RES 911V IRESOLUTIONNO.
A RESOLUTION adopting findings and approving a shorelines
conditional use permit for a boat ramp,dock,and other facilities at
the Frank’s Moorage site on Lacamas Lake.
The Council of the City of Camas resolve as follows:
Section I
FINDINGS
1 .Project Description:The City of Camas has applied for a shorelines conditional use
permit to construct a new boat ramp,dock,and other park facilities at the Frank’s Moorage site
on Lacamas Lake.The site is zoned residential and is further designated as conservancy under
the City’s Shorelines Management Master Plan.The proposed improvements include public
parking facilities and other infrastructure located outside of the 200-foot shorelines jurisdiction,
and a boat ramp,dock,restrooms and picnic facilities located within the 200-foot shoreline zone.
2.Site Description:The site consists of approximately six acres located on the southern
end of Lacamas Lake.It has been used historically as a day-use park,boat launch,and dock.
When the City acquired the property in 1993,the dock had fallen into a state of disrepair,and the
park was no longer being actively managed.
The site is located just west of the Moose Lodge facility,which has been purchased by
the City but is still occupied by the Moose,and just east of the trail head and parking lot for the
Heritage Trail,a public trail along the entire length of the south shore of Lacamas Lake.
Lacamas Lake is currently served by three boat launches.The Lacamas Shores
subdivision and Moose Lodge boat launches are privately owned,and use is limited to members
of their respective organizations.The Wildlife launch located on the north side of the lake is
available for public use.The launch is separated from the parking lot by Ledbetter Road.
Jurisdiction over Lacamas Lake is currently divided between the City of Camas,which
controls the south half of the lake,and Clark County,which governs the northern half of the lake.
Both jurisdictions have adopted regulations for the use of the lake.Neither jurisdiction has
enacted any regulation which prohibits or limits the use of personal water craft (jet skis and wave
runners)on Lacamas Lake.No evidence or testimony was presented that Lacamas Shores,the
Moose Lodge,or the Wildlife limit or prohibit the launch of personal water craft from their
FindingsPage2respectivesites.3.ProceduralHistory:ThisprojectrequiredbothaconditionalusepermitundertheCity’szoningcodeandashorelinesconditionalusepermit.ThePublicWorksDirectorissuedamitigateddeterminationofnon-significance(MDNS)underSEPAfortheproject.Themitigationmeasuresrequiredwereforerosioncontrol,minimizationofdustcausedbyconstruction,stormwaterrunoff,andpreservationofarchaeologicalresources.MarkEriksonsubmittedatimelySEPAappealoftheMDNSissuedbythePublicWorksDirector.Theappealallegedthattheleadagencyfailedtoevaluatesignificantimpactstoair,surfacewater,wildlifeandenvironmentalhealthcausedbypersonalwatercraft.TheCityCouncilheldapublichearingontheappeal,upheldtheSEPAdetermination,andgrantedthezoningconditionalusepermit.FindingswereadoptedonJune22,1998.ThatdecisionwasthereafterappealedtoClarkCountySuperiorCourtundertheLandUsePetitionActbyMarkErikson,whoallegedvariousproceduralandsubstandarderrorsrelatingtotheuseofpersonalwatercraft.OnFebruary4,2000,theClarkCountySuperiorCourtissuedanOrderaffirmingthedecisionoftheCityCouncil.EriksonsubsequentlyappealedtheSuperiorCourtdecisiontotheCourtofAppeals.Onappeal,theonlyissueremainingiswhethertheCityviolatedSEPAbyissuingtheMDNS.Thatappealiscurrentlypending.PursuanttoCMC18.88.070,theshorelineconditionalusepermitwasconsideredbytheShorelineManagementReviewCommittee,whichreviewedandonOctober22,1998,approvedthepermit.PursuanttoCMC18.88.180,MarkEriksonappealedthatapprovaltotheCityCouncil.TheEriksonappealagainchallengedtheSEPAprocessandtheallegedfailuretoconsiderimpactsofpersonalwatercraft.TheCityCouncilheldapublichearinginDecemberof1998,atwhichtimeittabledthehearinguntiladecisionwasrenderedintheLUPAappealpendingbeforeClarkCountySuperiorCourt.ThehearingontheshorelineconditionalusepermitwasreconvenedonFebruary26,2001.4.ApprovalStandards:SubstantialdevelopmentsmustbeconsistentwithapprovedShorelineManagementMasterProgramgoals,objectives,andgeneralpolicies.TheMasterProgramelementgoalsthatrelatetothisproposalarepublicaccess,recreational,andshorelineuse.
FindingsPage34.1.PublicAccessGoals:Thepublicaccessgoalsare1)toprovide,protect,andenhanceapublicaccesssystemthatisbothphysicalandvisual,utilizingbothprivateandpubliclands,whichincreasestheamountanddiversityofpublicaccesstotheState’sshorelinesandadjacentareas,consistentwiththenaturalshorelinecharacter,privaterightsandpublicsafety,and2)tointegratepublicaccesstoshorelinesaspartoftheCity’strailsystem.Thisproposalincreasesthepublic’saccesstotheshorelineofLacamasLakeandconnectstotheLacamasLakeHeritageTrail,whichextendsalongtheentiresouthernshoreofLacamasLake.Theprojectincreasesthediversityofaccesstotheshorelinebyprovidingadockandboatlaunchandpicnicfacilities.CurrentlyaccessislimitedtotheHeritageTrail,whichisahikingtrailsuitableonlyforpedestrianuse.4.2.RecreationalGoals:RecreationalgoalsundertheShorelineManagementMasterProgramare1)toensureoptimalrecreationalopportunitiesnowandinthefutureinshorelineareasthatcanreasonablytolerateduringpeakuselevelsactive,passive,competitiveorcontemplativeuseswithoutdestroyingtheintegrityandcharacteroftheshoreline,2)tocoordinatewithParks&Recreationtooptimizeopportunitiesforwaterorientedrecreation,and3)toensureexistingandproposedrecreationalusesareofasafeandhealthynature.TheCitydoesnotcurrentlyhaveapubliclyaccessibleboatlaunchtoLacamasLake,andthisboatrampanddockwillenhancetheopportunityforwaterorientedrecreationatasitethatwashistoricallyusedforthesamepurposes.Thedesignoftheparksiteissuchthattheareawithintheshorelines200-footzonewillbemaintainedinapark-likesettingwithtreesandvegetation,thusmaintainingthecharacteroftheshoreline.4.3.ShorelineUseGoals:Shorelineusegoalsare1)toidentifyandreserveshorelineandwaterareaswithuniqueattributesforspecificlong-termuses,includingcommercial,industrial,residential,recreationalandopenspaceuses,2)toensurethatproposedshorelineusesaredistributed,locatedanddevelopedinamannerthatwillmaintainorimprovethehealth,safetyandwelfareofthepublicwhensuchusesmustoccupyshorelineareas,3)toencouragejointuseactivitiesandproposedshorelinedevelopments,and4)toencouragerestorationofshorelineareasorfacilitiesthathavebeendegraded,abandoned,ordiminishedinecologicalvalueandfunction,aswellasaresultofpastactivitiesorcatastrophicevents.
FindingsPage4Thisprojectwillreserveshorelineandwaterareasforlong-termrecreationalusebythepublic.TheprojectfurtherprovidesfordistributionofrecreationalusesonLacamasShoresbyprovidingapublicaccessonthesouthshoreofthelake,therebyrelievingsomeofthecongestioncurrentlyexperiencedattheWildlifepubliclaunch,whichisseparatedfromtheparkinglotbyapublicroad,andpresentsasafetyhazardtouserslaunchingboats.Thisprojectwillalsoresultintherestorationoftheparkfacilitiesthathavebeenallowedtobecomedilapidatedthroughnon-useandlackofmaintenance,withtheoverallresultoftheareabeingenhancedforpublicenjoymentoftheshoreline.5.ShorelineEnvironmentalCriteria,Policies,andLimitations:TheShorelineManagementMasterProgramobjectivesfortheconservancyenvironmentaretoprotect,conserve,andmanageexistingnaturalresources,includinghistoric,scientific,cultural,andestheticareas,toensureacontinuousflowofpublicrecreationalopportunity,toachieveasustainedresourceutilization,andtomaintaintheexistingcharacteroftheenvironment.Thisprojectisfoundtobeconsistentwiththeobjectives,policies,andregulationssetforthfortheconservancydesignation.Theparkwasdesignedtoreplaceanhistoricboatlaunch,willprovideforcontinuouspublicrecreationalopportunities,andisdesignedtominimizeimpactstotheexistingcharacteroftheenvironment.6.ShorelinePolicyStatementsandUseActivityRegulations:ThegeneralpoliciesfortheconservancyenvironmentundertheShorelineManagementMasterProgramarethatpreferredusesshouldbenonconsumptiveofthephysicalandbiologicalresourcesofthearea,theestheticcharacteroftheareashouldbemaintained,publicaccessandpassiverecreationareencouraged,butlargeconcentrationsofintensiveuse,recreationalfacilities,andequipmentshouldbediscouraged,densityofresidentialdevelopmentshouldbeminimal,permanentstructuresshouldbeprohibitedinareassubjecttoflooding,andstructuralfloodcontroldevicesshouldbestronglydiscouraged.PreferredusesintheconservancyenvironmentundertheShorelineManagementMasterProgramincludepublicrecreation.Thisprojectsatisfiesthegeneralpoliciesanduselimitationsinthattheproposedparkisausewhichisnonconsumptiveofthephysicalandbiologicalresources,theestheticcharacteroftheareawillbemaintained,publicaccessandpassiverecreationwillbeencouraged,andno
FindingsPage5residentialdevelopmentwillbeallowed.7.ShorelineManagementActPolicies:TheShorelineManagementActmandatesthatlocalmasterprogramsprovideforusesonshorelinesofstatewidesignificanceinamannerofpreferenceintendedtorecognizeandprotectthestatewideinterestoverlocalinterests,preservethenaturalcharacteroftheshoreline,resultinlong-termovershort-termbenefit,protecttheresourcesandecologyoftheshoreline,increasepublicaccesstopublicly-ownedareasoftheshorelines,andincreaserecreationalopportunitiesforthepublicintheshoreline.ThisprojectisconsistentwiththeShorelineManagementActpoliciesabovebyenhancingpublicaccesstotheshorelines,increasingrecreationalopportunitiesforthepublicintheshoreline.8.TheEriksonAppeal:MarkErikson’sappealraisestwoissues.ThefirstissueiswhethertheCitywasrequiredtoconsolidatetheapplicationprocessforthezoningconditionalusepermitwiththeshorelineconditionalusepermit.ThisissuewasconsideredintheLUPAappealtoClarkCountySuperiorCourtonthezoningconditionalusepermit,andwasdecidedadverselytoErikson.EriksondidnotappealthisdecisiontotheCourtofAppeals.EriksonalsorenewshisSEPAobjectionsthattheMDNSwasimproperlyissued,becauseitfailedtoconsiderimpactsfrompersonalwatercraft.TherecorddemonstratesthatpersonalwatercraftareanallowableuseonLacamasLakeunderthecurrentrulesofClarkCountyandtheCityofCamas.TherecordfartherindicatesthatLacamasLakeisaccessiblecurrentlybythreeboatlaunches,noneofwhichprohibitthelaunchingofpersonalwatercraft.TherecordisdevoidofanyevidencethattheconstructionofthisboatlaunchwillresultinanyadditionaluseofLacamasLakebypersonalwatercraft.ThematerialssubmittedbyEriksoninsupportofhispositionthatpersonalwatercraftcauseadverseenvironmentalimpactsconsistofexcerptsfromvariousstudiesofnationalparksandnationalrecreationalareas.Theactualstudiesarenotpartoftherecord,noristhereanyevidencethattheenvironmentatLacamasLakeissubstantiallysimilartotheEvergladesandtheothernationalparksandrecreationareasthatwerethesubjectofthestudies.LacamasLakeisalsosubjecttono-wakezonesof100feetalongallshorelinesandtheentiresouthendofthelake.Theseno-wakezonesaredesignedtopreventshorelineerosionand
FindingsPage6disturbanceofsedimentation.SectionIICONCLUSIONS1.Theproposedprojectisconsistentwiththemasterprogramelementgoals,withtheshorelinepolicystatementsanduseactivityregulationsofthemasterprogramfortheconservancyenvironment,andwiththeShorelineManagementActstatewidepolicies.2.TheCitywasnotrequiredtoconsolidatethezoningconditionaluseapplicationwiththeshorelinesconditionaluseapplication,andEriksoniscollaterallyestoppedfromraisingthisissueintheseproceedings.3.ThereisnoevidenceintherecordthattheproposedboatlaunchwillincreaseorotherwiseimpacttheexistinguseofpersonalwatercraftonLacamasLake.Therefore,theSEPAissuesraisedbyEriksonarewithoutmerit.4.TheevidencesubmittedbyErikson,evenifdeemedreliable,isinsufficienttosupportaconclusionthatpersonalwatercraftcauseadverseenvironmentalimpactstoLacamasLake.5.ThedecisionoftheShorelinesManagementReviewCommitteethatthisproposalisofminorsignificanceisaffirmed,andnopublichearingisrequiredbeforethePlanningCommission.SectionIIIDECISIONTheappealofMarkEriksonisdenied,andtheconditionalusepermitapplicationundertheShorelineActisapprovedandgranted,subjecttotheconditionssetforthinthestaffreportofFebruary12,2001.ADOPTEDbytheCouncilataregularmeetingthih,2001.SIGNED:MayorM.ATTEST:ClerkAPDYEDastoform:>CityAttorney