BMX Bike… Fairground… "The Rock"… Exhibit Hall Elementary… Boat Launch Senior Center Senior Riverfront Trail Riverfront

Question 3

How do you believe park and recreation facilities are funded?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Local Taxes 57.8% 365 Grants 40.1% 253 State Funds 37.9% 239 Donations 46.8% 295 answered question 631 skipped question 79

How do you believe park and recreation facilities are funded?

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% Local Taxes Grants State Funds Donations

Question 4

What would you be willing to pay annually to support park and recreational facilities?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count $0 28.3% 175 $5 16.2% 100 $10 15.2% 94 $20 18.3% 113 $50 12.0% 74 $75 2.4% 15 $100 7.6% 47 Comments 105 answered question 618 skipped question 92

What would you be willing to pay annually to support park and recreational facilities?

$0 $5 $10 $20 $50 $75 $100

Question 5

What recreational opportunities would you or other members of your household like to see available or expanded? Please rank your top 3 choices (1-3) with 1 being the highest priority. Response Response Response Answer Options Average Total Count Outdoor recreation 1.65 790 480 Indoor recreation 1.97 806 410 Children's activities (age 0-9) 2.18 679 311 Youth activities (ages 10-18) 1.92 837 435 Adult activities 2.25 582 259 Senior activities 2.31 555 240 Other 2.38 398 167 answered question 569 skipped question 141

What recreational opportunties would you or other members of your household like to see available or expanded? Please rank your top 3 choices (1-3) with 1 being the highest priority.

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

.50

.00 Outdoor Indoor Children's Youth Adult Senior Other recreation recreation activities activities activities activities (age 0-9) (ages 10- 18)

Question 6

What should the city and/or school district concentrate its efforts on? Please check one. Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Maintaining existing park facilities 11.9% 75 Improving existing facilities 27.0% 170 Acquiring/developing new facilities 12.9% 81 All 45.2% 285 None 3.0% 19 answered question 630 skipped question 80

What should the city and/or school district concentrate its efforts on? Please check one.

Maintaining existing park facilities

Improving existing facilities

Acquiring/developing new facilities

All

None

Question 7

Of the following activities, please check all those that you or other members of your household participate in on a yearly basis. Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Play at playground 51.2% 331 Horseshoes 15.0% 97 Bird watching 11.4% 74 Gardening 34.2% 221 Picnicking 31.2% 202 Sightseeing 32.6% 211 Photography 36.5% 236 Walking 72.6% 470 Hiking 48.5% 314 Jogging 50.5% 327 Bicycle riding (road) 47.3% 306 Bicycle riding (off road) 43.6% 282 Motorcycle (dirt/off road) 25.7% 166 4-wheeling (ATV) 36.2% 234 4x4 driving (dirt/off road) 26.9% 174 Swimming (outdoor) 56.1% 363 Swimming (indoor) 41.9% 271 Skateboarding 22.1% 143 Soccer 27.7% 179 Softball 19.0% 123 Baseball 29.8% 193 Football 38.8% 251 Basketball 34.0% 220 Tennis 13.3% 86 Track 21.8% 141 Boating 35.2% 228 Fishing 51.5% 333 Water skiing 16.8% 109 Golf 15.9% 103 Hunting 38.9% 252 RV camping 24.4% 158 Tent camping 48.8% 316 Weights/lifting 43.1% 279 Horseback riding 17.5% 113 Shooting targets 34.0% 220 Other 60

63 647

skipped question skipped answered question answered of your household participate in on a yearly basis. a yearly on in participate household of your Of theactivities, following please check all thatthose you or other members 0.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%

Question 8

How many members of your household participate in a league?

Response Response Response Answer Options Average Total Count Baseball .82 321 391 Softball .54 208 382 Soccer .67 268 401 Football 1.12 447 400 Basketball .84 329 391 answered question 479 skipped question 231

How many members of your household participate in a league?

1.20

1.00

.80

.60

.40

.20

.00 Baseball Softball Soccer Football Basketball

Question 9

Would you support an off-road bicycle "Pump Track" in Castle Rock?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 50.8% 335 No 13.2% 87 I need more information 36.0% 237 answered question 659 skipped question 51

Would you support an off-road bicycle "Pump Track" in Castle Rock?

Yes No I need more information

Question 10

How many times a year would you use a "Pump Track" in Castle Rock?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count 0 36.5% 224 1-2 17.9% 110 3-4 12.1% 74 5 or more 33.6% 206 answered question 614 skipped question 96

How many times a year would you use a "Pump Track" in Castle Rock?

0 1-2 3-4 5 or more

Question 11

What is your Zip Code?

Response Answer Options Count 640 answered question 640 skipped question 70

Question 12

Of the following types of parks and recreation areas/facilities, please prioritize as to their importance to your household. Please check one box for each using the following scale: 1-Very 3-Not Response Answer Options 2-Somewhat Important Important Count Community Pool 283 213 130 626 Small parks each located 1/2 mile from most 143 306 149 598 neighborhoods Large multi-use community parks located within two 219 271 110 600 miles of most neighborhoods Natural open space with limited development 235 231 121 587 Multi-use sports areas 345 192 63 600 Multi-use trails 351 201 57 609 Community gathering place, multi-use community 172 289 137 598 center Other 128 141 106 375 answered question 641 skipped question 69

Of the following types of parks and recreation areas/facilities, please prioritize as to their importance to your household. Please check one box for each using the following scale:

700 600

500 1-Very Important 400 2-Somewhat 300 200 3-Not Important 100 0 areas multi-use… Community located within… Multi-use sports gathering place, gathering Large multi-use Community Pool community parks community

Question 13

Has your level of physical activity increased because of improvements to local facilities? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 60.9% 385 No 39.1% 247 answered question 632 skipped question 78

Has your level of physical activity increased because of improvements to local facilities?

Yes No

Question 14

What improvements do you feel are most needed at the ONE facility you use most frequently? Please identify the name of the facility and check all that apply. Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Maintenance of lawn and athletic fields 39.6% 224 Tree and landscaping materials maintenance 23.9% 135 Additional landscaping, trees, beautification 27.8% 157 Trail and walkway maintenance 41.1% 232 Cleanliness of restrooms 42.1% 238 Removal of trash 39.3% 222 More parking 25.1% 142 More picnic areas 25.7% 145 Additional lighting 26.0% 147 Upkeep of playground equipment 27.6% 156 Additional features 30.6% 173 No improvements are needed 11.7% 66 Other 18.4% 104 Name of Facility: 302 answered question 565 skipped question 145

What improvements do you feel are most needed at the ONE facility you use most frequently? Please identify the name of the facility and check all that apply.

45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Other lighting features Additional Additional Additional restrooms lawn and… landscaping,… More parking Cleanliness of Cleanliness Maintenance of Maintenance Question 15

If the City were to expand its park system, what facilities would you most like to see? Please check your TOP TWO choices only: Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Swimming Pool 63.8% 379 RV Park 7.4% 44 Additional Parks 16.3% 97 Multi-Purpose Community Center 22.6% 134 Additional Athletic Fields 27.3% 162 Expansion to the Library 17.0% 101 Increased access to Cowlitz River 21.0% 125 Canoe/Kayak 10.3% 61 Additional Trails 16.8% 100 Open Space 11.6% 69 Other 98 answered question 594 skipped question 116

If the City were to expand its park system, what facilities would you most like to see? Please check your TOP TWO choices only:

70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% access to Increased Additional Cowlitz River Athletic Fields Swimming Pool Additional Trails Additional Additional Parks Additional

Question 16

Do you encounter any accessibility problems for challenged persons getting to a park, recreation, trail or school site? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 11.9% 72 No 88.1% 532 If yes, please describe the problem(s) 63 answered question 604 skipped question 106

Do you encounter any accessibility problems for challenged persons getting to a park, recreation, trail or school site?

Yes No

Question 17

On average, how much time do you spend on the Internet daily for recreational purposes? Response Answer Options Count 548 answered question 548 skipped question 162

Question 18

Do you have Internet access at home?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 88.0% 564 No 12.0% 77 answered question 641 skipped question 69

Do you have Internet access at home?

Yes No

Question 19

Please record the number of household members in each of the following age categories including yourself.

Also indicate whether or not they are male or female. Male

Answer Options 0 1 2 3 4 5

0-9 years 97 99 16 7 1 1 10-19 years 36 210 107 34 9 1 20-34 years 85 138 18 1 4 0 35-49 years 40 316 23 2 1 3 50-64 years 82 118 5 3 0 0 65+ years 88 42 4 1 1 0

Response 6 7 8 9 10 Count 0-9 years 0 0 1 0 2 224 10-19 years 0 1 1 0 3 402 20-34 years 0 1 0 0 2 249 35-49 years 1 0 0 2 3 391 50-64 years 0 0 0 0 4 212 65+ years 0 1 0 0 3 140

Female

Answer Options 0 1 2 3 4 5

0-9 years 90 74 21 6 1 1 10-19 years 37 177 90 23 7 3 20-34 years 67 148 6 4 0 0 35-49 years 33 290 20 3 5 2 50-64 years 77 96 4 2 1 1 65+ years 77 44 3 1 0 1

Response 6 7 8 9 10 Count 0-9 years 1 0 0 0 2 196 10-19 years 0 1 1 0 2 341 20-34 years 2 1 1 0 5 234 35-49 years 0 1 1 0 4 359 50-64 years 1 0 1 0 3 186 65+ years 0 1 0 0 3 130

answered question skipped question

Question 20

Do you live in the City limits of Castle Rock?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 41.4% 268 No 58.6% 380 answered question 648 skipped question 62

Do you live in the City limits of Castle Rock?

Yes No

Question 21

How many years have you lived in the Castle Rock area? (record 0 if less than one year) Response Answer Options Count 605 answered question 605 skipped question 105

Question 22

Is there anything else you would like to tell us about parks and recreation facilities offered by the City of Castle Rock, the Castle Rock School District, or other providers? Response Answer Options Count 248 answered question 248 skipped question 462

Community Visioning Report Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

APPENDIX F – STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

F‐1

Stakeholder Interview Summary

September 27, 2012

Overview

During August and September 2012 over 30 stakeholder interviews were conducted to obtain input and identify key issues for the Cowlitz County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update. The stakeholders were identified by the project management team and the interviews were conducted by David Sherrard and Jason Franklin from the consultant team. The interviewees were contacted by phone and sent the project FAQ via email. Most interviews occurred over the phone. The interviewees were generally asked about their experience with the shorelines program, their experience with the permitting process, their opinion of what the update should accomplish and the details of their shoreline property. The detailed questionnaire is attached to this document.

Key Findings

 Due to the stagnant economy, some development has been permitted but building has not started and now the shoreline permit has expired. There is a desire to insure that shoreline permits are valid for the same amount of time as other development permits.  Numerous restoration opportunities and specific shoreline conditions were identified by stakeholders, and as appropriate, those opportunities are being included in the Inventory Report.  In a few cases, stakeholders are considering development within the shoreline buffer and are weighing whether to start development under the current program or wait until the new program is in place.  Public access was discussed by many of the stakeholders, but was particularly prevalent in Kelso where most stakeholders identified the need for additional public access.  When asked about how to involve the public in the update process, most stakeholders indicated public meetings were not very effective, but there were few suggestions about how effectively reach people.

Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update

Stakeholder Interview Questions

Name:

Organization:

Phone:

Date and Time of Interview:

Step 1: Introduce project and purpose of the stakeholder interviews

 Project purpose  Schedule  Major public input points  Interview questions will help us create a better shoreline master program

Step 2: Begin Questions

1. How familiar are you with the current shoreline master program a. Have you received a shoreline permit in the past? b. If so, how responsive was the process to your needs? c. What particular concerns or issues do you have about the process as you experienced it?

2. In your opinion, what are the most important results that the local SMP should accomplish?

3. If you own property within the shoreline, a. Is it in a natural state, or has it been altered? b. Are there water dependent uses on the property or in the vicinity? c. Can the property reasonably accommodate water‐dependent uses d. Are there current recreational uses associated with the property? e. Are there natural breaks in your shoreline areas that we should be aware of – such as a change in vegetation or other characteristics f. Is there a transition from one use to another on or near the property, such as from residential to commercial? g. Are you aware of the current shoreline designation? How do you think it should be classified?

h. Do you have development plans for that property? If so, can you describe them? i. Are there specific studies you have regarding existing conditions you have on your property that you can share with us

4. Do you have any other comments or questions?

5. How would you like to be involved in the process moving forward? a. How would you like to receive public notices? i. Email ii. Mailed post cards iii. Website iv. other b. Are you interested in participating in public meetings> c. Are there other ways you would like to participate?

Step 3: Thanks for your time and next steps

 If they want to be updated the will receive regular email updates  Open house coming up in the fall  Please contact me with further questions or ideas

Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update Stakeholder Interview Questions Name: Brian Wood Steve Oaks Skip Urling Jeff Breckel Organization: Weyerhaeuser Kalama Export Company LLC Longview Yacht Club Executive Director Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Phone: 360‐636‐7080 (360) 673‐3900 360‐703‐3033 redirect Mark McCready 360‐425‐1553 [email protected] Date and Time of Interview: August 29, 2012 3PM August 31, 2012 11AM September 4, 2012 3:30 August 29, 2012 2:30 Step 1: Introduce project and purpose of the Familiar with program ( Familiar with program Well aware of current SMP stakeholder interviews  Project purpose Has  Schedule  Major public input points  Interview questions will help us create a better shoreline master program Step 2: Begin Questions 1. How familiar are you with the current Very familiar. Recent expansion of facilities Long history of permit acquisition f Present SMP old and outdated shoreline master program Worked with Ron Melin on permits. No problems Cowlitz Co. So much new science has been developed. a. Have you received a shoreline Concerns with Corps permit took much longer NOAA has adopted the LCFRB Salmon and permit in the past?  Need clarity on exemptions ‐example Mitigation included log jams on port property Steelhead Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan b. If so, how responsive was the of a light pole requiring SSDP downstream & contributions to specific Habitat Strategy identifies critical river and process to your needs?  Division of labor between local projects on the Kalama stream reaches and habitat attributes. c. What particular concerns or issues government and Ecology May have included contributions to the do you have about the process as  NGO use of SMP to use SMP as lever. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board for you experienced it?  Example of a light pole – threshold. general programs.

2. In your opinion, what are the most Allow Weyerhaeuser and other industrial Allow port uses on the shoreline to continue Allow continued moorage Protection of existing critical salmon and important results that the local SMP uses on the shoreline to continue use of use of shoreline facilities, to upgrade those steelhead habitat. Stream reach priorities in should accomplish? shoreline facilities, to upgrade those facilities facilities and to add facilities as needed as Recovery Plan be reflected in SMP. Recovery and to add facilities as needed to keep well as guidance on mitigation (although they Plan was locally developed to meet the needs operations economically feasible and provide didn’t have a problem with mitigation they of fish and people of the region. Reaches in economic base for the county. negotiated for the recent expansion.) the lower third of watersheds generally Provide mechanism for long term higher priority. Conditions (sediment input, maintenance dredging water quality, temp, LWD) in the upper reaches of a watershed are also a priority because they affect or shape habitat conditions in lower watershed reaches.

3. If you own property within the Yacht club not quite all the way to Willow Not applicable shoreline, Grove road, upstream of loop Per County Assessor Parcel 89008 Also uphill parcel on opposite side of road for sewage drainfield a. Is it in a natural state, or has it All extensively altered for a century or more. Own site No been altered? NNL – Sites for ecological restoration – no Their site is pretty much cleared Altered on riverside by moorage intent to identify at this point Adjacent sites have some natural vegetation Road also adjacent to river Likely would remove abandoned structures They chose off‐site mitigation because on the shoreline resource agencies advised that other sites No participation to date in mitigation banks would be better.

b. Are there water dependent uses Log export facility Grain export facility. Moorage on the property or in the vicinity? Log booms from upriver Barge slip – chip Lumber piers Barge piers Other facilities include Sawmill (outside 200’) PPG Equachlor – land leasef from W NORPAC Kraft Truck shops Administration c. Can the property reasonably Yes, but no plans at this point Would consider proposals from others. Not in addition to their moorage accommodate water‐dependent uses d. Are there current recreational uses No No. Doesn’t know associated with the property? DNR lease may provide for in their lease e. Are there natural breaks in your Area downstream of the barge slip ‐ accreting None on their property Fisher Island across slough owned by WEDFW shoreline areas that we should be area downstream of – currently DNR heron rookery aware of – such as a change in bottomlands Occasional sightings of white tail deer by local vegetation or other characteristics Dredge spoils area ‐ DNR bottomlands – residents leased by W f. Is there a transition from one use All industrial in vicinity Upstream Emerald Kalama Chemical has a to another on or near the property, large undeveloped area such as from residential to commercial? g. Are you aware of the current Keep designations that allow Heavy Industry Current designation is “urban.” Want to keep Current: “conservancy” shoreline designation? How do you and water access function it. No problems getting permits from county think it should be classified? Have had no problems with current Recently received exemption to replace 15 regulations. pilings After the fact permitting for plastic floats, wave runner dry docks Reconfigured docks h. Do you have development plans None. Plans may surface in the future. No Nothing specific at this time. Per McCready – additional reconfiguration in for that property? If so, can you specifics that should be included in the SMP future describe them? i. Are there specific studies you have Existing public information – sediment Don’t recall recent studies None that he knows of regarding existing conditions you analysis Contact Beger Abam, Vancouver have on your property that you can share with us

4. Do you have any other comments or Use dredge spoils for raising land before None No Operating premise of the RP is that Forest & questions? developing for industrial use ‐ Fish program and other regulations are likely to be adequate for upper watershed conditions. Five acre lot parcelization is a concern Urban areas are very altered, make fish friendly and restore where one can. Instream facilities & docks – private ‐ mostly on protected sloughs Need to have criteria that provide for input of site‐specific information in making decisions on new instream/docks NNL‐ mitigation – candidates for restoration would be very useful – strategic, complementary, leverage one another for large enough areas to be functional. Wildlife agency land – mitigation sites –may have conflicting species management goals. Opportunities should be identified based on sound science and not automatically excluded based on current management basis.

5. How would you like to be involved in the process moving forward? a. How would you like to receive public notices? i. Email preferred Designated Contact: Brian Carrico, Berger Like to receive email Best ABAM, Vancouver [email protected] Also Mark McCready [email protected]

ii. Mailed post cards iii. Website iv. other b. Are you interested in participating On TAC in public meetings> c. Are there other ways you would TAC participation Participate in public meeting – scheduling like to participate? issues. Now hiring to fill vacancies.

Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update Stakeholder Interview Questions Name: Francis Naglich Francis Naglich Shirley Nelson Lisa A Hendriksen | Director of Planning and Environmental Services Organization: Nat Resources Consulting and Land Planning Nat Resources Consulting and Land Planning Association of Realtors (Consultant) (Consultant) Port of Kalama Columbia River Carbonates Woodland Port of Longview Phone: 360‐578‐1371 ex 104 360‐578‐1371 ex 104 360‐749‐1910 360-425-3305 Date and Time of Interview: September 4, 2012 2PM September 4, 2012 2PM September 6, 2012 September 7, 2012 3PM Step 1: Introduce project and purpose of the Understand the process, been through Understand the process, been through stakeholder interviews process recently process recently  Project purpose N  Schedule  Major public input points  Interview questions will help us create a better shoreline master program Step 2: Begin Questions Very familiar – was Cowlitz Co Planner 6. How familiar are you with the current Very familiar Very familiar Not shoreline property owner Present SMP old and outdated shoreline master program Now working on permitting for dock rebuild Have listed and sold property No problems with past permits a. Have you received a shoreline Kalama Chemical Does not deal with bare lands. Corps timelines generally greater permit in the past? Past work Port of Kalama Exemption – realize no choice – would like to b. If so, how responsive was the Review of CA Ordinance – buffers see streamlined process for maintenance – process to your needs? Develop land upstream on Kalama Coordinate with WDFW – 5 year HPA for c. What particular concerns or issues Proposing park project maintenance do you have about the process as Dredging – maintenance dredging should be you experienced it? allowed through a programmatic permit. – should recognize the primary role taken by the Corps – should be able to do a 10 year maintenance permit

7. In your opinion, what are the most Existing SMP (Mark Wilson, deputy exec Accommodate water‐dependent uses Need to preserve rivers and streams for Balance between regulations and economic important results that the local SMP director) had no problems with current. children and grandchildren development should accomplish? Main concern is how it may change. Made strides – 100’ separation wells and Clark County is not necessarily good example NNL criteria ‐ septic – they are more heavily regulated Not clear about ramifications Mitigation banks – Port interested in Case by case circumstances need to be participating – don’t want to sponsor considered to be fair to property owner and Resolve confusion about jurisdiction between public. City and County. City currently permits up to Experience with wetland restrictions and the city limit line only which is currently the can’t touch it Port’s berth face; at Barlow Point it will be Common sense goes a long way. determined but close to OHWM. Currently Important for regulations to be clear and the Port permits maintenance of Berths 1‐7 understandable. with the City and water ward of the berths with the County.

8. If you own property within the Recently purchased land on the Columbia Not applicable 1) Longview Fiber to Bridge shoreline, River 2) North of Millennium – Barlow Point Now transport by rail from NE Wash Future barge from Alaska a. Is it in a natural state, or has it Undeveloped land – they have a lot of Upland largely altered, but no facilities Barlow point – currently diked been altered? Question how to meet NNL adjacent to the water NNL – undeveloped site – no current strategy Considered setting up mitigation site and program – talked to mitigation banking entity b. Are there water dependent uses Multiple terminals on navigable waters Vacant now Barlow‐the property was purchased for on the property or in the vicinity? Not aware on NWD on navigable water marine terminals. Port Porper – Entire waterfront owned by the Port developed as terminals. NWDU – not accommodated on waterfront c. Can the property reasonably Lots of land Propose dock and terminal facilities for barge Lots of capacity at Barlow point accommodate water‐dependent shipment from AK, stockpile, transport to Port proper‐ developed as water dependent uses existing upland facility by truck uses. d. Are there current recreational uses Within City of Kalama on Columbia No. None associated with the property? Marina None planned at this time Hoping to build park on Kalama – less Have donated funds to boat launches and shoreline, more sports field other water‐related facilities Purchased Kalama Fairgrounds – mitigation Considered allow bike trail along slough for loss of the fairgrounds between property and landfill e. Are there natural breaks in your Extensive holding – very diverse Offshore – very popular fishing hole Port proper – developed. shoreline areas that we should be Barlow – diked but with grasses and some aware of – such as a change in snags vegetation or other characteristics f. Is there a transition from one use No residential uses in vicinity None to another on or near the property, In the past they have purchased land where Adjacent north, downstream RV park on Port Buffered by other industrial uses such as from residential to neighbors have been affected Property Agricultural use downstream of Barlow Point; commercial? zoned Heavy Manufacturing

g. Are you aware of the current Existing “Urban.” Keep designations that Current designation is “urban.” Want to keep Current: Urban shoreline designation? How do you allow Heavy Industry and water access it. Would consider “industrial” designation; may think it should be classified? function Have had no problems with current lead to fewer CUs than if in a SED that covers Job creation priority regulations. commercial and other uses h. Do you have development plans Old fairgrounds development Dock and stockpile facilities Barlow point – The Port purchased Barlow for for that property? If so, can you Sand pile north of existing development marine terminal development. No planned describe them? development as of yet. Port proper – developed, however there are a few underutilized berths that may be redeveloped in the future. i. Are there specific studies you have Francis will check None Strategic Plan regarding existing conditions you Master Plan (port proper) have on your property that you can Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor share with us Improvements – on web in document library

9. Do you have any other comments or Dredging – not sure if it is an issue None at this time Need to realize that people’s homes involve questions? their hopes and dreams. Need to take individual circumstances in consideration.

10. How would you like to be involved in the process moving forward? a. How would you like to receive public notices? i. Email Email Mark Wilson Francis [email protected] best and Francis Columbia River Carbonates Likely future contact: Michael Wallin Joeig Baeeck 360‐225‐4116 [email protected]. [email protected] 360.560.3636 ii. Mailed post cards iii. Website iv. other b. Are you interested in participating Yes Will participate in TAC in public meetings> c. Are there other ways you would TAC participation I am available for other committees if like to participate? necessary.

Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update Stakeholder Interview Questions Name: Brianna Weatherly Chris Wrobel Senior Environmental Compliance Analyst Environmental health and safety manager Organization: PacifiCorp Emerald Kalama Chemical Phone: 503‐813‐7039 360‐673‐2550 Date and Time of Interview: September 19, 2012 11:45 AM September 20, 2012 10:30 AM Step 1: Introduce project and purpose of the stakeholder interviews  Project purpose Familiar with process Recent permit to rebuild dock  Schedule  Major public input points  Interview questions will help us create a better shoreline master program Step 2: Begin Questions 11. How familiar are you with the Familiar – various permits over the years Recent permit to rebuild dock current shoreline master Have rec’d permits County has been relatively easy to deal with program Has been lengthy and cumbersome Corps of Engineers – less responsive a. Have you received a Corps permits equally cumbersome WDFW – less responsive shoreline permit in the Lewis River in 3 counties – find that Cowlitz Co. SMP past? don’t have hard due dates for county response – b. If so, how responsive was compare Clark Co. – strict timetable the process to your needs? Criteria in SMP are reasonably clear – dated – run into c. What particular concerns projects that don’t fit uses ‐ have FERC requirements for or issues do you have about fish passage, habitat improvement programs the process as you Haven’t used exemption through WDFW – told that it experienced it? doesn’t apply to corporations

12. In your opinion, what are the Programmatic permits to meet FERC permit Continue to be able to utilize access to dock most important results that the requirements would be useful facilities for essential transportation access local SMP should accomplish? Routinely delaying deadlines for required facilities for business to keep operations because of permit delays. economically feasible and provide economic Have programmatic WDFW ‐ HPA for maintenance – base for the county. would like to do similar for SMP

13. If you own property within the shoreline, a. Is it in a natural state, or Management Plan is best source for this information.– Downstream lot is currently undeveloped – has it been altered? available on internet – largely wetland – no direct connection to http://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pacificorp/doc Columbia River. /Energy_Sources/Hydro/Hydro_Licensing/Lewis_River/1 Recognize development constraints; plan to 2182008%20LR%20‐%20Final%20SMP.pdf use non‐buffer area in the future. b. Are there water dependent Utility uses related to hydroelectric project Water access essential – receive primary uses on the property or in Recreation raw material via international tanker. the vicinity? Housing – Vacation cabin Could not be in business without port No resorts or marinas – Corporate policy ‐ try to avoid facilities. c. Can the property Water‐dependent Recreation currently provided Don’t need additional facilities for unloading reasonably accommodate water‐dependent uses d. Are there current Many current. No recreational uses More mandated by FERC conditions. associated with the property? e. Are there natural breaks in Management Plan is best source for this information. Shoreline has been modified your shoreline areas that USACOE built frontage – have agreement we should be aware of – with corps to maintain without vegetation such as a change in vegetation or other characteristics f. Is there a transition from Management Plan is best source for this information. No nearby properties that experience one use to another on or conflicts from operations. near the property, such as Own property to the north (downstream) from residential to with wetlands commercial? Further downstream is a grain elevator Port of Kalama maintain property to south (upstream) g. Are you aware of the Conservancy has been OK – but there have been cases Urban designation – no problems to date current shoreline where CU or variances have been required. Makes sense to have “industrial” designation? How do you Would support a “Recreation” designation for recreation designation think it should be facilities. classified? h. Do you have development Many recreational expansions mandated by FERC license Next 10 years – finish reconstruction of the plans for that property? If dock currently in process so, can you describe them? i. Are there specific studies Will send link to management plan None you have regarding existing Current permit application has no site‐ conditions you have on specific studies your property that you can share with us

14. Do you have any other OK with Would be good to have mitigation pool – comments or questions? make monetary contribution rather than have small individual mitigation sites

15. How would you like to be involved in the process moving forward? a. How would you like to receive public notices? i. Email Preferred [email protected] Preferred [email protected] ii. Mailed post cards iii. Website iv. other b. Are you interested in Willing to participate. Past experience on Lewis River participating in public Project is that few members of the public attend meetings> c. Are there other ways you would like to participate?

Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update – CASTLE ROCK Stakeholder Interview Questions Name: Susan Barker Joe Godinho Paul Simonsen Tony Plescia Organization: Castle Rock School District Four Corners Farm Mt. St. Helens Motorcycle Club Fatpup Development LLC Phone: 360‐501‐2940 360‐274‐0275 360‐274‐4346 360‐901‐4705 Date and Time of Interview: August 27, 2012 at 2PM August 13, 2012 at 10AM August 15, 2012 at 9:30 AM August 15, 2012 at 11AM Step 1: Introduce project and purpose of the stakeholder interviews  Project purpose  Schedule  Major public input points  Interview questions will help us create a better shoreline master program Step 2: Begin Questions 1. How familiar are you with the Susan is not familiar with the SMP process. However, Joe has not applied for a Shorelines permit Paul has not applied for a shorelines Tony has received a shoreline permit in the current shoreline master she doesn’t recall there being any issues in the past with in the past. permit. The motocross course was built past for his subdivision, but all of the work program getting permits from the City. outside of the shoreline buffer. He has was done by a consultant. He doesn’t recall it a. Have you received a He has a creek behind his store (not within however had experience with shoreline being a problem but it did add extra cost to shoreline permit in the The school district deeded 7 acres of land to the City and shorelines jurisdiction) that has caused permitting when he worked for WSDOT, the development permit process. past? that is where the City owned boat launch is located. All some problems with another property but that was in Lewis County. b. If so, how responsive was of the permitting issues associated with the boat launch owner who considered developing their the process to your needs? were the responsibility of the City. The school district is property. c. What particular concerns also in a long‐term lease with North County Recreation or issues do you have about and that property may be subject to Shorelines but is the He has also considered adding to his store the process as you responsibility of N. County but there are currently no but is not sure what environmental experienced it? further plans for buildings. They are looking for funding protections will be required if he does. for educational signage along the river.

2. In your opinion, what are the Need to plan for the future to protect the existing Need to make sure that the regulations No ideas No ideas. Process seems to work well now. most important results that the natural resources and be good stewards of the land. make sense. For example, if there is a dike local SMP should accomplish? then the area behind the dike should not be subject to the same regulations that are in place for areas without a dike.

3. If you own property within the Land controlled by others so no input. No input – no shoreline area Course is outside of the shoreline buffer Subdivision is on the other side of a dike shoreline, and there are no plans to expand. There is which allowed the development to be built. a dream to expand in the future but there The subdivision is now ready for development is no money. but has not built out due to the economy. a. Is it in a natural state, or has it been altered? b. Are there water dependent uses on the property or in the vicinity? c. Can the property reasonably accommodate water‐dependent uses d. Are there current recreational uses associated with the property? e. Are there natural breaks in your shoreline areas that we should be aware of – such as a change in vegetation or other characteristics f. Is there a transition from one use to another on or near the property, such as from residential to commercial? g. Are you aware of the current shoreline designation? How do you think it should be classified? h. Do you have development plans for that property? If so, can you describe them? i. Are there specific studies you have regarding existing conditions you have on your property that you can share with us

4. Do you have any other There is a lot of interest in improving the civic climate There are lots of dredge spoils throughout The Chamber of Commerce and the City are comments or questions? and culture of Castle Rock which has been spurred by the County that has created a non‐native the best ways to get information out in the economic development plan and other City actions. shoreline. Should these areas have the same Castle Rock. The Daily News is not that regulations? Also, how to we regulate popular in Castle Rock. boaters who are backing trailers into the river and not using the boat ramp?

5. How would you like to be Kept informed via email as the process moves forward. Kept informed via email, unless have to Kept informed via email Kept informed via email involved in the process moving respond – then mail. forward? a. How would you like to receive public notices? i. Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ii. Mailed post cards iii. Website iv. other b. Are you interested in participating in public meetings> c. Are there other ways you would like to participate?

Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update – CASTLE ROCK Stakeholder Interview Questions Name: Dick Moore Mike Canton Organization: 4‐Corners Organics Property Owner Phone: 360‐274‐4071 360‐608‐7808 Date and Time of Interview: August 15, 2012 at 2:30PM August 23, 2012 at 9 AM Step 1: Introduce project and purpose of the stakeholder interviews  Project purpose  Schedule  Major public input points  Interview questions will help us create a better shoreline master program Step 2: Begin Questions 1. How familiar are you with the Not very familiar. He doesn’t own any property within No experience with SMP current shoreline master shoreline jurisdiction. program a. Have you received a shoreline permit in the past? b. If so, how responsive was the process to your needs? c. What particular concerns or issues do you have about the process as you experienced it?

2. In your opinion, what are the The SMP should follow a common sense approach. For Not certain since no experience, but has a most important results that the example the property that is on the west side of Mosier significant amount of land within the local SMP should accomplish? Rd. should have any easier time developing than the shoreline that he is interested in developing property on the east side adjacent to the river. In in the near future. He has about 110 acres addition, the 200ft buffer shouldn’t be chiseled in stone. and is working on getting a lease from DNR There should be flexibility, particularly when there is a for another 75 acres. Most is zoned dike involved. industrial and he intends to leave as industrial.

3. If you own property within the shoreline, d. Is it in a natural state, or Seems to be mostly natural with an average has it been altered? of 10‐foot bank. Bank is sandy/mud, no trees. No rip rap or other armoring e. Are there water dependent Not now uses on the property or in the vicinity? f. Can the property Yes reasonably accommodate water‐dependent uses g. Are there current Not formal recreational uses associated with the property? h. Are there natural breaks in your shoreline areas that we should be aware of – such as a change in vegetation or other characteristics i. Is there a transition from Some residential that transitions to vacant one use to another on or land near the property, such as from residential to commercial? j. Are you aware of the current shoreline designation? How do you think it should be classified? k. Do you have development Would like to have water dependent uses, plans for that property? If possibly a marina or floating homes. Would so, can you describe them? also like to develop a spectator sports facility that might be water dependent. l. Are there specific studies No – but there is some mitigation potential you have regarding existing along Salmon Creek. conditions you have on your property that you can share with us

4. Do you have any other No comments or questions?

5. How would you like to be Kept informed, but does not monitor email. Email involved in the process moving forward? m. How would you like to receive public notices? i. Email ii. Mailed post cards Yes iii. Website iv. other n. Are you interested in participating in public meetings> o. Are there other ways you would like to participate?

Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update ‐ KALAMA Stakeholder Interview Questions Name: Mark Wilson Organization: Port of Kalama Phone: 360‐673‐2325 Date and Time of Interview: Aug 24, 2012 at 11AM Step 1: Introduce project and purpose of the stakeholder interviews  Project purpose  Schedule  Major public input points  Interview questions will help us create a better shoreline master program Step 2: Begin Questions 1. How familiar are you with the Very familiar. Shoreline has the best balance and current shoreline master reasonableness of all the permits that he has to obtain. program However, it takes too long because of the appeal ‐ 4 p. Have you received a months at a minimum. Also, the threshold for a permit shoreline permit in the needs to increase from the $5000 it is today. The past? scalability needs to be improved. q. If so, how responsive was the process to your needs? r. What particular concerns or issues do you have about the process as you experienced it?

2. In your opinion, what are the Most of the requirements are prescribed in the WAC, most important results that the but do need to improve the scalability of the program so local SMP should accomplish? incidental improvements don’t require a shoreline permit.

3. If you own property within the shoreline, s. Is it in a natural state, or Almost all is impacted in some way. Aerial photo has it been altered? provides a good depiction of what is there. t. Are there water dependent Many – Port property uses on the property or in the vicinity? u. Can the property Yes reasonably accommodate water‐dependent uses v. Are there current Port has developed a park along the shoreline recreational uses associated with the property? w. Are there natural breaks in Yes. Also some mitigation opportunities north of Kress your shoreline areas that Lake, but need to talk with WDFW about this property we should be aware of – since there are already some commitments. Also some such as a change in opportunity along the Kalama River, but there are vegetation or other commitments for that area as well. characteristics x. Is there a transition from Recreation to Port one use to another on or near the property, such as from residential to commercial? y. Are you aware of the Seems appropriate. However, the Port owns current shoreline Cottonwood and Howard Islands and they are being designation? How do you used as dredge facilities and need to be permitted every think it should be 5 years and this doesn’t seem appropriate. classified? z. Do you have development Several projects. At the south end there is a major plans for that property? If renovation of the grain terminal that is already so, can you describe them? permitted and includes new rail and storage. There are also bids for a new office building which is already permitted. In the north there is a large‐scale export facility that is still pending – not permitted yet – includes a dock expansion. aa. Are there specific studies you have regarding existing conditions you have on your property that you can share with us

4. Do you have any other The line staff don’t also understand the value of the comments or questions? ports to the county. The updated SMP should include a very clear connection between water dependent uses and economic development in the county.

5. How would you like to be involved in the process moving forward? bb. How would you like to receive public notices? i. Email Yes ii. Mailed post cards iii. Website iv. other cc. Are you interested in participating in public meetings> dd. Are there other ways you would like to participate?

Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update ‐ KELSO Stakeholder Interview Questions Name: Jess Winters Gary Schimmel David Sypher Rick Roberson Organization: Wasser & Winters Kelso City Council Kelso Public Works Kelso City Council Phone: 360‐423‐1371 360‐423‐7181 Date and Time of Interview: August 9 at 2PM August 9 at 5:15PM August 10 at 10 AM August 13 at 11AM Step 1: Introduce project and purpose of the stakeholder interviews  Project purpose  Schedule  Major public input points  Interview questions will help us create a better shoreline master program Step 2: Begin Questions 1. How familiar are you with the Not very. Ron Berg usually takes care of these types of No direct interaction with it but he is aware No experience with shoreline permits. No experience with shorelines. They haven’t current shoreline master things for the company but he is out on a healthy related that the regulations are in place and that an talked about it at council. They live in a program issue. update is underway. He has not heard any community of dikes – are there shorelines? ee. Have you received a complaints from constituents about He hasn’t really heard much about it. Has shoreline permit in the shorelines and it has not been a significant heard of wetland mitigation issues and some past? issue for the city council. flooding issues upstream of the Coweeman. ff. If so, how responsive was the process to your needs? gg. What particular concerns or issues do you have about the process as you experienced it?

2. In your opinion, what are the No opinion Many people want a plan that allows the Economic development should be Diking security is an issue as well as most important results that the freedom to use the river and that allows emphasized. One of the greatest assets in recreation facilities, including paths and local SMP should accomplish? access for fishing and boating. People that Kelso is the three rivers but there are no access. Need to make the rivers accessible to own land want to be able to have access to restaurants or shopping with views of the people, especially the Cowlitz. There is a lack the river and use their land. People are water or any way to really enjoy the water of boat ramps and residents need to go to generally fed up with restriction of use and in a civic space. There is no public access Castle Rock to get their boat in the water. access for recreation and sport. and any new development along the water Three Rivers is looking to build condos and should be required to provide public that development may have some impact on access. the Cowlitz.

3. If you own property within the The City owns property within the shoreline shoreline, including stormwater outfalls and the water treatment plant. The airport is also in the shoreline and owned by the city. The only possible new development would be a pump house along the Cowlitz at Mill St. Doing testing now. hh. Is it in a natural state, or has it been altered? ii. Are there water dependent uses on the property or in the vicinity? jj. Can the property reasonably accommodate water‐dependent uses kk. Are there current recreational uses associated with the property? ll. Are there natural breaks in your shoreline areas that we should be aware of – such as a change in vegetation or other characteristics mm. Is there a transition from one use to another on or near the property, such as from residential to commercial? nn. Are you aware of the current shoreline designation? How do you think it should be classified? oo. Do you have development Looked at developing Anchor Point within the city of He doesn’t own land, but works for the plans for that property? If Kelso a number of years ago but never went forward. Kelso School District and there may be some so, can you describe them? Right now using the site for dredge spoils. plans to develop some property in the Lexington area along MaCorkle Creek. pp. Are there specific studies you have regarding existing conditions you have on your property that you can share with us

4. Do you have any other Wants to make sure that the city doesn’t comments or questions? adopt anything that is more restrictive than what the state requires.

5. How would you like to be Can have public meetings in the Council involved in the process moving Chambers and we should mention river forward? access to get people’s attention. qq. How would you like to receive public notices? i. Email [email protected] yes yes ii. Mailed post cards iii. Website iv. other rr. Are you interested in participating in public meetings> ss. Are there other ways you would like to participate?

Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update ‐ KELSO Stakeholder Interview Questions Name: Robert MacGregor Jim Stanely Alan Headley Toby Tabor Organization: Kelso School District Stanely Contracting Cowlitz 2 Fire and rescue Kelso Planning commission Phone: 360‐51‐1927 602‐639‐0293 360‐575‐6282 503‐209‐1796 Date and Time of Interview: August 14 at 9:30AM August 27 4PM August 15 at 2PM August 21 at 1PM Step 1: Introduce project and purpose of the stakeholder interviews  Project purpose  Schedule  Major public input points  Interview questions will help us create a better shoreline master program Step 2: Begin Questions 1. How familiar are you with the Robert has only been with the school district for about a No, but they were working towards getting a No. All of their facilities are outside of the He is one of the newest people on the current shoreline master year. He doesn’t think they have had any property that permit. They have a site and grading plan to shoreline area. He hasn’t seen any issues planning commission so not much experience program has been through the shoreline process. They do have raise the site above the 100‐year flood plain nor has he heard of it stopping any or knowledge of shorelines. tt. Have you received a some property north of Kelso but they have no plans to for a condo project. The project is now on development or causing a hardship. shoreline permit in the build. There is currently declining enrollment and no the backburner and the property is on the past? major capital projects planned. market, but if it doesn’t sell the will develop uu. If so, how responsive was it if they can rezone just for apartments, no the process to your needs? retail. They hired a firm to do an vv. What particular concerns environmental study. or issues do you have about the process as you experienced it?

2. In your opinion, what are the Sounds like it is time for an update but wants to make Want to be able to develop but the 200‐foot Not sure. May not be qualified to answer. Not too many ideas right now but need to most important results that the sure it does not hinder economic development buffer is an issue. They would be willing to What we have now seems to work well. It is think long term and that the Cowlitz River is local SMP should accomplish? opportunities and the opportunity for access to the trade some public access for more difficult to keep people informed. If people continuing to change river. developable area. are impacted then they are interested. They recently had a public meeting with 45 people, but need to have something that lays out why the issue is important. Perhaps tie to a community event.

3. If you own property within the NA shoreline, ww. Is it in a natural state, or has it been altered? xx. Are there water dependent uses on the property or in the vicinity? yy. Can the property reasonably accommodate water‐dependent uses zz. Are there current recreational uses associated with the property? aaa. Are there natural breaks in your shoreline areas that we should be aware of – such as a change in vegetation or other characteristics bbb. Is there a transition from one use to another on or near the property, such as from residential to commercial? ccc. Are you aware of the current shoreline designation? How do you think it should be classified? ddd. Do you have development plans for that property? If so, can you describe them? eee. Are there specific studies you have regarding existing conditions you have on your property that you can share with us

4. Do you have any other None at this time None at this time None at this time None at this time comments or questions?

5. How would you like to be Email Email He retires at the end of the year and Jerry Email and briefings to the planning involved in the process moving Mehoff will be the contact. commission forward? fff. How would you like to receive public notices? i. Email Yes Yes ii. Mailed post cards iii. Website iv. other ggg. Are you interested in participating in public meetings> hhh. Are there other ways you would like to participate?

Cowlitz County Shoreline Master Program Update ‐ WOODLAND Stakeholder Interview Questions Name: Josh Oliva Jody Barthkowski Martin Favelnke Keith Pfeifer Organization: Property Owner Horseshoe Lake (also works at City) Property owner (RV Park) on Horseshoe Lake Property owner Phone: Date and Time of Interview: August 9 at 11:40AM August 21 at 11AM Via email on 8‐14 Step 1: Introduce project and purpose of the stakeholder interviews  Project purpose  Schedule  Major public input points  Interview questions will help us create a better shoreline master program Step 2: Begin Questions How familiar are you with the He owns a shopping center along the Lewis River that For a long time she did the notices to the He owns 450 feet of shoreline property and I believe any current Shoreline Permits should current shoreline master program includes the Hi School Pharmacy and is adjacent to the paper and the SEPA checklists for Shoreline he afraid he can’t rebuild structures that be vested under existing rules. Also, since the iii. Have you received a Dairy Queen. He has only had some interaction with the permits so she is familiar with the process need improvements. He has some old economy has been poor for so long, renewals shoreline permit in the shoreline process. In the future he wants to develop but she hasn’t done a substantial water lines that need to be replaced and an for any Shoreline Permits that expire should past? some of his property, but feels it will be frustrating to development permit. The big issues at old building that is used for a library and be renewable under the same rules as existed jjj. If so, how responsive was deal with shorelines. He understands the intent of the Horseshoe lake are the water quality, restrooms that is from the 1930s. The when the original permit was issued. We have the process to your needs? regulations but his property is across Lewis River Rd. stormwater and erosion control. Erosion septic systems are all over the map and the a retail project in Woodland that required a kkk. What particular concerns from the river and the road is a barrier to the river. He control is a particular issue at S. Pekin Rd. last time it went out it cost $11K to repair. Shoreline Permit. Since the economy has or issues do you have about feels the shorelines regulations should not apply the There are no access issues, but there is no No current plans to replace buildings and been so poor, we have not yet constructed the process as you same to his property for this reason. There is no inventory of docks and the permit record is he hasn’t applied for a shoreline permit in this project. Our original permit expired last experienced it? common sense to the current regulations. not very consistent. There is no real the past. year and we renewed for another five years. development potential around the lake. He also owns property on Pekin Rd and in As you may already know, Shoreline Permits general improvements need to be done to can only be renewed once. Had our original the lake to keep it a lake otherwise it will permit expired after the Shoreline Master naturally turn into a swamp. Plan update, we may have had new requirements imposed on a project that was otherwise fully vested.

I also believe Shoreline Permit approvals should include a definitive statement that the permitted activity will not create a take under ESA. This issue came up on my personal residence. I filled a homesite within a shoreline area in compliance with my Shoreline Permit. However, when I applied to have the fill pad removed from the 100 year flood plain, FEMA required me to obtain a letter from the local jurisdiction affirming the fill pad would not create a take. Cowlitz County was unwilling to sign such a letter since they had nothing to gain from doing so and did not want the liability. As a consequence, I have to pay flood insurance for a house on a fill pad nearly three feet above the 100 year flood plain. I also have the stigma of being in a flood plain even though I filled the site to get out of it.

1. In your opinion, what are the There needs to be flexibility in the regulations. He has Nothing that pops to mind – just the lake He wants to make improvements that are most important results that the owned the shopping mall for 20 years and it is just issues noted above. People need to know needed easily. local SMP should accomplish? getting harder and harder to develop property. There what is going on. are so many new rules, including stormwater. What is the intent of the regulations? Isn’t it better to develop an area that is already impacted than a greenfield?

2. If you own property within the Impacted – shopping center with a parking lot. Stormwater currently flows directly to the shoreline, lake. There are two places on Pekin where rip rap has been placed. There are no restoration projects planned at this time. Want to make sure the floodway management is consistent with the SMP. lll. Is it in a natural state, or Shoreline is mostly natural with some trees has it been altered? that have been removed and some rip rap. mmm. Are there water dependent uses on the property or in the vicinity? nnn. Can the property reasonably accommodate water‐dependent uses ooo. Are there current recreational uses associated with the property? ppp. Are there natural breaks in your shoreline areas that we should be aware of – such as a change in vegetation or other characteristics qqq. Is there a transition from one use to another on or near the property, such as from residential to commercial? rrr. Are you aware of the current shoreline designation? How do you think it should be classified? sss. Do you have development There is a pumphouse on the Lewis River plans for that property? If and there is a project planned for that area so, can you describe them? to deal with water flow into the lake. ttt. Are there specific studies you have regarding existing conditions you have on your property that you can share with us

3. Do you have any other Nope Nope comments or questions?

4. How would you like to be Email email Mail is the best for him involved in the process moving [email protected] forward? uuu. How would you like to receive public notices? i. Email ii. Mailed post cards iii. Website iv. other vvv. Are you interested in participating in public meetings> www. Are there other ways you would like to participate?