Pacific County project completion report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

PACIFIC COUNTY

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

GRANT NUMBER G0088027

JULY 1, 1987 to JUNE 30, 198a

PACIFIC COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

HD
211
.W2
P3
1988

U DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOA A
COASTAL SERVICES CEKTEP,
-@, I r
2234 SOUT H HOP " ' N t-,
C
CHARLESTON , S

ABSTRACT #1

0 7.3 a r t

TITLE: Shorelines Management Administration and
Enforcement

AUTHOR: Pacific County Planning Department

SUBJECT: Administration and Enforcement of Pacific
County Shoreline Management Plan

DATE: July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988

PARTICIPANT: Planning Department Director, Administrative
L Assistant and Prosecuting Attorney

PROJECT NUMBER: Grant Number G0088027

SERIES NUMBER:

SUMMARY: The Pacific County Planning Department continued the
on-going administration of the Shoreline Master Program utilizing
Coastal Zone Management funds. This funding allowed a full-time
position commitment to implement the Master Programs and provided
a part-time enforcement position in the County's Prosecutor's
Office. All of these duties were preformed by existing personnel
and no new staff were hired. Pacific County received over 195
Shorelines Management Applications between July 1, 1987 to June
30, 1988. Formal Shoreline Exemptions accounted for 88 percent
of the total applications received, with the remainder resulting
in 21 Substantial Development Permits.

Shoreline Management Enforcement action continued to center
around primary dune modification, illegal filling of associated
wetlands and "after the fact" development permitting. A total of
eight (8) notices of shoreline violation were sent out during the
past Coastal Zone Management fiscal year. The results were a
mixture of compliance, non-compliance and partial mitigation
involving little or no actual court time. Dune Modification

Page 2
Abstract #1

remained the most difficult area of compliance and mitigation.
Coastal Zone Management funding was also used for the County's
legal representation before the State Shorelines Hearing Board on
two occasions. Monies were used by the Prosecuting Attorney for
further education and training on land-use law enforcement.

Exhibit #1

Project Coordinator transfer contract

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO GRANT NO. G0088027

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

AND

PACIFIC COUNTY

WHEREAS, the grantee, Pacific County, has requested a change in
Project Coordinators from Kenneth Kimura to Mark Carey. As
reflected in paragraphs 8(c) and 9(b) of the grant contract, we
hereby amend the grant to incorporate this redesignation of
Project Coordinators. This amendment is made for mutual benefit
of the parties. It is also understood that all other terms and
conditions of the original grant remain in full force and effect.

THEREFORE; BE IT AGREED that the grant contract be amended to re-
flect the change in Project Coordinators.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this amendment to
the Grant by signature below.

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY COUNTY OF PACIFIC

D. Rodney Mack bignature official Date
Program Manager of Grantee Authorized
Shorelands & Coastal Zone to Make Agreement
Management Program /4>
Print Name of
Approved as to form this Authorozed Official
day
of 1988

Title of Authorized
Official
Assistant Attorney General

ABSTRACT #2

TITLE: Long Beach Peninsula Comprehensive Plan

AUTHOR: The Citizen's Planning Task Force

SUBJECT: Update of the Long Beach Peninsula sub
area element of the County's Comprehensive
Plan

DATE: July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988
PARTICIPANTS: Citizen's Planning Task Force, Pacific County
Planning and Health Departments

PROJECT NUMBER: Grant Number G0088027

SERIES NUMBER:

SUMMARY: The Long Beach Peninsula Comprehensive Plan project has
reached completion and has resulted in a 44 page document and a
new land-use plan map. The project completion compulates a 17-
month effort by a 15-member Citizen's Task Force. The Task Force
was awarded the 1988 Environmental Excellence Award by the State
Ecological Commission. The new Comprehensive Plan covers a wide-,
range of land-use and environmental issues while concentrating on
specific problems facing the Peninsula. The Plan includes
substantive sections on; Wetlands, Government and Future Needs
which provided timely and realistic policy recommendations. One
of the more difficult tasks of the committee was to establish a
new land-use plan map, together with density requirements for
each new classification. The new Comprehensive Plan will
establish a solid framework for much needed amendments to the
County's existing regulatory controls. The Plan also provides
the mechanism to continue the public planning process throughout
the entire County. Presently, the Plan and the efforts of the
Citizen's Task Force are responsible for the formation of the
Peninsula Dune Management Task Force and the Willapa. Bay Water
Quality Committee.

Page 2
Abstract 2

Formal adoption procedures will begin on Aug. 25, 1988 before the
Pacific County Planning Commission. Final adoption.of the Plan
by the County Commissioners is expected by the Fall of 1988.

Exhibit #2

The Draft Long Beach Peninsula Comprehensive Plan

Land-Use Plan Map and Circulation Plan Map

Letter of Transmittal from Ardell McPhail to the
Citizens Planning Task Force

LONG BEACH PENINSULA

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

PREPARED BY:

THE CITIZEN'S PLANNING TASK FORCE

JULY 1, 1988

The preparation of this plan was financially aided
through a grant from the Washington State Department of
Ecology with funds obtained from the National Oceanic and
AtmosDheric Administration, and appropriated for Section 306
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 19721.

Citizen Planning Task Force Members:

Toby Beard Gene Neva
Beverly Gibson Clyde Sayce
Hal Gardner Bob Schmidt
Hewitt Harrison Dick Sheldon
Ken Heckard Stan Sonntag
John Hunsberger Wolfgang Mack
Ray Millner, Sr. Ardell McPhail, Project
Coordinator

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paqe

Introduction ..2

Authorization, Background & Purpose 3

Glossary 5

LAND USE ELEMENT 9
Existing Conditions
General Goals 10
Overall Land Development
Subdivision Plat Review
Residential Areas 12
Commercial Areas i5
Industrial Areas 16

ECONOMICS and NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT 19
The Economy 20
Natural Resources 21

WETLANDS ELEMENT 24

CIRCULATION ELEMENT 29

RECREATION ELEMENT 31

HISTORICAL ELEMENT 33

OYSTERVILLE PRESERVATION ELEMENT 34

COUNTY GOVERNMENT ELEMENT 35

FUTURE NEEDS ELEMENT 37

Long Beach Peninsula Population 38

Appendix I. (Supporting Publications)
Appendix I!. (Abstracts of Previous Studies)
Appendix III. (Long Beach Peninsula Land Use Designation Map)
Appendix IV. (Circulation Map)
Appendix V (Letter from Ocean Park Citizen Group)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Long
Beach Peninsula subarea of Pacific County. It represents many,
many hours of volunteer time given by citizens of the area who
believe in the Peninsula's future. The goals and policies
described herein are the result of consensus and creative hard
work by a representative task force. Regardless of what
difficulties the County may face, financially or otherwise, it is
the belief of Peninsula citizens that by working together and
with the cooperation of state and federal agencles we can reach
the goals set forth in this Plan.

The key to orderly development and protection of the
natural resources of the Long Beach Peninsula area is
implementation of the policies of this Plan and enforcement of
subsequent zoning ordinances. Without adequate enforcement, this
document becomes meaningless. Citizens of the area have
expressed concern that enforcement of the previous plan and
zoning ordinances has been lax, inconsistent, unfairly applied or
even non-existent in some cases. Land use laws have been broken,
then, permission given "after the fact". This Plan calls for
consistent, timely and fair enforcement of existing laws. Public
education about the law and about the policies of the plan,
together with assurance that adequate enforcement will follow can
result in fewer outright violations and an understanding of the
need to plan for orderly growth and to preserve our limited
natural resources.

The principal thrust of this Plan is an overall" strategy to
protect and enhance environmental resources while allowing for
compatible economic growth activity. This comprehensive plan
addresses many problems unique to the Long Beach Peninsula but
does not apply to any other portion of Pacific County. The term
"Long Beach Peninsula" is geographically described as: All that
property lying within Townships 9N., ION., IIN., 12N., !3141.,
Range IIW., W.M.; exceot, that portion of Long Island that lies
in Townships IIN. and 12N., Range 11W., W.M. Unincorp orated
county lands are the principal areas of concern in this plan
together with consideration of the impact land uses have on the
Willapa Bay estuary and ground water aquifers of the Peninsula.
References to incorporated areas (Long Beach and ILiwaco) are
intentional and have been made to encourage cooperation between
local governments in achieving quality community planning.
Water resources and sewage treatment are the controlling factors
in the rate and amount of residential, commerc_@al and industrial
growth on the Peninsula.

This Plan is not a zoning or land development code. it is
an overview with a comprehensive statement of goals and policies
.C
lor general growth and development on the Peninsula. Zoning and

development codes are the laws created to implement the Plan.

This Plan cannot be expected to prevent every problem
related to growth and development. Changing conditions in the
physical environment, changing public attitudes, and planning
studies in the future may indicate a need to amend, extend or add
to the Plan. When amendments or amplifications are deemed
necessary in the public interest they will be handled in the
manner prescribed by the Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70).

AUTHORIZATION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Authorization

The Board of County Commissioners exercised its powers
under RCW 36.70, the "Planning Enabling Act", to create a
Planning Department and Planning Commission. One of the duties
under this law is to "prepare a comprehensive plan for the
orderly physical development of the county or any portion
thereof ... " When a plan is adopted for any portion of a county
it "shall not be deemed invalid on the ground that the remainder
of the county is not yet covered by a comprehensive plan."

After the Board of County Commissioners certifies all or
parts of a comprehensive plan for the county, or for any part of
the county, the Planning Agency will use the plan as the basic
source of reference, and as a guide, in reporting upon or
recommending any proposed project, public or private, as to its
purpose, location, form alignment and timing. The report of the
Planning Agency on any project will indicate whether the proposed
project does, or does not, conform to the comprehensive plan and
may include proposals which, if effected, would make the project
conform.

Background

This Comprehensive Plan incorporates by reference
background studies which precede it. Appendices I and II are
lists and abstracts of previous studies used as references in
preparing this document. Since the last update of this plan, new
awareness of how closely our economy is ti@d to our natural
resources has resulted in greater concern for protecting the
Willapa Bay and Baker Bay estuaries, as well as our agricultural
and fishing resources. Tourism and retirement industries have
citizen input in identifying the area's future needs can help
sharpen the focus of planning in the years to come.

Purpose of the Plan

The purpose of this plan is to guide decision-makers to
protect and enhance environmental resources while allowing for
compatible economic growth activity. It does not seek to stifle
development, but sets guidelines for reasonable andresponsible
growth on the Peninsula. Planning can help ensure that new uses
of land are compatible with existing uses. New developments
should not adversely impact neighboring uses, either-economically
or environmentally.

The Plan is designed to be adaptable to new growth pressures
and problems related to community development. It should not
remain static; it should change as the Peninsula community
changes. Citizen involvement in the planning process should be
ongoing. The Plan should be reviewed on a periodic basis to
examine and evaluate its compatibility with existing conditions,
trends, and community attitudes.

GLOSSARY

Aquaculture: The farming of lakes, streams, estuaries or the
sea. It refers to the planting, feeding, raising and harvesting
of aquatic species including land based aquatic activities.
(definition from Shoreline Master Program, Section 6.01)

Aquifer: A subsurface zone that yields economically important
amounts of water to wells. A waterbearing stratum of permeable
rock, sand, or gravel.

Associated wetlands: synonyinous with "wetlands" or "wetland
areas". Includes the 100 year flood plain. Standards for
wetland areas associated with shorelines of the state are
contained in WAC 173-22-040.

Board: Refers to the Pacific County Board of Commissioners.

Buffer: Physical improvements or natural barriers that separate
incompatible land uses.

Certification: The affixing on any map or by adding to any
document comprising all or any portion of a comprehensive plan a
record of the dates of action thereon by the commission and by
the Board, together with the signatures of the officer or
officers authorized by ordinance to so sign.

Commercial Convenience Center: An area designated an the
official land use map which is the commercial and business focus
of unincorporated communities and which provides the day to day
goods and services of the unincorporated area surrounaing it.

Commercial Service Strip: A continuous commercial development
along an arterial road where the commercial development does not
exceed a full block depth along either side of the arterial and
where the commercial development is not classified as a
commercial convenience center.

Comprehensive Plan: A document or series of documents prepared
by a planning commission or department setting forth policles for
the future of a community. It is normally the result of
considerable study and anaiysis of existing physical, econom2c,
and social conditions and a projection of future conditions.
When adopted by a public body such as a planning commission or
governing body, it serves as a guide for many public decisions,
especially land-use changes and preparation off capital
improvement programs, and the enactment of zoning and related
growth management legislation.

Commission: Refers to the Pacific County Planning-Commission.

Contributory Drainage: All waterways contributing or terminating
in Willapa Bay will be classified as contributory drainages to
Willapa Bay. Wetlands contributing water to these drainage
courses shall be considered as associated wetlands of Willapa
Bay.

Draina e: Any natural or man-made stream, ditch, or slough in
which an obvious flow of water occurs on a continuous or seasonal
basis and is part of the actual drainage system to Willapa Bay.

Goal: An object or end that one strives to attain; aim. In a
comprehensive plan, the goals are general statements of a desired
condition or direction which the county's residents and leaders
would like to see achieved through the implementation of specific
tasks (objectives) and policies for decision-making.

Ground water: See Aquifer

Growth areas: Land areas within and adjacent to incorporated
communities and/or as designated on a map.

Historic District: Any area which: 1) contains improvements
which: a) have a special character or speclal historical or
aesthetic interest or value; and b) represent one or more periods
or styles of architecture typical of one or more areas in the
history of Pacific County; and c) cause such area, by reason of
such factors, to constitute a distincl- section of Pacific County;
and 2) has been designated as a historic district pursuant to
this comprehensive plan and its adopted elements.

Incom2atible use: A use which is incapable of existing in
harmony with other uses situated in its immediate vicinity.

Incorporated: Organized as a legal corporation, as an
incorporated town.

Industrial Park: The assembly of land under one continuing
control, to provide facilities for business and industry
consistent with a master plan and restrictions, resulting in the
creation of a physical environment achieving consistency with
community goals, efficient business and industrial operations,
compatibility with natural environments and achieving and
sustaining highest land values.

Land Use Classes: Categories into which land can be grouped
according to present or potential economic use.

Marine Industrial Area: A central place for processing and
i
shipping marine products harvested Irom the marine resource area.

Mitigation: avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing,
eliminating, or compensating for adverse environmental effects.
As related to wetlands protection, mitigation can include:
changing project plans or selecting alternative sites to avoid or
reduce adverse impacts; using preferred construction practices to
reduce on-site effects; and comoensating for unavoidable wetlands
losses by creating or enhancing other on-site or off.-site wetland
areas.

Municipalities: Taxing districts smaller than the state and
having legislative power. (e.g. counties, cities, towns, ports,
et al.)

.Objective: Something toward which effort is directed: an aim or
end of action. In a comprehensive plan, objectives are specific
tasks which, if undertaken and accomplished, will 'Lead to partial
or eventual fulfillment of the goals.

On-site sewage disposal system: Any system of piping, treatment
devised, or other facilities that convey, store, treat, or
dispose of sewage on the property where it originates or on
adjacent or nearby property under the control of the user where
the system is not connected to a public sewer system.

Open Space: (1) land zoned for open space or (2) any land
area, the preservation of which in its Present use would (a)
conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources, (b) protect
streams or water supply, (c) promote conservation of soils,
wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes, (d) preserve historic sites,
(e) enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring
parks, forests, wildlife reserves, nature reservations or
sanctuaries or other open space, (f) enhances recreation
opportunities, (g) retains in their natural state tracts of land
no less than five acres situated in an urban area, and open to
public use on such conditions as may be reasonably required by
the granting authority (Open Space Tax Act.)

Ordinance: A legislative enactment by t-he Board of County
Commissioners.

Planned Unit Development: A subdivision in which individual
building sites are so located as to assist in preserving ground
cover and scenic beauty, and to prevent erosion. Open space is
reserved for recreation in perpetuity.

Planning AqencV:_ A Planning Department and the Planning
Commission.

Planning Department: The Pacific County Planning Department.

Policy: A definite course or method of action selected ... to
guide and determine present and future decisions; decisions
designed to carry out a chosen course of action. A comprehensive
plan's policies are guidelines and methods for handling both
day-to-day and long-range decision making by the county planning
commission, Board of County Commissioners and staff.

Rural: Country living, characterized by a variety of low
density neighborhoods and developments; concentrations of
residential buildings surrounded by open space. Rural
designations protect comparatively undeveloped areas from
urban and suburban forms of development.

Salt marshes: large mats of vegetation which convert solar
energy to food, convert natural wastes to a useable form and act
as shock absorbers and filters during periods of high run-off.

Shall: Used in law, regulations or directives to express what is
mandatory; used to express determination. A comprehensive plan's
policies use "shall" to denote that the course or method of
action is mandatory or backed by local determination.

Should: Used in auxiliary function to express duty, obligation,
necessity, propriety or expediency. A comprehensive plan's
p
-icies use "should" as a means to recommend a course of action
o L
but not to absolutely require that course of action.

Transition Area: An area which contains a mixture of land uses
whose development, along with the associated commercia'k
convenience center, is increasing building intensity and
population density in a manner that will provide for the orderly
transition to a growth area.

Unincorporated: A rural area which is not organized as a legal
corporation.

Urban: An area which displays the characteristics of a town
rather than the country.

Wetlands: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers def: Those areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to suloport, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Pacific Co. Shoreline Master Program def: those lands extending
landward for 200 feet in all directions, as measured on a
horizontal plain from the ordinary high water mark and all
marshes, bogs, swamps, floodways, river deltas, and flood plains
associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters which are
subject to the provisions of the Act and this Master Program.

LAND USE ELEMENT

Existing conditions:

Residential and recreational subdivisions are the major
development pressures on Peninsula land use. Increased population
density and building intensity may have a devastating effect on
the water-supply for the area. The north end faces potential
contamination of ground water aquifers from excessive septic tank
use. High cost and concern that an influx of population would
alter the rural character of the area has slowed sewer system
planning. A high priority is placed on protecting the ground
water and the estuary from pollution.

A rural lifestyle is valued by Peninsula residents. The
rural lifestyle is characterized by a variety of low density
neighborhoods and developments, concentrations of residential
.buildings surrounded by open space, as in planned unit
developments, and commercial development which is generally
limited to growth areas and convenience centers. Sprawling
commercial developments are not compatible with a rural
lifestyle. Growth management efforts must set density levels and
plan for sewage services in order to preserve the rural
atmosphere and protect public health.

Over 4000 acres of land have accreted on the west side
of the Peninsula in the past 80 years. New growth concerns exist
as to whether or not building and utilities should be located
farther out on the accreted land. In the City of Long Beach,
development is planned. The Seashore Conservation Line of 1980
has been adopted by the City as the line from which setbacks are
required. The Peninsula also has over 50% of the statia's dunes.
Management or development of these dunes requires continuous
study and input from citizens, county 'Leaders, and various state.
agencies.

Although growth is inevitable, its quality and direction
14 must be controlled to prevent the deterioration.of the rural
lifestyle both Peninsula residents and visitors prize.

GENERAL GOALS:

The Long Beach Peninsula Comprehensive Plan is based on the
following general goals-

1. Promote unity as a Peninsula Community while recognizing the
individualty of its various areas.

2. Avoid incompatible land uses. Assure that futur e development
is compatible with existing uses. This is accomplished by
requesting that future development mitigate any activity which
will cause degradation or a sudden profound change in existing
land uses or degrade the health, safety or welfare of current
residents of the area.

3. Preserve the unique natural elements of the Peninsula such as
the Willapa Bay, the seashore, dunes, wetlands, and lakes.

4. Define various land use areas in a manner requiring minimal
interpretation of rules and regulations.

5. Achieve a balance between 'Land development, maintenance of
the natural resource base, and preservation of a lifestyle
currently enjoyed by the Peninsula's residents.

6. Promote,continued efforts to seek a water source for domestic
purposes for the Long Beach Peninsula, whiie preserving the
safety and adequacy of present sources.

7. Determine the real ecological carrying capacity of the
Peninsula area, so that appropriate action can be taken on
population, building, and activities.

8. Categorize and set density levels in the subsequent zoning
ordinance.

9. Building codes and zoning ordinances shall be strictly
enforced.

The Plan specifies objectives, (action statements) to
give direction for exploring alternatives and implementing the
goals and policies in the plan.

Objectives:

1. Actively seek placement on the state's lists as a ground water
management area and priority area for sewage treatment grants.

2. Establish a legal entity in the north end to begin looking at
sewer system alternatives and to provide a body through which
grants and other funding resources can be channeled.

3. Begin a ground water monitoring system to alert residents to
potential pollution.

4. Identify legal options for limiting growth in any area in
order to preserve the ground water and surface water as
unpolluted resources.

5. Require mandatory septic tank pumping on existing,systems.
(Adopt a waste ordinance).

6. Revise and adopt a zoning ordinance to implement the intent
of this plan.

OVERALL LAND DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW

Goals:

1. Protect and enhance the character and social and economic
stability of the Peninsula through established standards of land
subdivision and development.

2. Ensure that subdivision and associated public facilities,
particularly for residential subdivisions, are designed and
constructed to meet existing as well as forecasted future needs.

3. Minimize the pollution of air, streams, ponds, and ground
water during and after land clearing and development.

Objective:

Review the Pacific County Short Subdivision Ordinance No. 48-B
and revise it to match the intent of policies in this document.

Policies:

1. If a preliminary plat represents a phased portion of a
potentially larger development, the county shall require that a
master plan for the entire potential development be submitted
concurrent with the preliminary plat of the first phase.

2. Future traffic circulation patterns shall be considered
during preliminary plat review.

3. Utilities shall be placed underground.

4. Subdivisions should be sited, designed, and constructed to
preserve and enhance views, natural features and resources and1be
compatible with the esthetic values of the area.

5. Innovative land development techniques such as planned unit
developments, or clustering of units should be encouraged where
possible to more efficiently utilize land resources and public
services and preserve unique or sensitive areas as open space.

6. If the develooment of land and its intended use activity
adversely impacts adjacent and nearby private and public
properties, facilities, and services, those responsible for such
development and Activity shall bear the cost of repair and
improvement of these impacted properties, facilities, and
services. Examples include surface water disposal, sidewalks,
and access.

7. Soils data available through the Soil Conservation Service
office and other professional sources shall be utilized by County
officials for reviewing all development proposals.

8. Approval from the Health District signifying on-site sewage
disposal capability of each individual lot shall be submitted
prior to any preliminary plat approval good for a period of two
years.

9. In residential subdivisions or T)Ianned unit developments,
soils exhibiting moderate to severe erosion characteristics and
limitations which are proven by investigation by qualified soil
scientists or soil engineers to be hazardous to develop ment shall
be used as open space and should help fulfill the requirement
.for open space in a planned unit development.

RESIDENTIAL AREAS

In the past 1.5 years, residential areas have changed the
character of Long Beach Peninsula. Surfside Estates has
transformed over two miles of ocean front from sparsely developed
dune land to a quality suburban beach community. The jack pine
and swamp lands north and east of Ocean Park are giving ground
to mobile and modular home installations. Rushlight Farms,
southeast of Ocean Park has laid down a suburban neighborhood
over pasture land. The bayfront shoreline north of Cranberry
Road to Oysterville is modified by residential construction
having an estate quality. Other equally dramatic chahges have
occurred over the entire Peninsula.

It is not the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan to stop
change. The Plan seeks to control the character of change within
the various residential zones. Goals and policies of the Plan
aspire to protect prized residential values within the context of
promoting the public's health, safety, welfare and morals.

Detrimental changes within residential areas have created
concerns among Peninsula residents. Complaints of incompatible

uses and activities have centered around such things as animals
and birds that attract flies, odor and overgrazing-, junk
accumulations and old deteriorating trailers. Such comolaints
highlight the desire of residents to seek regulations that
protect and stabilize property values, protect the public's
health, promote public safety, and assure no radical surprises in
future development.

Concern of @residential communities over change has promoted
activism in homeowner associations and community councils.
Surfside Homeowners Association is the oldest such group on the
Peninsula. It promotes architectural standards and restrictive
covenants that control the appearance of buildings and areas
within the 20 divisions of Surfside Estates. The Comprehensive
Plan seeks to respect the autonomy of Surfside Estates by
encouraging cooperation and coordination of programs and
controls. As other community associations organize, similar
programs are encouraged.

Densities for residential land use designations shall
include the following classifications:
Urban Residential: 10,000 sq. ft.-20,000 sq. ft.
Protects existing single family residential; high density with a
mixture of single and multi-family dwellings; apartments;
encourages milti-family uses; includes services such as sewage,
water, fire, police; Allows for community facilities compatible
with urban areas, ie, churches, libraries, etc. As urban
services become availble, higher residential densities will be
considered.
Suburban Residential: 1/2 acre-1 acre
Single family residential. Multi-family okay if in a planned
unit development. Suburban residential areas have urban
characteristics with a rural lifestyle. Minimum lot size shall
be 20,000 sq. ft. where alternative on-site sewer disposal
systems are proposed. Mobile home parks by conditional use.
Rural Residential: I acre-2.5 acres
Promotes and protects low density residential neighborhoods that
exist in harmony with the natural environment. Promotes a rural
residential lifestyle by protecting environmental values.
Permits a variety of housing choices and accessory activities.
Country Estate: 2.5 acres-5 acres
Combination of large undeveloped areas with potential for
agriculture or forestry. Encourages large lot residential.
Wetland Residential: 5 acre minimum with lot size of non-
wetland area 30,000 sq. ft. contiguous.
Encourages residential development in harmony with wetlands.
Wetlands shall not be regarded as deterrants to residential
development, but regarded as an important factor in retaining the
rural character of the Peninsula. Lot size, setback and frontage
shall be determined to be of sufficient dimension to insure these
values without exception.

Goals:

1. Ensure that development has minimal -1mpact on and is
compatible with the natural environment utilizing standards that
insure high quality development.

2. Promote and ensure the low density rural neighborhood and
open space lifestyle of the Peninsula.

3. Maintain the single family character of neighborhoods and
communities throughout the Peninsula.

Policies:

1. The actual lot size shall be controlled by the existing or
subsequent zoning regulations.

2. The density for residential areas shall be determined in part
by size necessary to provide sewerage and water as per Health
Dept. standards., The plan gives high priority to the protection
of surface and ground water.

3. Any rural residential subdivision proposing to locate adjacent
to an aquac.ultural or agricultural area shall be reviewed to
assure that the proposal does not -interfere with farming
practices common to that area. Farming practices shall have
priority rights in case of later conflicts.

4. Ensure that requirements for roadways are in keeping with the
rural context of the community. (see circulation element)

5. Include storm water management requirements in residentiai
developments to ensure that important natural drainage ways and
associated steep slopes, wetlands, floodplains and erosion areas
are maintained in open space. This -is necessary to reduce the
problems of flooding, erosion, and water pollution.

6. Discourage filling of wetlands for residential or commercial
development.

7. Require the use of underground utilities to future service
areas.

8. Mob4le homes as a viable housing resource shall be provided
for in the zoning ordinance. Zoning shall identify specific
areas for location of mobile homes.

9. Encourage the establishment of community desdgn review boards
in areas wishing to form design districts.

COMMERCIAL AREAS

Commercial land use designations are divided into two
classifications: General Commercial and Community Commercial.
These areas are located within the incorporated cities of Long
Beach and Ilwacotand the unincorporated area of Seaview, Ocean
Park, Surfside and Nahcotta and clustered along Hwy 103. (See
land use designation map) General Commercial provides for the
location of enterprises of an intensive nature and more auto-
oriented services or activities. Community Commercial provides
for the location of enterDrises oriented more to the,local
community such as professional or personal services, incidentals,
etc.

Goal:

1. To emphasize loca-1 business development through the expansion
of existing businesses and the start-up of new businesses which
enhance the community.

Policies:

1. Commercial develoDments should be designed and constructed to
enhance public safety and access. Such considerations as
lighting, information signing, access and special improvements to
accommodate the handicapped should be included as part of
commercial area development.

2. Provide clustered commercial services within non-urban areas
appropriate to serve the needs of rural residents.

3. Commercial areas shall be identified along Hwy. 103 in the
zoning regulations. Cluster commercial services along Hwy. 103.
(See land use designation map)

4. Provide for common off-street parking designed for maximum
public safety where peak use and access times vary and are not in
conflict.

5. Encourage the -1mprovement of the physical appearance of
existing commercial areas and consider appearance in all new
developments.

6. Buffers shall be provided by commercial developers between
commercial areas and adjacent residential areas in order to
provide buffering between these potentially incompatible 'Land
uses.

7. Establish community design review boards in areas wishing to
form design districts.

j4 15

INDUSTRIAL AREAS

Present conditions demonstrate inadequate provisions for the
siting of industrial uses and activites.. The Zoning Atlas
provides five sites; two sites are near Nahcotta; two sites are
around Ilwaco, and the third location is at the 101 intersection
two miles east of Seaview. The present industrial dlLstricts do
not adequately serve the need for small-scaled, general
industrial enterprises such as fiberglass boat shops, auto body
repair shops, scrap metal recycling yards,junk collections and
recycling, cement plants, woodworking and building contractor
shops and similar uses and activities. Part of the problem with
the present distribution and siting of industrial locations is
that the land is owned by relatively few individuals and
businesses already occupy the prime ground.

The Comprehensive Plan continues to encourage the grouping
of general industrial uses and activities on land that has
minimal impact on established residential neighborhoods. Where
the boundary of an industrial district abuts residential
districts, the Plan requires adequate buffers to protect property
values from-noise, obnoxious odors, traffic and emissions of any
kind. Similarly, the siting of general industrial districts are
discouraged-where the tourism economy will be materially
affected. Siting of new industrial districts consistent with the
.guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan may also include areas
within older, undeveloped plats.

Long Beach Peninsula's unique economic base sets apart
certain industrial uses and activities that resist grouping and
separation in general industrial districts. Oyster processing
plants and fish processing plants are located around the two Dort
basins in harmony with commercial uses and activities. The Ocean
Spray trucking facility is located in an Agricultural District.
Custom canneries, bakeries and similar enterprises responding to
the four major economic segments of the Peninsula economy are
Aocated outside the Industrial District. The Comprehensive Plan
recognizes this unique relationship and encourages controls for
siting appropriate enterprises. 7he deviation from locating
these enterprises in industrial districts must observe goals and
policies that prevent incompatibility. The enterprise must not
promote conditions that work against the Plan's general goals and.
policies of this section. Performance standards should be
developed for location of these industries outside industrial
districts.

Goal:

1. To provide areas suitable for industry that are in keeping
with the needs and values of the community.

Policies:

1. Industrial zone areas-Areas which are not presently adequately
served with utilities necessary for industrial development and
yet which offer potential for future industrial development due
to topography, access, and existing.land use pattern, should be
identified and protected for future industrial use.-,

2. Land identified for water-related industry shall be used for
industries specifically dependent on waterfront sites.

3. Encourage light industrial activities which imDlement the
existing economic base, and group them together near growth
areas.

4. No one industry should interfere with the economic viability
of other vulnerable uses.

5. Industrial developments and commercial storage yards shall be
appropriately sight-screened as determined by the Planning
Department.

Supporting Publications

The following chart is an index to the plans and studies
which address the proposed general distribution, general
location and extent of land use on the Long Beach Peninsula. The
index also includes references to recommended population density
and building intensity, supporting maps, diagrams, charts,
descriptive material and reports. The abbreviations used below
include: PLUP-1971 Preliminary Land Use Plan, Pacific County;
and WQMP-1974 Water Quality Management Plan, Willapa Basin.

;0 17

INDEX

Land Use Category Criteria Appropriate Text

a. Agriculture PLUP-Ch. V PLU P-pg. 111-28 & 29
plates 111-6 & VI-3
WQMP-pg. =-47 & 51
table 111-53 & plate
!1!-!6
b. Housing PLUP-Ch. V
PLUP-page,!V-1,
appendix IV,plate VI-3
WQMP- pg. 111-63 to 76
c. Commerce PLUP-Ch.V PLUP-Ch.I1I, plate V1-3
appendix 1V
WQMP-pg. 111-32 to III-
54
d. Industry PLUP-Ch.V PLUP-appendix IV
WQMP-plate IV-!
e. Recreation PLUP-Ch. V PLUP-pg. 1II-1.1 to !I!-
13, plate VIL
f. Education PLUP-Ch. V PLUP-Chapter V!
g. Public Blgs.
& Lands PLUP-Ch. V PLUP-Ch. 1V & VI
plate IV
h. Historic PLUP-Ch. V Oysterville HJLstoric
Ordinance & Architec-
tural Guidelines

ECONOMICS AND NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT

The economy of the Long Beach Peninsula is closely tied
to its natural resources. Four main economic drivers on
the Peninsula are the Oystering and Fisheries industry,
the Cranberry Industry, Tourism and the Second or Vacation Home
Industry and the Retirement Industry.

Oystering is the oldest ongoing commercial activity in
Pacific County. Willapa Bay, the cleanest estuary in the nation,
has a high percentage of its total area devoted 41-0 aquaculture
The oyster industry is a major employer on the Peninsula.

Commercial fishing, primarily gillnetting and crabbing, have
historically been and should increasingly be a valuable
contributor to the county commerce due to enhancement and the
exclusion of the Bay from the Bolt Decision.

-a Basin breakwater and
Bottom fishing on or near the Nahcott
localized crabbing provide the major sport fishing opportunity on
the Bay.

The Ilwaco and Chinook Port Basins and the jetty on the
Columbia River, however, do provide a major attraction for sports
fishermen. This area and the nearby Fort Canby State Park bring
a considerable number of tourists to the area. The sturgeon
sport catch has increased and now brings in approximately 20% of
early charter season revenues. A sturgeon enhancement program
should be supported.

The Cranberry Industry is a major cash crop on the
Peninsula. The first planting of cultivated cranberries in the
state of Washington was near Long Beach in 1883. The bounty from
approximately 450 acres of Peninsula bogs accounts for roughly
25% of the state's cranberry crop. The state harvest is usually
about 5% of the national crop.

Tourism and the Second Home Industry is another of the large
economic drivers. Tourists are-attracted to the Peninsula by
such natural features as the nation's 'Longest beach, the dunes,
pristine lakes and parks, the sports fishing, clam digging, and a
variety of locally organized icestivals, famous eateries, and a
rich history.

Another major industry on the Peninsula is the Retirement
Industry. Over one half of the year-around residents on the
Peninsula are retired. The retirement industry sustains local
service related businesses, nursing homes arid other related
services all year, when many of the visitors have gone home.

Planning to protect and enhance these important industries
is a major goal of the Comprehensive Plan.

THE ECONOMY

Goals:

1. Promote economic development that complements the fisheries,
agriculture., retirement and tourist resources.

2. Encourage future Peninsula commercial growth in designated
areas capable of supporting private or municipal utilities (i.e.,
sewage treatment, water, garbage)

objective:

1. Encourage the efforts of the Pacific County Economic
Development Council and coordinate with long range planning
efforts.

Policies:

Oysters and Fisheries
1. Protect the Bay from incompatible uses and influences
harmful to the environment.
2. Provide educational information and programs about Willapa
Bay and the Columbia River estuaries.
3. Point out the necessary restrictions on use of the Bay.

Agriculture
1. Preserve agricultural areas and buffer from other uses.
2. Provide educational information and programs about the
unique cranberry industry.

Retirement
1. Promote the Peninsula as a place to retire.
2. Encourage appropriate services for the elderly.
3. Encourage adequate graduated health care or specialized
health care facilities.
4. Provide for retirement communities in the urban area.

Tourism
1. Promote organized tour groups to the various Peninsula
L
industries (cranberries, oysters, fishing etc.)
2. Advertise and point out attractions of the area as well as
restrictions.
3. Provide scenic areas and/or vistas from which tourists can
enjoy the Bay.
4. Consider Will@Lpa Bay's commercial activities, aquaculture,
fishing, crabbing, etc. as a unique tourist attraction in itself
as opposed to a highway or prime fishing ground.
5. Identify areas where tourist-related business such as hotels,
and a convention center big enough to handle large groups may
locate.
6. Develop nature and bicycle trails in coordination with the
ongoing flood control district projects.

General economic policies:

1. Provide clustered commercial services within non-urban areas
appropriate to serve the needs of rural residents. (See land use
designation map.)

2. Encourage the improvement of the physical appearance of
existing commercial areas and consider appearance in all new
developments.

3. Access to and provisions for utilities, roads, and parkJ.-Ig
shall be made by the developer.

4. Enforce existing regulations for off-premise advertising.

5. Investigate new methods of waste treatment and disposal
(incineration, mulch, state of the art) with a strong effort
to avoid contamination of the Bay and groundwater. Identify
areas that may be needed for a future sewer system in the north.

6. Promote the location and design of well-balanced and
compatible commercial and service activities.

7. Ensure that no one industry shall interfere with the
economic viability of other vulnerable uses.

8. Enhance capabilities in water, sewer and power utilities
in the growth area.

9. Promote historical and cultural aspects of the Peninsula.
(see Heritage section)

NATURAL RESOURCES

Goals:

1. Establish and maintain the conditions required in order to
derive the maximum benefits from the Willapa Bay and Columbia
River estuaries as aquatic resources.

2. Protect surface and subsurface water resources.

3. Encourage preservation of open space.

4. Protect the estuaries and their contiguous wetlands.

Objectives:

1. Form a regional authority of county, city, and local entities
to coordinate projects dealing with ground water quality and
quantity and Willapa estuary management.

2. Develop an active program for informing the citizens of the
Peninsula about the value and nature of natural resource
management activities on the Peninsula and how they can help
encourage the effective management of the Peninsula's naturaL
resource base. (i.e. the dunes,lakes, wetlands, bay, ocean and
river.)

3. Create a management and development plan for the dunes.

4. Develop mapping of wetlands and provide standards for
development where alterations are permitted by use approval.

5. Periodically monitor the use of pesticides on the Peninsula
and in the Bay.

6. Begin a ground and surface water monitoring system on the
Peninsula.

Policies:

1. All activities conducted within the wetlands and shorelands of
Willapa Bay shall be done in such a manner to protect the water
quality and productivity of the estuary.

2. Designate open space to protect scenic view, buffer
agricultural areas from urban encroachment, and protect
significant natural resources.

3. Regulate filling and drainage consistent with surface and
sub-surface water protection goals.

4. Include natural areas in developments, logging areas, and
along highways.

5. Maintain existing open space areas including wetlands and
woodlands.

6. Identify and conserve the existing agricultural lands of the
Peninsula.

7. Maintain incentives for preserving open space through the
Open Spaces Taxation Law of 1970.

8. Provide incentives to small landowners who wish to protect and
preserve certain identified land not covered by the Open Space
Taxation law.

9. Provide a means for every resident to contribute to the
preservation and enhancement of the environment.

10. Increase public awareness of and involvement in the
development of any major activity which could impact the natural
resource base of the Peninsula.

11. Increase public awareness of and involvement in surface and
subsurface water issues through ongoing educational programs.

12. Pursue coordination among the Peninsula area's water
utilities with respect to service areas, design standards,
interties, and possible cooperative or joint-use of facilities.
(Reference 1985 Coordinated Water System Plan)

13. Promote long term planning and need identification to assure
potable water for the Peninsula.

14. Promote the use of surface recharge areas in new developments
and existing developments where practical.

15. Limit the expansion and installation of wells before the
ground water resources become overtaxed.

16. Promote adequate, controlled surface water management.

WETLANDS ELEMENT

The term "wetlands" encompasses a variety of wet
environments-coabtal and inland marshes, wet meadows, mudflats,
ponds, bogs, and wooded swamps. Wetlands are precious resources
that provide wildlife habitat, purify polluted waters, reduce
flood and storm damage, and provides recreational activities.

It is difficult for the individual to-appreciate the
economic value of wetlands when it presents itself as the major
physical limitation to development of private property. A
satelite view of the Long Beach Peninsula helps to put wetlands
in perspective. Wetlands are one of the visual elements that
physically separate communities. They are open spaces that
contribute to the Peninsula's rural character. Wetlands provide
the organic material that is at the base of the food chain. The
economic value of wetlands represented in these examples cannot
be measured or seen. They benefit the Peninsula, but the do-ilar
value to the property owner is hard to determine.

In order to provide consistency in wetlands management on
the Long Beach Peninsula, inventory mapping of the various
'categories of wetlands is needed. With adequate mapping,
confusion among landowners and inconsistencies by regulators can
be avoided. This Plan suggests there be three categories of
wetlands identified on the Peninsula and they be regulated with
different intensity. These categories are: 1. Wetlands that are
physically connected with Willapa Bay and/or contribute to
bayward drainages; 2. Interior wetlands with no outlet or which
drain to the ocean; 3. Ocean and interdunal wetlands.

The Comprehensive Plan promotes regulation which protects
and preserves the wetlands that physically connect with Willapa
Bay. These wetlands include the tidal flats, salt marshes, bogs,
swamps and open water areas that discharge to Willapa Bay. These
wetlands are storage reservoirs for excess flood waters, they
dilute pollutants carried in surface runoff, and they'provide
organic production utilized at the base of the food chain and
eventually by shellfish and finfish. it is imperative that land
use decisions recognize the sensitive relationship of these
wetlands to the preservation of water quality in the Bay.

Interior wetlands and lakes that are not physically
connected to Willapa Bay and drain to the ocean or have no out'Let
are the second category. These systems recharge the Peninsula's
ground water aquifer, provide wildlife habitat, act as flood
water reservoirs and contribute to the open space feel of the

Peninsula. Development near these wetlands shall include
adequate lot size, setbacks, frontage and sewage disposal systems
to prevent ground or surface water contamination of these
wetlands.

The third category of wetlands are those that occupy the
ocean dune system. It is recognized that these wetlands have the
least affect, if any, on the Willapa Bay estuary. The Plan
provides for modification of these wetlands consistent with
established federal and state standards for mitigation. The
intent is to provide for development flexibility in the ocean
environment, while still protecting the important wetland areas
and the habitat of endangered species. Some policies for this
category are included, but indepth study by a Dunes Management
Committee will undoubtedly expand on the land use policies of
this area.

Goals:

1. Protect the estuaries and their contributory wetlands.

2. Encourage preservation of open space.

3. Ensure that important natural drainage ways and associated
steep slopes, wetlands, floodplains and erosion areas are
maintained in open space.

4. Allow development within the Wil1apa Bay drainage basins
ensuring that the water quality and productivity of the Bay wil--
not be diminished.

5. Encourage water-dependent land uses in wetland areas.

Objectives:

1. Do an inventory mapping of Peninsula wetlands and develop
regulations for the three separate categories.

2. Adopt within the Shoreline Master Program as Associated
Wetlands of Willapa Bay all waterways draining to Willapa Bay and
the wetlands contributing water to these drainage courses and
manage accordingly.

3. Begin a monitoring system to check for suspected hazardous
A
chemicals that may be contamining the fresh water aquifer and/or
surface water drainages to Willapa Bay.

10 25

Policies:

The following policies are to be implemented along with the
Shorelines Master Program policies for wetlands. Wetlands shall
be categorized by their individual characteristics and their
relationship to Willapa Bay.

Category 1: Willapa Bay and associated wetlands

1. All wetlands on bayward drainages shall be considered
associated wetlands of Willapa Bay. (and subject to the
Shorelines Master Program)

2. Tidal wetlands and salt marshes shall be protected from
developments or uses which would change their natural character.

3. Filling or draining of wetlands on all direct drainages and
those contributing water to the Bay shall require a substantial
development permit.

4. Expansion or maintainence of water-denendent agricultural,
aquacultural, non-polluting light industrial and commercial
activities are considered acceptable uses of wetlands.

5. Wetland residential shall be considered an acceptable use
except in tidal wetlands and salt marshes.

6. Filling in associated wetlands or waterward of the ordinary
high water mark to provide for soil absorption systems
(drainfields) or for the purpose of meeting setback requirements
shall be prohibited.

7. All commercial and recreational vessels using the estuary
shall be fitted with chemical sanitation devices (porta-potties).

8. Use of non-approved heavy metal based and toxic based
antifouling bottom paints shall be banned.

9. Encourage the Port of Peninsula to take immediate steps to
provide for disposal of sewage and waste from marine traffic and
industrial complexes using that Port's facility.

10 Wetlands in this category shall be declared "environmentally
sensitive areas."

11. Junk yards, recycling yards without water impoundment, and
new sewage discharge outfalls are prohibited in this category.

10 26

Category 2: Interior wetlands draining to the ocean, or
having no outlet

1. The reduction of surface area and volume of the wetland shall
be minimized in the location and design of facilities requiring
fill.

2. Filling in associated wetlands or waterward of the ordinary
high water mark to provide for soil absorption systems
(drainfields) or for the purpose of meeting setback requirements
shall be prohibited, except that on existing dry uplands, fill
may be placed for the purpose of constructing a mound system, as
required by local health regulations.

3. Mitigation for development shall include wetland enhancement
such as open water restoration and wildlife protection.

Category 3: Ocean and interdunal wetlands

1. Future development shall mitigate any activity which will
cause degradation or a sudden profound change in the wetland or
degrade the health, safety or welfare of current residents of the
area.

2. Encourage buying of development rights in these areas to
provide a means for incorporating smaller parcels into a larger
overall development plan and facilitate mitigation.

Other general wetland policies

1. Develop a mitigation process to encourage or, where
appropriate, require public easements to provide for the long
term maintenance of drainage ways and ground water recharge
areas.

2. Enforce a building setback standard to protect designated
open space from development. (See Shorelines Master Program)

3. Review designated open space for possible recreational use.

4. Land use activities and development proposals shall be
closely reviewed for impacts on the natural renewable and non-
renewable resources on the Peninsula.

5. Promote site planning and community design review which gives
regard to the natural environment, the creative and innovative
project design, and the character of surrounding neighborhoods
and consider the Peninsula community.

6. Uses permitted adjacent to wetlands shall control storm water
runoff.

7. Mitigation shall include control of storm water, lot size and
densities, and incorporate septic systems that prevent any ground
water or surface water contamination from effecting wetlands.

8. An overlay mapping wetland areas of the Peninsula should be
used to modify development potential. This is not a zoning
classification which regulates densities or uses. Rather it
would create a management system designed to address specific
concerns for wetland areas.

CIRCULATION ELEMENT

Appendix IV is an envelope which contains a map entitled
Peninsula Circulation Plan. The map illust-rates the major
circulation system for the Peninsula. This Plan eliminates the
proposed contiguous north-south road in the center of the
Peninsula included in previ4ous.plans. T"his road is inconsistent
with the long range goals of the Peninsula to promote a rural
future.

Goals:

1. Promote a balanced transportation system.

2. Promote improvements to the existing road network.

Policies:

1. Promote a standard right-of-way width for various road
classifications.

2. Utilize historic street names in addition to an organized
numbering system in historic districts.

3. Maintain present number of beach access roads.

4. Wherever designated arterials exhibit substandard
right-of-way width, maintain a building setback which would
facilitate acquisition of additional right-of-w'ay with fair
market value compensation to property owners.

5. Require developers of new subdivisions and/or short plats to
dedicate right-of-way and construct public roads for access
compatible with existing roads and road plans.

6. Maintain and improve the existing north-south arterial
network.

7. Maintain an adequate public transportation system.

8. Consider an overflow roadway west of Hwy 103. Maintain
setbacks for widening Hwy. 103 for future 'Lanes.

9. Eliminate the previously proposed road ILn State Parks wetland
areas near Skating Lake and Loomis Lake.

10. Encourage the development of bicycle trai'Ls along main
arterials and other areas of the Peninsula.

References: Plans which address the general location, alignment
and extent of roads, trunk utility lines, and major-terminal
facilities are the 1971 Preliminary Land Use Plan, 1974 Water
Quality Management Plan, Willapa Basin, and the Long Beach
Peninsula Circulation Plan.

RECREATIONAL ELEMENT

The Comprehensive Plan treats recreation at two levels:
tourism and community living. As an economic ingredient to
tourism, there is an effort to direct the location and intensity
of recreational uses and activities. High density recreational
uses and activities are directed toward the Pacific ocean half
of the Peninsula in areas capable of present and future public
sewerage. The least intrusive recreational uses and activities
are directed toward the Willapa Bay side of the Peninsula.

At the second level, the Comprehensive Plan addresses the
community fitness and health needs for recreational facilities
and programs. The Plan finds that recreational improvements have
been directed at a tourism population and the needs of Peninsula
communities have been neglected. The Plan recommends
amplificati*on of the recreational element for siting and
development of day use parks, ball fields and community
facilities for the recreational needs of Peninsula residents.

'Goals:

1. Promote recreational opportunities that enhance the enjoyment
and appreciation of the natural environment, wildlife and their
habitat.

2. Encourage the development of a recreational plan to address
local Peninsula community needs.

Policies:

1. Identify and preserve the valuable recreational, historical
and cultural resources of the Peninsula.

2. Assure public access to recreation areas.

3. The county should work closely with other agencies with
jurisdiction over the recreational areas on the Peninsula to
assure responsible and consistent regulation.

4. Location of parks and trail systems on the Peninsula should be
in areas where they do not interfere materially or socially with
the production, harvesting and processing of agricultural,
aquacultural, fisheries and non-renewable natural resources.

5. Maintain adequate public access to the beach and ensure
responsible, regulated beach driving.

6. All future development proposals should be monitored and
checked for impacts on the existing recreational facilities of
the area.

7. Identify and maintain waterways for public use (canoes, nature
trails, etc. in coordination with the ongoing flood control
district projects.)

8. Encourage the development of bicycle trails along,the main
arterials and other areas of the Peninsula.

9. Encourage the Port of Peninsula to improve the public's
access to the Bay with such things as boardwalks, a fishing
pier, and other enhancements.

10. Develop active day use parks and public facilities on the
Peninsula.

HISTORICAL ELEMENT

General Historical goals:

1. Preserve the cultural heritage of the Peninsula.

2. Protect historic places and districts from incomDatible
development.

3. Identify and preserve sites and structures of archeological,
architectural and historic significance to the Long Beach
Peninsula.

Objectives:

1. Complete a countywide Historical Freservaton Plan.

2. Encourage the development of Long Beach Peninsula Historical
.Guides.

3. Encourage the formation of historic districts in various
areas of the Peninsula.

Policies:

1. All proposed subdivision applications should be reviewed by
the Planning Commission for possible impacts on historical
buildings and sites.

2. The owners of historically significant buildings and
residences should be encouraged to rehabilitate and otherwise
maintain and enhance their properties in a manner which reflects
their architectural and historic design.

3. The Oysterville Historic District shall be preserved as a
unique cultural resource.

OYSTERVILLE PRESERVATION ELEMENT

The Oysterville Preservation element improves the efforts of
the Oysterville community to preserve the residential character
and historic nature of their district. The goals and policies
which best promote the-desired future are as follows:

Goal:

1. Preserve the Oysterville Historic District as a unique
cultural resource.

Policies:

1. Maintain the rural lifestyle of Oysterville.

2. Avoid incompatible development.

3. Establish criteria for new construction or architectural
modification within the Oysterville Historic District.

4. Preserve the economic value of the Oysterville Historic
District to surrounding convenience centers.

Supporting Publications:

Oysterville Historic District Ordinance #67 with map,
labeled Exhibit "A" which illustrates the physical boundaries of
the district, and the oysterville Architectural Guidelines manual
provide the necessary parts for an Oysterville Preservation Plan.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT ELEMENT

The citizens of the Long Beach Peninsula believe in their
area and have hope for its future. Although the County may face
financial difficulties at times, it is the hope that with
creative ideas and cooperative efforts we can reach the goals set
forth in this Plan.

The intent of this section is to emphasize the importance of
a strong,-well-organized county Planning Department and
representative Planning Commission to carry out the policies of
this Plan and subsequent zoning ordinances. The citizen planning
task force is interested in working with county employees and
elected officials to make our Planning Department efficient,
fair, and responsive to the concerns of the public it serves.

Goals:

1. Support as high priority a County Department of Planning
.which will coordinate and enforce all county land use plans and
ordinances in a responsive and professional manner.

2. Carry out a consistent Peninsula land use policy divorced
.C
Irom politics, favoritism, and short term crisis modification.

3. Ensure that the desired future expressed in this
Comprehensive Plan for the Long Beach Peninsula is understood and
implemented through necessary official action by the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners.

4. Ensure equal, responsible representation for the Long Beach
Peninsula unincorportated areas on the County Planning
Commission.

5. Encourage the Prosecutor's office to enforce land use
regulations and ensure financial backing to follow through.

Objectives:

1. Provide adequate funding for the Planning Dept. to carry out
efficient and effective planning for the Long Beach Peninsula.

2. Restructure the enforcement of land use laws. Some
suggestions to consider:
a. Give the Planning Director authority to impose an
administrative fine on violators under the zoning ordinance.
b. Direct a percentage of the permit fees toward
enforcement.
C. Hire adeputy prosecutor to work only on land use cases.
d. Use recovered civil penalties for enforcement.
e. Hire adequate personnel to ensure enforcement.
3. Hire adequate staff to seek state and federal grants for
projects that will maintain surface water qualit-,7 and prevent
ground water contamination on the Long Beach Peninsula.

4. Appoint a Planning Commission member who will represent the
unincorporated north end of the Peninsula.

5. improve the permit system to make applicants responsible for
the accuracy of information included on the application with
penalties chargeable for false information. Require signature
under oath.

FUTURE PLANNING NEEDS ELEMENT

Though the Citizen Planning Task Force spent over a year
working to develop this Comprehensive Plan for the Long Beach
Peninsula, we recognize that there are still areas that require
further planning'efforts to address specific needs not covered in
this document. It is our intent in this element to identify such
needs and give some direction to other citizen groups and the
planning department for continuing the planning process we have
begun. Public input at two public hearings on this plan raised
many of the concerns included in this element.

1. Need to amplify the urban situation in Ocean Park and
Seaview.
a. Do the communities want commercial growth'@ if so, what
type of growth? Where?
b. What zoning changes are needed to address the growth
policies?
C. is the area interested in long range urban
improvements?
d. What do Seaview residents think about annexation? What
policies do they want to include about this issue?
e. What do Seaview residents think about residential
development to the west?
f. What do Ocean Park residents think about their
residential area? Are there improvements they want made?
g. What do Ocean Park residents think about incorporation?

2. Need to identify specific areas for industrial use following
the policies set by this Plan.
a. Where should industry locate on the Peninsula?
b. What zoning changes are required?

3. Need to follow up on the wetlands element with inventory
mapping.

4. Need to evaluate taxation systems for and placement of mobile
homes on the Peninsula.
a. Look into a new taxing system to assure that mobile
homes are paying valuations consistent with the cost of services.
b. Identify areas for mobile home parks.

4. Other needs may be identified in the future.. This Plan is
designed to be a guide and adapt to community changes. Using
representative citizen groups to address these unforeseen needs
will ensure public input to and acceptance of future policies.

LONG BEACH PENINSULA POPULATION

The 1980 census was the first time population information
was presented for a census division that corresponded to the
geographic area that is commonly known as Long Beach Peninsula.
The Peninsula Division (census division 021-) includes the Town of
Ilwaco, the Town of Long Beach, Ocean Park and Seaview. The
Pacific Ocean borders the west, Willapa Bay borders the north and
east along with Bear River, Highway 101 and Willicut River. The
Columbia River borders the south. Census information for 1970 and
1960 was not comparable. During these years, the Peninsula was
part of two smaller divisions which together included Chinook.

1980 Census

The 19-80 census for the Peninsula Division was 5,425
persons. The housing count was 5,575 housing units (HU).
Table I provides a basis for comparing population and housing for
the entire county and the incorporated municipalities.

TABLE 1

Total Pop. Total HU Average Pop/HU

Pacific Co. 17,237 10,949 2.44
Ilwaco 604 331 2.27
Long Beach 1,199 893 2.18
Raymond 2,991 1,285 2.47
South Bend 1,684 742 2.48
Peninsula Div. 5,426 5,575 2.19

The average population per housing unit was dete'rmined by
dividing total population by total occupied housing units. Total
occupied housing units reflect housing units that were occupied
during the time of the census. Hence, vacant and vacation
housing units are excluded from total occupied housing units.
The lower figure in average population per housing unit is an
indicator of a community with an older population age structure.
This is confirmed by calculations of median age. Pacific
County's median age is 35.9 years; 34.5 years for males and 38.2
years for females. The Peninsula Division median age is 47.9
years; 45.2 years for males nad 50.0 years for females. In

comparison with the State's median age of 30.0 yearsL, the
Peninsula's population reflects a high proportion of people well
beyond the childbearing years. The highest frequency of males
and females occurs in the 65 to 74 year age bracket.
The census shows a high proportion of retired persons
residing in the Peninsula Division.. It also indicates that the
economic base does not hold and attract young working age people.

Population Estimate

Table 2 presents population estimates prepared by the
Washington State Office of Financial Management for selected
years between 1980 and 1985.

TABLE 2

Population Estimates for Selected Years

1980 1982 1984 1986

Pacific Co 17,237 17,700 17,700 17,500.
,Unincorp. 10,713 11,100 11,142 10,870
Incorp. 6,624 6,600 6,558 6,630
Ilwaco 604 590 588 695
Long Beach 1,243 1,350 1,335 1,330
Raymond 2,991 2,970 3,000 2,970
So. Bend 1,686 1,690 1,635 1,635

Table 3 presents housing unit estimates for the same
selected years.

TABLE 3

Housing Estimates for Selected Years

1980 1982 1984 1986

Pacific Co 10,949 11,414 11,817 11,897
Unincorp. 7,733 8,127 8,324 -0,357
Incorp. 3,216 3,287 3,493 3,540
Ilwaco 320 330 322 376
Long Beach 869 920 1,089 1,086
Raymond 1,285 1,285 1,326 1,,322--'

So. Bend 742 752 756 756
The tables show a population decrease between-1984 and
1985 throughout the county. During this same period, the
number of housing units increased. The official April 1,
1986 population forecast by OFM continued the downward
trend in estimating Pacific County's population. The estimate
for 1986 is 17,200 persons with 10,612 persons residing in
unincorporated areas and 6,588 persons residing in incorporated
areas.

Forecast

in 1985 the Office of Financial Management, Policy Analysis
forecasted Pacific County's population to the year 2000. A
partial reproduction of the forecast is shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Pacific County Population Forecast

1970 %Chg 1980 %Chg 1990 %Chg 2000 %Chg

15,796 7.65 17,237 9.12 !8,200 5.59 19,600 .69

The 1980 Peninsula Division census represented 31.5% of
the total county census. Based on this ratio of Peninsula
population to total county population, the 1990 Peninsula
population is estimated at 5,733 and the 2000 Peninsula
population is estimated at 6,174. These are only direct
proportions of the forecasted county population. A forecast of
the population for the Town of Ilwaco and the Town of Long Beach
should also use a direct proportion.

The forecast assumes a year around resident population.
Appraisal records show that 50% of parcels are owned by people
who reside outside Pacific County. The current estimate of
parcels in the Peninsula Division is 16,900. There are
approximately 33,000 parcels throughout the countly.

To better understand the human impact on the Peninsula,
it is important to note the effect that seasonal residents and
transients have on total population. it is difficult to assess
the exact population of the Peninsula during peak seasonal
periods, however, the 1974 Water Quality Management Plan for the
Willapa Basin included several tables estimating these peak
populations. The tables were based on 1970 Census projections,

the Battelle report on the Peninsula, a 1972 land use survey,
and on assumed yearly growth rates of 7% between IS70 and
1980 and 3.5% between 1980 and 2000. Table 5 shows the peak
projected community populations for the Peninsula including
Ilwaco. (from Table 111-46 of the WQMP) it should be noted that
these projections were high due to the nature of that plan.

TABLE 5

Total Peak Projected Peninsula Populations

1973 i985 2000

Permanent Pop. 4,381 6,785 7,256

Seasonal Pop.
Residential 2,817 8,225 13,416

Transient 4,725 10,6411 9,873

Totals 11,923 25,651 30,545

An examination of Pacific County's building permit record
since November of 1981 shows a total of 242 new housing units
built on the Long Beach Peninsula. This record is current
through February of 1987. The Oysterville-Surfside segment of
the Peninsula had the highest frequency of new construction at 37
units. The next highest frequency of new construction occurred
in the Ocean Park-Nahcotta segment with 70 new housing units.
Between Cranberry Road and Klipsan Beach, 36 housing units were
built. The Ilwaco vicinity was issued 22 permits for new housing
units and Seaview was issued 17 permits.

July 14, 1.988

'To: Citizen's Planning Task Force

From.- Ardell

All Of You ShOUld be extremely proud -that at last we have a final
document to submit to the Planning Commission! It has been a
real privilege to work with such caring, dedicated people as
your-selves. I personally am re-inspired about Our democratic
system when citizens can come together from diverse points of
view and hammer out goals and policies to guide the future
direction of Our area. It's thrilling to know that we can make a
difference! Thank you all for Your ideas and time committment to
this important project!

Mark will. be making -the changes to the map we discussed last
night. I have made the additions and corrections to the document
and Submitted it back to Kathy to make copies. Those will be
sent to you when the complete pa0:.age is ready.

Please hold 7:30 pm, Thursday, August 25, 19BB at the Seaview
Peninsula Church Center for the public hearing before the
Planning Commission. I think it is important for members of the
task force to be present, even though they will be tai.-ing
testimony only on the plan. I+ the Planning Commission votes to
adopt 'the plan as written, it will then go to the County
Commi ssi oners.

Since the addition of the new items last night, some of -the pages
--the July I copy you now have. I thought it
will change from
would be helpful to include here the changes made and where they
will go in the te,..,,t so you can locate them when you get your new
final version.

Under Overall Land Development Subdivision Plat Review, pages 11
and 12 you will find the -following:

Policies added. (subsequent policies were then renuribered)

#22 Division of a parcel of land by short plat method as an
intent %to avoid long plat regulations shall not be allowed.

#11 Common Areas are encouraged within a development to preserve
or enhance k unique site feature such as views or water frontage.
The intent is to allow +or common community use. Common Area
designation will not be permitted to modify lot dimension

requirements, or as a means to avoid satisfying a building code
or zoning regulation-. This does not preclude -tile use of a
planned unit development.

After -the Subdivision section page 12, tile Permit policies were
added:

1. All permit applications must be accompanied by a detailed
statement of tile proposed intent +or development of the property.
The permit will be withdrawn if there is a change in any use or
intent as contained in the application statement.

-mits will not be issued separately from the
Sanitary per
building permit, but will be regarded as a check-off item of
approval in the process of obtaining a building permit.

Under tile Residential section, pg 17 add. (subsequent policies
renumbered)

.14- -ida ts
IT- Substar rd lo' (in terms of sewage, health and sanitary
I aws) :Lots under contigUOUS-ownership shall be combined to
reach as close to compliance with the prevailing health standards
as possible.

On page 35 County Government element the following policy was
added:

6. Before approving zone changes, variances or conditional use
permits, notice shall be sent to property owners within 300 ft.
of subject property, and advertised in the County newspaper.

You should receive the final copy of the plan soon along with tile
revised map and the appendices not included with the July I COPY.
The new copy will be dated July 15, 1988.

THANK YOU

ABSTRACT #3

TITLE: Long Beach Peninsula Dune Management Plan

AUTHOR: Ardell McPhail and the Dune Management
Committee

SUBJECT: Citizen's Planning Committee for the Dunal
area of the Long Beach Peninsula.

DATE: Feb. 1988 to June 1988

PARTICIPANTS: Department of Ecology, Pacific County
Planning and Health Departments, Ardell
McPhail and the Dune Management Task Force

PROJECT NUMBER: Amended #1 of Grant Number G0088027

SERIES NUMBER:

SUMMARY: In February of 1988 the Board of Pacific County
Commissioners appointed a 15-member Dune Management Task Force to
discuss management issues and develop a plan. The Task Force
began public meetings in mid-February at two week intervals. The
Planning process chosen by the group was two fold: First, a
public education series consisting of various expert speakers
addressing the group on current issues; secondly, group
dissemination and discussion of all material related to Dune
Management. A Draft Plan document is expected by the Winter of
1988.

The Dune Management project started as an outgrowth of the Long
Beach Comprehensive Plan Committee's recommendation to amplify
the Dune environment. The group is considering such issues as:
public access, dune grading, fire control, hunting and vehicular
parking. The process to date has proceeded into the second phase
of the project, as the group is now deciding broad based goals
and objectives. Major revisions and amendments to the Shoreline
Master Program are expected. The process will continue through
the Coastal Zone Management fiscal year of 1988-89. Final
adoption is anticipated by the Spring of 1989.

Page 2
Abstract 3

Exhibit #3

. List of Dune Management Appointed Members

. Dunes Issues Identified by Regional Group

. Summary Minutes, February 1988 to the present

DUNES MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE:

Joel Anderson Mike Parker
P.O. Box Box 56
Seaview, WA 98644 Oy*sterville, WA 98641
Kathleen Boyle Elizabeth Fenner C)
P.O. Box 54 30629 G St.
Seaview, WA 98644
Ocean Park, WA 98640

John Campiche Bob Schmidt
Box 515 P.O. Box
Long Beach, WA 98631 Seaview, WA 98644

Jim Hilderman
Rt 1 Box 71
Long Beach, WA 98631

Norman Grier
Box 141
Seaview, WA 98644

Lucille Pierce
Rt 1 Box 381-L
Ocean Park, WA 98640

Dorothy Hug, na
Rt I Box 418D 10
Long Beach, WA 98631

Pat Welling
Rt 1 Box 375
Ocean Park, WA 98640

Dick Hendrickson
Box 431
Ocean Park, WA 98640

Norma Walker
.Box 518
Ocean Park, WA 98640

Bob Andrew
Box
Ocean Park, WA 98640

Clay Balch
Box 585
.Oysterville, WA 98641

Dune Management Committee

Agenda February 16 preliminary meeting

1. Introductions and purpose

2. Best/Worst activity

3. Discussion of tentative timpline

4. Roles of committee, facilitator-, resource people

5. Discuss -for(nat for meetings- Phase I and Phase 11

6. Review agenda for Feb. 1q8 mpeting

7. Hand out briefing materials
(Battelle Study; iqSSUqe-S identified by regional
group, etc.)

qB. qe v i qe wissues briefly-. discuss prioritizing of issues to
deal with in -time fi-ame

9. Other items

LN6qUqIqIE 1,q5SUES qj.6qDENTIFIED BY F,,E6qGI0qONAqL_ GROUP
Dec. 196q87

EDUCATION

LacJ-.: of information on (Jume for(T-tqaqLiqon--qlqong ter-un
(Conflicts qimong experts)
Why preservc--@ the dunes?
Identify signific,-nce of dUns- physical & biological

LEGAL. / P0qOL.T. TICAL0qI ENFORCEMENT

Jurisdiction of various agenciec.,
Control from (:)UtSidtz@ grqoUqlDs rather than local Sierra Club etc.)
Unclear laws governing the dUCICIS
F"riva-qLe I.-jr-opqer-ty rigqFiqt VEW-SqUS public
-for consistent policies along dunes
Money & resources to solve problems.
Complicated sqoqlquql':ions, tqx) simple proql::)qIqems
Pciqlqitic.-.,A]./sc3(---:ial/cec.)graql-)qFic: interests may conflict
Clear-r-UqP/ littEJ-ing
HUI-Iting enforcement

ECONqO0qMIC/Eqi'qqVIR4qOiq41''IENI"0qAql-

Development. 01- qr3riflar-y dUne
qf-`.-qr-)j.ng dunes nqatLAIEkl
At::creted I ands-ownership?
Habiti-At protection
Economic b(--@nqeqfits from q&-_@vqelqopmnt ver-SUs natUral
Ar.qViiqte.,4qU.tral control &. char-@-ater of development
(bqlg. setbacks, view preiirvqatiori, clustering versus
spr;awql )
F'r-agility oqf er-vir--orif-itei'-t---(JeveltapiTiei-t pressure
AbUS Wiqthqil-I 0qMCF CqlUnes
C-eqmage disposal water supply
Wetlands protection/ ground water supply
Pqutb6qlq'iqc parking
Eq? eqa c h a qc qc e s s
Destroying Something that is irretrievable
Lq.aqc6qlqrq. of control over qnatUre
Blowing sand/ vegetative cover
Erosion potential
Salt water' intrUSion
HUman carrying capacity

SAFETY

Fire clqange-,r-
OR0qV'S irl CqlqUnes
TSqUncla0qd [email protected]
Flooding threat
InSUrqance qj.SSLte
Beach Driving
Hunting

ACTIVITIES

Sand removal.
Environmental alteration
Hunting
Littering
Beach driving into dUries,
ORV'--, in cqJt-tnp,::-

10 lei 6
WCA

Chinook Observer e i
County appoints... dune task force* memb e.'rs'
ELE
SOUTH BEND--Pacific County Ing Task Force thought the issue gathering. Owens is director of the' easier (dealing with just one area), CTI
commissioners on Feb. 1 appointed, could be better dealt with by a group Natural Resources and Community - btit'the may.be more controversy." Ocean Bea(
15 Peninsula citizens to serve on an that concentrates all of its efforts on Development for North Carolina. He ...re
ocean beach dune management com- that area alone, McPhail said. heads that state's coastal zone pro- Because of this, Markham said
mittee whose task will be to discuss The dune group will be funded ject. McPhail said there will be am- commissioners were cautious about PRECINCT
issues and develop a management mostly by the state Department of ple time for questions from the.. whom they appointed and tried to
plan for the Peninsula dune area. ' Ecology (DOE). The exact amount of public. balance the appointments between
I Members of the newly formed com- money the agency will provide has County. Commissioner Dan'l' the different interest groups. 441t'S a Chinook
mitee Include Joel Anderson, not, been determined, but state of- Markham and McPhail expect the good, broad representation," he said.
Kathleen Boyle, Dr. John Campiche, ficials have committed to providing": task will not be an easy one to fulfill. The commissioner backed forma- Ilwaco
Jim Hilderman and Bob Schmidt, all some funding and participating in Said Markham: "When you discuss tion of the group because, he
of Sehview; Lucille Pierce, Dorothy writing the plan. an area that is so environmentally believes, "It's smart and prudent
Huggins and Pat Welling, all of Klip- McPhail expects the group to meet. fragile and so economically impor- thinking to have a plan rather than Long Beach
san Beach; Norma Walker, Dick every other week probably through tant, it equals controversy." have hit and miss chaos for the next
Hendrickson, 'Bob Andrew, all of June. She hopes the plan is complete Added McPhail: "It may be a little 20 years."i ... Nahcotta
Ocean Park; Clay Balch and by summer's end or early autumn.
Elizabeth Fenner, both of SurfsIde; She anticipates that six of th
'Human body part found on beach
and Michael Parker of Oysterville. meetings will be open to the public Ocean Park
The new group is a spinoff of the and will feature sDeakers. A Peninsula man found a human leg Feb. I on the ocean beach just north of
Citizens Planning Task Force, which'* An organizational meeting will be:' the Cranbetry Road approach, and local authorities believe the leg was that of Oysterville
recently completed a revision of the held Tuesday, Feb. 16. On Thursday, a Portland man who drowned Oct. 3 in the Picific'Ocean.
Peninsula's Comprehensive Plan, ac- Feb. 18 at 7 p.m., a public education According to Pacific County Sheriff's Deputy Dale Staudenraus, Hugh Wood
cording to Ardell McPhail, the Il- meetini has been scheduled t9 kick of Long Beach found the left leg while beachcombing in the afternoon. Pioneer
waco resident appointed by the com- -off the vrocess. The meeting will be While no official determiniation has been-made, Staudenraus said he and
missioners to serve as group coor-. at the Chautauqua Lodge in ; Long other officials are -99 percent sure" the leg was that of Mark Raz, who was a Seaview
dinator.*She served the planning task Beach.':' 31-year-old Portland landscaper. 7
force in the same capacity. A presentation entitled "An Over- Raz drowned after he apparently jumped into the ocean just south of North
.Writing a dune management plan view of Dune Management" by Davis Head on Oct. 3 in an attempt to rescue a 'married couple, who either fell or Naselle
is so complex that the Citizens Plann- M. Owens will be given at the Feb. 18 Were swept by waves into the ocean.
The couple, Na and Nong Neou of Hillsboro, Ore,,had apparently been Absentees
Corrections fishing in the area about 200 feet south of North Head. It is assumed both the
husband and wife drowned.
d-.' telephone Mrs. Burger at 642-2254. Staudenraus said Raz was reportedly wearing size 101/2 Nike sneakers tha TOTAL
.A Jan. 27 Observer notice regar t
ing a special education swimming were blue and white. The left leg found Feb. i had such a shoe on it, he said.
' - 'In the'Peb. 3 'Observer, a page 3
program contained an error. The ' story incorrectly listed the name of
notice should have said the program,.. Susan Overstreet Henry, an author Naselle-Grai
sponsoted by parents of Ocean Beach who graduated from Ilwaco High Coroner believes death. a"'Sluicide
special education students, needs School and who recently dedicated a Although no official determination ', discovery was made shortly before PRECINCT
Toney to operate for one weekly ses- book to three of her Ilwaco teachers. has been made, officials at the noon.oq Feb. 2.
sion this school year and money for Pacific County Coroner's Office
the entire 1988-89 school year. The Observer staff wants to make believe a 22-year-old Ocean Park Coroner Mike Sullivan said Kap- Nemah
Through the program, high school sure all information in the newspaper man died as the result of suicide by, pel apprarently hung himself with an @NeMaih
W
special education students have the is factually -correct. Readers who hanging. electrical cord. Authorities have Wahkiakum
opportunity to swim each Fridayi find mistakes that seriously alter the Sheriff's Deputy Dale Stuadenraus found no n-oie from Kappel and they
The program costs $35 each week. - meaning of any information should said a neighbor found the body of do not kn"o '@V fo-r'sure when tthee ddeathh At,
Contributions may be made to contact the Observer at'642-8181. A Monty P I pel Jr. hanging from a, occurred. They' speculate the Inci- A N tees
Beverly Bu Rt. 1, Box 48E, Long correction will be run as soon as tree in ded area just southeast' dent happened two or three days
Beach 986k__,4r more. Information, possible. - - - ..Iof Pad' - Pines State PArk. The bcfo!*!h1eLbody was dis-A)vered.

Dune Management Committee '88 JAN 27 AIqC .52

'q)gE
nda Febuary 11 pr-eqliiniin,=w-y meeting

1. Inq"Y-OdqUCtions and qPL.qWqPqO--@e

2. ativity
Di scus,L-3i on of at- i ve t i ivie' i riqe
I

4. Rol qes of C-ffifilqi t-qLee , f zc: i qI:i tatqor ,r@RRSqOUrC qPCiOqpql

5 Discuss qfor-qmzxt for' f-lee-tings- Phs-e I -,,n(J F:qI-,.,.Se -Tj

6. Review agenda for- Feb IS

7. Hand qOqUt bF-4=-lj.F,g ,
mEk t C@- qj,@A 1
(B,2'CteqlqlL Study,' i-s,uqei qid@-ntifqied by r-egion,1
gl- OU j) .. e t- C: )

q8. ROViqe14 i=SL,e= bi-i2flyq; discUS qrjrqi1--itqj.Zi,'-Q Oqf qi-;qUEiS to
d r? a Iq:qitqiI 41-1 tif,
a f r-

9. 0 -1- h ei - i 4C. z (r s

TENTATIVE TIME LINE

DUNES MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tues;d,@.ky, February 16 Preqlif-,-,inairy qme-&--,qtirig of

PHASE 1: Public Education meetings

(The first phase of this Dunes project -w-iqiqi qil"ClUde a series of
public edL1Ca-qJ%':'1.r1,- ','-etings an v,..,-j;.us tcnpics qo-F dttriqe
, -A C: 11 ..,Iir,.g will in-lUCTE, qspe:dkc--rs and A f0 the qPUqlic to
L-- I meE @ .. .q1 f i .- - I D
ask qu@&.-.sti ans. Following tqh public maqetin,gs, "Che CqILAIIFF,
management cqof-qwnittep will hold businE-- e P2 t J n g qe r s
w i q11 b 2 a. s. Ir- e d t o p r- (:,,/ i d e A.,. r i t t e n ma t er i A s L qh e, m J. t t f 1-1 aqy
U P f 0 1'- q5 t L d y b e t --.-j a n m, e e t- i n g

Febuary lc_:Ij' Overview of Dune management
Purpose for Developing a Plan
Private rights/public trust
qLl-,,..--id Clqwen, N-ot-11 f--,aiolinqa

Tuqe=dqaqy, qF11a:krqh; 1 Physicqal,@pror-qessqes of dunes
EV2 qgrE:,n StaqL2
6qCqo I. I eg
INary qB-,ig, Dcpt. oqf Ecology

Wledinqesdy, Ni.Ach 16 Coastal accretion & erosion
qJ-=@es Phqipps F--!,-L.ys Harb

'r Lt. C u: dz,. \7 qNrch 29 qJursidiction & Regulat-ions
P.trl ci-F' @acjc'!Icqy peoqpe

q7q1 e s dm., ArriJ.2 Groundwqa-er qan-4 W=4-1 qands
All qof qtEq.-q,q-q--4qo4qlqo6qg2qy

PHASE I!: Public Comment/ Committee Meetings

0 q-F qU d qUq. qS Rq-q4 aqkq! , a qrqi
qe I 1 1q.q. - q0 j qe
q0-
q6q1 qc 6qt "qt qw qc.q-qir 1 n qtqcj qo qe q-qL:q; qz e n m qnqi i 2qg eq- n qcq, b p u
i rq. t nq,- w 2qjq,q:) 2q1q:q3 qC? I" 2qPqL-qtbl i w i I I b In qv i; -6qL qe to
t h Cq@ q0 2 4 -q1
MC_qeti I
Th a q-:q; I-:;. zqe rq.q. 0qo a tAqj i g 0qo Lq.q.q4 j-q, 0qo !qD 6qW
L
T 4qal I< -')Lt an

2 qScq@q,q: qe
-q)4qp
R Cq: e qV4q'i qt q"q:q2 Uq. "q.q3 qe iq-
C i 18q1 qt h qP

p a n e 1 e u e
T 1 n @R I M@ Y C
E,,f i sti ng s i t- u i-a t i.D n '15
- t U i - - 4 -@-z <
Fu lfl(t-@ p0t!:@@ntjZ-kl d e m,.=t n, al & rE-gUlat
. tionTO
1-1 a 4- V p
@S and -.fip 1 i c a-l- i on s:
T en t a t ve adopt i on of alte: natives
- -I
P ,Z) 1 4 cy r- f=COMMEn-4;@,-@ i rins; to COUnt%,

Me-a'-;nc4 dates.
L@ 0
Apr i 1 26
Kay 12
May 2-4
Ad-7t.
,JLtt-',e 7
CUID,init 'to COUnt-Y Commiss"On..ers i n a un e

PHASE II: :PUBLIC!C4qDMMENT/ COMMITTEE MEETINGS

(The second .;phase of the dunes management project will be
the tqqorql..-. of the citizen committee. Agendas will be published in
tqhe newspaper. -rhe public will be invited -to maqke comments at
tqhe beginning of each Meeting. qTqhe citizen commi.qttee, will
generally follow a pattern as follows:
Tall,. about tqhe issue
Reach consensus on the issue
Ideas will be written down
Committee will review the written ideas

Meeting dates:

2qj0qLqkq@0qL0qqq@qLay_,_ q!qDp0qE_qL2qL 26
qj8qh_6qqqrqL6qq2qd_6qqy_.8qM0qAy 12
8qj0qu

Submit recommendations to County Commissioners in June.

TENTATIVE TIME LINE

DUNES MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, February 16 Preliminary meeting of committee
The Breakers

PHASE 1: PUBLIC EDUCATION MEETINGS

(The first phase of the Dunes project will include a series
Of public education meetings on various topics of dune
management. Each meeting will include speakers and a chance for
the public to ask questions. Following the public meetings, the
dunes management committee will meet briefly with the speakers
-for further questions and then hold a brief discussion relative
to the ne@,t public meet i n g. Speakers will be asked -to provide
written materials about their topic.)

Z" 04

lb ursday, Feb ruary IS 7:00 pm Overview a+ Dune
Chataquah Lodge Management and Planning/
6@2!5 Private Rights Versus
- Public Trust,
257@
David W. Owen, Director
North Carolina Coastal
Zone Project

uesday, March 1 7:00 pm Coastal Accretion and
Erosion, James Phipps,
Grays Harbor College

Wednesday, March 16 7:00 pm The Physical Processes o+
Dunes, Al Wiedemann,
Evergreen State College,
Mary Burg, Dept. of
Ecology
40 Tuesday, March 29 Jurisdiction and Reg-
ulations of Dunes,
Panel of agency people &
development interests

Tuesday, April 12 Groundwater and Wetlands
Al Wald, Dept. of Ecology

PUBLIC EDUCATION MEETING

FEBRUARY 10q8, 198B

7,-. 06q0 pm

Intrqadt-tc.-tion of qthc--@ Dunp FqT-o-qject- Dan'ql [email protected]
Wq!--iy we're forming committee Comini ssi (--)nc-r

Introduce Dui-q)es (-(.Nnmqit-q@ee

7 q1. ' 5 qS', qp e a I., qe rDavid W 6q0 n Director , North Carolina
Coastal qZai--iqe. F'r-(:.qje(::t
"Overview of Dune Management/ Private Rights
versus Public Trust"

0qQuqestqions from udiencp

q8,-45 qDreak

8:5(*.) ryiqe-qeting of the- qJ)Une Committee

Summary Minutes of Dunes Committee Mtq.
Feb. 16, 198B

Present were: Joel Anderson, Kathleen Boyle, John Campiche, Jim
Hilderman., Norm Brier, Lucille Pierce, Pat Welling, Dick
Hendrickson, Norma Walker, Bob Andrew$ Clay Balch, Mike Parker,
Bob Schmidt
Staff present: Mark Carey, Doug Canning, Len Nelson, Ardell
McPhail

Absent: Elizabeth Fenner, Dorothy Huggins

I. Dunes committee members introduced themselves and described
their interests in being on the committee.
2. Members were asked to write down what they think would be the
BEST thing to come out of this committee at the end of our work
and also what do they think would be the WORST thing to happen.
The following information was shared by the group:

BEST
Produce a document that provides specific environmental
protection guidelines and allows development within those
guidelines.

Policies to eliminate fire hazards in the dunes.
A full understanding of existing laws and a knowledge base
followed by implementation of existing and new laws preserving
the integrity of the dunes and compatible uses.
Achieve a balance between the use of land and the percent of
grOLIPS using the land. Something for everyone.
A clear definition of development policies with designated areas
for development and a focus an design.
General public awareness of dunes and their functions--a draft
plan protecting dunes -from destructive activities and correcting
past acts.

Preserve the beach for public use. An orderly plan for
development in the accretions considering transportation,
utilities and water levels.
An orderly plan for developing part of the accreted land keeping
the dune area in tack. Local (County) control over the area--.

A plan that incorporates-the facts and has teeth.
Preserve the dunes as they are now with emphasis on recreation C/I
and natural wonders. Building and development would Occur in an
,orderly line depending upon the availablity of sewage and water.

A plan that assures enforcement of the laws.

A better understanding of what a development is. What are
people's personal feelings about the dunes?.

A balanced plan which allows for uniform interpretation (simple)
and takes into account the economic future of the Peninsula and
protects private ownership rights.

WORST

Do nothing. No development of land. Outside control.

Lose public rights to beach use. No control over accretion land
devel opment.

Uncontrolled development with no policies.

Do nothing- a gridlock.

Special' interests swaying others and taking control away from
people an the Peninsula.

Bulldoze the dunes.

Development without policies-- uncontrolled utilization.

One-sided either way- Development or non-development

No controls over hunting.

Too general a,.document with no teeth.,

3. Next the group discussed a tentative timeline with two phases
of involvement. Doug described the speakers and programs that
were set up based upon information from a regional meeting held
here in December. These include a) Coastal Accretion and Erosion
b)The Physical & Biological Processes of DUnesq and c)Groundwater
and Wetlands. Other topics planned are: diJurisdiction and
Regulations of Dunes, e)Issues involving FEMA, flooding,
tsunami,etc. f) Economics of the Peninsula and where dunes.fit'
in.
The group generally agreed with the topics discussed.- Norm
said that Charlie Mikkala, Public Works, is interested in being
involved in the accretion program or have.a chance to speak to
the group. He has done considerable surveying of the area.

The group was asked to suggest other topics 'they would like
more information about. Mike said he would like to seqe someone
show good developments in cquavbtqaql qarqwqas to illqvsqLratqte what "Lqoquqlqd
be".. 6qDOLKqJ Viqaid 0qDi@qVqiqd 0qOWel Will show qsqlidqet-3, and will address this
Thursday might to some extent. Pat said i@ihqe would like to see a
map of ownerships along the dunes. (This, is being dqevqeqlupL-qd.)
Kathleen rqeqquec.,,tqed that a tour of the dune area similar to that
given to the regional group in December qbqe set up for this group.
A Saturday was suggested. ( Arrangements will be made fqor this as
soon qa possible.) It was qemphqaqizqed that the group continue to
think about What other information tqi-leqy would like arid let Doug
or Arqdell know.

Roles of the committee were diqscuru0qsqeqd. qThe committee is
encouraged to share our progress with others in the community and
ge@t input to brinqg*qback to the cqommittque. Committee members
should feel free to voice their opinions and to listen to the
other members. We will operate on the basis of cqonsqenqSUS q(VeC
handout) when pqozziblqe. If we become stalemated we may resort
to a vote. The committee was asked to determine what pert:qentqagqe
of the group a prevailing vote would rqoqqtAirqe. Ardell will act as
facilitator of the group, to assure that everyone has a chance to
tal qk arid listen. Doug Canning and Len Nelson will be technical
r'qeSq0Ur,qe persons from DOE qand Staqtqm Parks respectively. maqI..
Carey will bqe involved 'qfrqorn the County Planning Dept. Other
resource people qmay be involved later.

qArqdll explained the two phases of tqhe project. The qf qirst
will incl*udqe resource speaker% at public education meeting with a
brief business meeting for the committee afterward. The second
phase will be our working phase, with public allowed a specific
part of each meeting for comment-( iqe. the first 1q3 minutq&5.)
Concern waqs expressed about these meetings being open to the
public and our work being disrupted. The qgr"qULAqP decided to try
it. qorqoup agreements about no smqaqkinqg, meeting length and where
to meet were made. It was decided tqhat it would qbqe good to move
the meetings around so not everyone had to do all qhe driving,
Notices of each meeting will be mailed with the minutes. It was
also discussed that if mqember-5 miss more than three meetings,
they should no longer be on the committee. The group would mliss
thqei r input and they qWOqUqld not have. the benefit of tho-,
discussions they missed. It was suggested that all meetings be
taped .

Notebooks and handouts were passed to member%. The group
was asked to review the issues handout for Thursday evening to
see if there, were issues not listed that this committee should
discuss.
Meeting adjourned.

CONSENSUS

Consensus Means That:

� All participants contribute. Everyone's opinion[; MrQ-Usad
and encouraged. Differences are viewed as helpful rather
than hindering.

� Everyone can paraphrase the issue.

Everyone has a chance to express feelings about the issue.,

0 Those members who continue'to disagree indicate that they are
willing to experiment for a prescribed period of time.

All members share in the final decision.

Consensus Does Not Mean That:

0 A vote is unanimous.

The result is everyone's first choice.

0 Everyone agrees (only that there in enough support for the
decision to be carried out).

9 Conflict or resistance will be overcome immediately.

Not all decisions should be made by consensus. Tha most important point
is that everyone agrees on how decisions are to be made.

Feb. 199 1988

To: Dune Management Committee

From: Ardel I

The next meeting is scheduled for Tues. March 1, 198B at
7cOO pm at the Peninsula Church Center, Seaview. The speaker
will be James Phipps from Grays Harbor College. His topic will

be "Coastal Accretion and Erosion". Please encourage people you

know to attend.

We will hold a brief meeting after the speaker. We

will move into the Memorial Room for this which should help cut

down on the noise,

I am enclosing minutes from our Feb. 16 meeting and a
handout on consensus. I can see that it may get frustrating not
having much time to discuss after the speakers. We may wish to
have the first three speakers and then schedule a working meeting
prior to scheduling the next three. We'll talk about this next

time. See you on March 1!

dc'2'

;FJ

14A

Summary Minutes

Dunes Management Committee
March 1, 1988

Present-. Joel Anderson, Kathleen Boyle, John Campiche, Jim
Hilderman, Norm Grier, Lucille Pierce, Pat Welling, Dick
Hendrickson, Normca Walker, Clay Balch, Mike Parker, Elizabeth
Fenner, Bob Schmidt

Absent: Bob Andrew, Dorothy Huggins

Staff- Doug Canning, Mark Carey, Len Nelson, Ardell McPhail

The public education meeting speaker was Dr. James Phipps from
Grays Harbor College. Dr. Phipps joined the group for a few
extra questions after his presentation.

Scheduling dunes tour: It was agreed that we meet Saturday,
March 26 at 8:00 am at the Pacific Transit bus garage south of
Seaview. Chuck Mikkola will be asked to join the tour and
present his information as well. The tour will last
approximately '" hours.

Format for future meetings: The group was asked if they want to
continue with the speakers as planned and then meet as a
J, committee or have a break in the speakers and meet as a committee
in the between times. It was decided that we continue the
educational programs as planned and then begin the committee
wor

Next meeting: The Physical Processes of Dunes, Al Wiedemann,
Ocean Park Community Hall, 7:00 pm. The Community Hall is across
from the library.

March 18, 1988

To: Dunes Management Committee

From: Ardell McPhail

Re: Upcoming tour and meetings

The dunes tour is scheduled +or Satui-day, March 26, at B:00 am
sharp. We will plan to meet at the County Blg. parking lot on
N.E. 2nd in Long Beach, just east of the water tower. We have a
40 passenger bus scheduled so please feel free to bring a friend.
Dress'warmly and be prepared to do some walking.
Ken Kimura, former planning director for Pacific County, will be
available to explain some of the activities that have occurred
.along the dunes such as dune restoration efforts, dune breaks,
dune modifications within the laws limits, setback issues, etc.
Chuck Mikkola has information to share about the surveying done
along the dunes and other pertinent information from an
engineer.'s point of view.

I have also scheduled meeting places for the upcoming meetings as
follows:

Tuesday, March 29 Groundwater and Wetlands
Peninsula Church Center, 7:00 pm.

Tuesday, April 12 Flood insurance, FEMA
Sur+side Inn, 7:00 pm

Tuesday, April 19 Committee work session
Ilwaco High School Library, 7:00 pm

Looking forward to seeing all of you on Saturday for the tour!

Summary Minutes, March 16, 1988

Dunes Committee

Members Present: Norma Walker, Norm Grier, Dick'-Hendrickson, Bob
Schmidt, John Campiche, Dorothy Huggins, Elizabeth Fenner, Pat
Welling, Lucille Pierce, Mike Parker, Jim Hilderman, Clay Balch,
Kathleen Boyle.

Absent: Bob Andrews, Joel Anderson
Staff Doug Canning, Ardell McPhail

1. The speaker for the public meeting was Dr. Al Wiedemann,
Evergreen State College. He spoke about Dune Processes and Dune
Ecology. Mary Burg, DOE, was also available to answer questions.

2. The committee met briefly with the speaker to ask further
questions.

3. Committee discussion centered around a brief evaluation of
the process so far, what the group thought about the speakers and
how to proceed. Comments were as follows: (paraphrased)

Clay; Feeling frustrated that meetings every two weeks weren't
enough.

Liz: Wondering if we'll hear anything good about living here on
the beach.

Kathleen; Please to see that we had an adequate audience tonight
besides just the committee. Concerned about people not
understanding what We're learning. Need to make people more
aware of the meetings and their content. Need better news
coverage. Learning a lot in the sessions; anxious to discuss the
hodgepodge of info we are accumulating.

Jim: We're getting lots of theory. We need to get the facts and
come up with a plan.

Bob: The information meetings need to be closer together. Would
like to get together to start discussing.

Dick; Agree we need to meet once a week. Getting lots of input.
Appreciated tonight's speaker because he was unbiased. Others
seemed -to be preaching "doomsday". Don't worry about Mother
Nature. Let's develop a plan we can all live by.

Norm: Impressed with speakers. Doesn't think they were biased at
all. Both sides of potential problems have been addressed. Some
may have hear.d more doomsday than others.

John: Studying dunes is like studying to be a,doctor- the more
you know the more difficult it is to say anything definite. We
have strong forces working here- the need to invest money and
develop, and the need to conserve and preserve.

Pat: Same concern as Kathleen- we talk to people and they
disa ree with tt@hhiings the spe@aker@!s@-F8-ve @said*.The speakers have
al
vi s@
a ir li s st
@11 Oe r 0 g@he@ ve udy no thf-,
rqp`entrlarge@par o ir lives Studying these things, they
should know.

Lucille: Doesn't feel alarmed by the speaker's information.
Impressed with the information and speakers. Could meet once a
week.

Dorothy: Need to knuckle down and get as much information and
work done as possible.

Mike: The more we find out about the processes the more logical
things seem. A direction is hard to find. Need to discuss
i SSUes.

4. The group agreed that beginning some work sessions would be
helpful between speakers. The group was reminded that issues
will come from the group, priorities will be set by the group and
hopefully consensus reached on the direction and recommendations
the group wishes to make to the Commissioners. Members were
encouraged to write down comments or ideas they'd like 'to see
discussed and included in the plan. After each meeting, the
ideas from the group will be Summarized on paper and brought back
to the group to rediscuss and be sure it says what the group
wants to say. The final product will be the ideas and
recommendations of this committee, not a rubber stamp of
something someone else has done or written. Staff will be
available to help facilitate discussions, write down the group's
ideas, make the written ideas available to the committee -%to re-
discuss, and prepare drafts of optional language for discussion
purposes.

5. Requests for work sessions:
Request all definitions of dunes or dUneland.
Request a room with large tables to spread work out on.
Alternate north and south for meeting places.
Agendas ahead for the work sessions. (Group decision)
Coffee or refreshments. Individuals may Volunteer -this.

6. Doug asked for input on future meetings. It was decided that
the meeting on regulatory information be a panel of speakers all
in one evening.
A4 Dates to note on your calendar:
Sat. March 26 Tour of dunes 6:00 am
Tues. March 29 Ground Water & Wetlands 7:0(") pm
Tues. April 1". Flood insurance regs., FEMA 7:00 pm
Tues. Apri 1 19 Committee work session 7.-00 pm

DUNES TOUR ROUTE

MARCH 25, 1968

I Meet at County Blg. parking lot, Long Beach

2. Ocean Butte Condominiums- note accretion, Chuck surveys

3. 4.3rd st. Hiatt short plat: open space Values, historic b1g.
line, wetlant-I character, utility extension, amount of fill, flood
plain condition

1 C
4. )th street approach- b1g. setbacks: Mitchell house on old
setback line, new line X2100 -feet Out

5. 197th street: French case, historic b1g. setback versus plat
covenants setback

6. 2 6 Pa r k Fred Dailey's dune cut, blowing sand damage
behind secondary dune

7. Selig & Colman: 'standard dune modification within limits of
,law

E3. Illias/Fouch dune cut: state [email protected] dune restoration, damage
to surrounding property

9. Fred Kindermann/Barbee: restoration order in 100 f t.
protective strip

10. Bailey's condo: setback, view blockage, etc.

Other stops if time permits:
10@ -Bolstad Ave: restroom: vandalism
-Cranberry approach: new house to north, character of
environment, beginning of shortening of deflation plain
-Bungalow 247th to Schlects Plat-typical modification after one
year- within law
-Driveway north of 171st Caswell: fill road impact an existing
views

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING..A DUNE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Auditing

What's happening on the Peninsula now?
What do we like?
What have the speakers been telling us?
What information- data- are we gathering? (ongoing)

Analysis: (SWOT- strengths, weaknessesq opportunities, threats

Internal What are the internal strengths of the
Peninsula area, community, etc.?
What are the weaknesses?

External What are the outside opportunities for'the
Peninsula?
What are the outside threats?

What are the implications of these internal and external forces
for the area and @uture planning?

,Innovation: (goal setting)

What do we want:the area to be like in the +uture?
Formation of Goals: expression of conditions as they ought
to be.
Goals become the overall criteria by which we can resolve
the issues.

Issue Resolution/ Problem Solving (connect issues to the Goals@

What are the barriers to reaching our Goals? (issues or
problems)
What are the "how tos" for reaching the Goals? (planning
strategiesq alternative solutionsq develop policies, etc.)

Summary, April 12, 1?88 meeting

Dunes Management Committee

Members present: Dick Hendrickson, J oel Anderson, Bob Schmidt,
Mike Parker, Clay Balch, Dorothy Huggins, Pat Welling, John
Campiche, Jim Hilderman, Sam Pierce for Lucille, Elizabeth
Fenner, Norm Grier

Staff: Doug.Canning, Mark Carey, Len Nelson, Ardell McPhail

Members absent: Norma Walker, Bob Andrew

The public education program was about Flood Insurance
regulations from the federal and state level. Carl Cook and
Larry Basich from FEMA, and Tim D'acci from Dept. of Ecology
presented an overview of the regulations and the requirements for
counties involved in the flood insurance program.
The speakers later met with the dunes committee for further
clarification and to answer specific questions.
Doug announced that the next public meeting will be April 26
at the Peninsula Church Center in Seaview. The topics will be
"Accreted Lands Ownership", Dave McKim and David Heiser; and "The
Pacific County Shorelines Master Program", Mark Careyq Pacific
Co. Planner. That meeting will begin at 7:(-.)o pm.
Ardell handed out a description of the process we will be using
in the work sessions. On Tuesday, April 19 the Dunes Committee
will hold a work session to begin work on goals for the dunes
area. That meeting will be for the committee unly and will be
held at the Ilwaco High School library at 7:00 pm. An agenda of
the April 1? meeting was also presented to the group to review.

Summary Dunes Management Committee
April 26, 198B

Present: Joel Anderson, Bob Schmidt, Dick Hendrickson, Norma
Walker, Pat Welling, Liz Fenner, Mike Parker, Jim Hilderman, Norm
Grier, John Campiche, Dorothy Huggins

Absent: Kathleen Boyle, Lucille Pierce, Clay Balch

St.-%+ + Doug Canning-, Marl; Carey,,Len Nelson, Rick Erickson,
Ardell McPhail

The public education meeting topics included Accreted Lands
Ownership, with Dave McKim, retired State Parks, and Dave Heiser,
Chief Environmental Coordinator State Parks, as presenters. Doug
Canning presented an overview of the Washington State Shoreline
Management Act of 1971. Mark Carey, Pacific Co. Planning
Director and Rick Erickson, Pacific Co. Associate Planner
presented the Pacific County Shorelines Master Program and
describ*ed the many surveyed lines that effect development.

In his Mark Carey identified some key issues that
the Dunes Committee may wish to address that would affect -the
Shoreline Master Program. These issues are:
What should be done wi-th the accreted lands?
Public access (improve planned access, parking, corridors)
Commercial policies
Residential policies
Filling
How should we calculate the building setbacks?

The group met briefly after the speakers to receive handouts of
last week's minutes and description of the Shorelines Manaqement
Act. It was decided that the group should schedule two work
sessions Tues. May and Tues. May 17. These will be held at 'the
Ocean Park Community Hall at 7:00 pm.

Summary Minutes
Dunes Management Committee Mtg.
April 19, 1988

Present: Joel Anderson, Bob Schmidt, Dick Hendrickson, Norma
Walker, Pat Welling, Liz Fenner, Kathleen Boyle, Lucille Pierce,
Mike Parker, Jim Hilderman, Norm Grier

Absent: Dorothy Huggins, John Campiche, Clay Balch Bob Andrews
resigned from the committee because of time problems.

.Staff: Doug Canning, Len Nelson, Ardell McPhail

A brief discussion of last week's flood insurance meeting was
held and handouts of the RCW-for flood management and the first
page of the Shorelines management act were distributed.

The group ne>ct broke into four groups to analyze the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the Peninsula dunes
area. Two groups discussed the internal strengths and weaknesses
and two groups discussed external opportunities and threats.
Combined reports were as follows:

Internal

Strengths Weaknesses

Liveability, natural environment Low socio-economic element
Community involvement of people Depressed economy
Element of higher education Provincial attitudes-isolated
Low rental rates-low prop. value Lack of planning support
Diverse physical characteristics Limited tax base
vaired community identity Attraction for undesireable
Attraction for tourists element-dune destroyers- ATV

Small community Poor mart's beach
No major through highway No way to make a living
Schools Poorly enforced zoning
Retired people Poor(or no) police protection
History unique No major sewage disposal plant
Location Poor (no)solid waste disposal
Large marina & port Not enough commercial &
Cape Disappointment industrial zoned areas
Coast Guard station & school
Clean air
Moderate weather
Ocean
Willapa Bay
Columbia River
Not enough commercial & industrial zoned areas

External

Opp or tuhi ties Threats

Absentee ownership South Bend influence
Tourism (we have poor representation
Coast Guard at County level, zoning
We could invite: restrictions)
light industry Olympia 1, Seattle influence
medically related services (outside policy development)
aquaculture businesses (low, return on tax dollars)
(poor return on road tax
dollars
High unemployment

County Government w/ Population Pressure,
sensible zoning & reg. Too fast growth-schools,
Tourism: high quality, water, sewage
demands little destruction Legalized Gambling
of environment 8, services County, State & Fed. Gov.
Improvement of hwy. system overegulation, unclear regs.
Bridge to mainland (coast hwy) Bridge to mainland
more accessible heavy traffic
Attractive environment Failure to attract industry
Clean air water Drugs- because of isolation &
Attract small low impact industry lack of law enforcement
non-polluting Practices that pollute or
Foreign tourism destroy streams that
support fishing & aqua-
culture (logging &
others)

Next the group began working on their overall goals for the
dunes. Three groups reported preliminary goals: (Note: these
have been categorized into groups that the committee will need to
review later -my editing is in regular type, groups statements
are bolded)

GENERAL-OVERALL

1. Make a plan that is workable for all factions if possible.

2. Ensure an up-to-date plan
Every 5-10 years review dune management plan to allow for
economic (or other) changes.

3. Ensure adequate enforcement of adopted regulations.

SAFETY- Ensure that the dunes area is a safe place.

1. Allow no hunting in dunes.
2. No hunting, no firecrackers
3. Eliminate fire hazards in the dunes.

ENVIRONMENT- Protect dunes from destructive activities.

1. Areas should be set aside or identified to be used in a non-
destructive way Ue no fires, no wood cutting)

2. No disturbance of the primary dune, except-as necessary for
stabilization.

3. Maintain a clean, beautiful Peninsula as it is.

4. Open space (for everyone including county, state, etc.

RECREATION

1. Areas should be set aside or identified for recreational
activities (including motor vehicles)

2. Ensure adequate public access to the beach.

3. No ATVs in the dunes (This could fit under environment or
safety also)

DEVELOPMENT

1. Provide for orderly development of the accreted lands.

2. Maintain the aesthetics of the deflation plain through design
review process

3. Provide planned development in specified areas which
compliments each other, utilizes our strengths and preserves the
environment.

4. Ensure local control over property on the Peninsula without
the taking.of private property rights.

The group next expressed how they felt the session went tonight.
They were reminded that more work is needed on the goals. The
goals form the basis on which to resolve the issues. Agreement
is needed on what goals to focus on in the plan.

Next meeting is April 26 at the Peninsula Church Center.
Subsequent public meetings will be May 12 and May 24. Both have
been scheduled at the church center as well.

ENVIRONMENT GOALS:

Protect dunes from destructive activities.

Maintain a clean, beautiful Peninsula.

Preserve some areas of open space along the dunes.

1. Areas should be set aside or identified to be used in a non-'
destructive way.
2. No disturbance of the primary dune shall be allowed, except as
necessary for stabilization. (The group agreed that this was
the crux of why our group is meeting. This brings up several
issues that will need to be dealt with including vertical growth
of the dune, property rights, environmental concerns, etc. This
policy will overlap in the Development category also.)

There was some discussion here about options for how to leave
open space. John said he'd like to see Seaview accreted area
left as is. Dick pointed out that there are several options such
as public trusts, buying development rights, etc. for
accomplishing this besides being in a management plan. Joel
pointed out that the accreted land west of Seaview is 17 ft. and
according to the flood insurance program, can't be built upon
anyway. More discussion on this will follow as we look at issues
such as filling, setbacks, etc.

RECREATION GOALS:

Areas should be set aside or identified for recreational
activities (including motor vehicles.)

Ensure adequate public access to the beach.

The above were the agreed upon goals and policies to date. The
group will deal specifically with the Development goals stated in
small groups and clarify or add others at our next work session.
The group was asked to look at these carefully to be sure there
are broad goals dealing with development and policies about how
to reach the goals. At this point the goals are most important.

Summary Minutesi May 3, L9eS

Dunes Management Committee

Members Present: Norma Walker, Dick Hendrickson, Bob Schmidt,
Mike Parker, Joel Anderson, Dorothy Huggins7 Lucille Pierce, Jim
Hilderman, John Campiche, Pat Welling, Liz Fenner
Absent: Norm Brier, Kathleen Boyle, Clay Balch

Staff: Len Nelson, Ardell McPhail

1. Discussion about putting a news article in the paper with our
goals stated in order to get public input. The group decided
that it was too early in our-diSCUSSion to do this yet, since we
are still working on the goals.
2. There was discussion about members missing meetings and what
should be done. It was decided that the individuals should make
up the meetings by viewing the videos of speakers. Individuals
missing work sessions should decide for themselves whether or not
to resign from the committee if they don't have the time to
devote. (It is critical for the work sessions that members be
present if at all possible.)
3. Discussion about when to begin receiving public comments and
input. The group decided that we should allow an hour at the
beginning of our May 17 meeting for the public to make comments.
We will have cards available for the public to write down
specific questions but the group as a whole would not respond
directly to questions that we are still deliberating about. The
main purpose will be to give the public a chance to give input on
what they think is important to include in the dune management
plan. The remainder of the May 17 meeting will be for the
committee only to continue their discussion of goals-specifically
for Development.

4. Ardell reviewed the definitions as follows:
Goal: A broad general statement of the desired future.
Policy: Statements about "how to" reach the goal- defines
the goal, clarifies.
Objective: Action statement describing how to implement the
policy.
The group was then asked to review the goals they came up
with in small groups at the April 19 session.. The purpose was to
get group agreement on the goals of the small groups. The
categories were acceptable at this time, keeping in mind that
some policies may later cross over into several categories,-4t-
once. Jim asked about the dunes issues from the December-----

meeting. These issues will be brought out under the various
goals we agree on. It is important first to get agreement on
goals before specifically addressing the issues involved.

GENERAL OVERALL GOALS:

(These were not rediscussed- it is assumed there is agreement on
them. If not, we'll clarify on May 17.)
Make a plan that is workable for all factions if possible.
Ensure an up-to-date plan
1. Every 5-10 years review dune managment plan to allow for
economic or other changes.
Ensure adequate enforcement of adopted regulations.

SAFETY GOALS:

Ensure that the dunes area is a safe place.

Policies:

1. No hunting shall be allowed west of Hwy 101, 103, and K street
in Surfside. (This will need to be defined more specifically;
Dick volunteered to do this.)

2. Fires and/or fireworks shall be allowed 100 feet west of the
grassline only.
3. No vehicular traffic shall be allowed on the foredune or 100
foot protective strip. (This is already a law,'but group wanted
to reaffirm it.)
4. No vehicles or ATV's shall be allowed to operate off of any
highway or road west of Hwy. 103, K street etc. (same area as I
above) (There are legal questions as to whether this can apply
to private property. The group will ask this question at the May
24 meeting.)
5. Fire and emergency vehicles shall be exempt from the law
prohibiting driving an the primary dune and 100 foot protective
strip.
6. Recommend that the fire departments release safety information
about what homeowners can do to avoid dune fires damaging their
property.

Summary of May 12, 1988 meeting
Dunes Management Committee

Members Present: Elizabeth Fenner, Norman Grier, Clay Balch,
Mike Parker, Bob Schmidt, Dick Hendrickson, f-l'athleen Boyle, Joel
Anderson, Jim Hilderman, Dorothy Huggins, Lucille Pierce, Pat
Welling, John Campiche

Absent: Norma Walker

Staff: Ardell McPhail, Len Nelson, Doug Canning
The program on Economic Development was presented by Art
Yoshiol-.-.a, Executive Director of the Pacific Co. Economic
Development Council.

After the presentation, the committee gathered to receive
handouts and discuss what further information they would like to
have. -

Doug handed out copies of the 'Shorelines Master Plan@for Pacific
County. He will be (nailing information dealing wit'h land trusts
prior to the Land Use Law presentation scheduled for May 24 in
Seaview.

When asked what further information they want, the following was
requested:

How many acres of land is owned by State Par@--:s on the
Peninsula and specifically in the dunes area?. Can vie get maps
showing where this ownership is and what the use designations are
for these areas? It would be helpful to know what land is owned
by the state and federal government.
Al so, how much of the accreted lands could be developed
presently? (considering all other regulations, wetlands, flood
plain, etc.)
Are there population figures about [low much increase has
taken place in the north end of the Peninsula in the past five or
ten years. (from Klipsan north)

Discussion about declaring the state pari-.*s owned land open
space or whatever the most restrictive designation is. Len
explained that the most restrictive designa 'tion State Parks uses
is "natural". He will try to get the information requested on
what land is owned by State Parks and how they are designated and
what the designations mean. (We'll look for the other
information at the County level.)

Dick shared the description of where we agreed to designate
the no hunting area. Policy # 1 should read: No hunting shall

be allowed west of the following: Willows Road to 30th, north to
junction of Hwy. 101 and 103, continuing north on Hwy. 103 to
290th, west to K Street, K Street north to the south boundary of
Surfside Estates, then continuing north to J Place to the north
boundary of Surfside Estates, then continuing north on high ridge
to south boundary of Leadbetter Point State Park.

Policy 4 under the Safety goals should read: No vehicles or
ATV's shall be allowed to operate off of any highway or road west
of the following: Willows Road to 30th, north to junction of Hwy.
101 and 103, continuing north on Hwy. 103 to 290th, west to K
Street, K Street north to the south boundary of Surfside Estates,
then continuing north to J Place to the north boundary of
Surfside Estates, then continuing north on high ridge to south
boundary of Leadbetter Point State Park.

Dick suggested that we should not make recommendations that will
cost the county money since they may not be implemented. Doug
suggested that the group should prioritize the recommendations
and not refrain from making recommendations. Ardell pointed out
that often recommendations from a citizen group such as this
gives the county needed impetus for reqUeSting grants for
specific projects, etc. Money should not be a factor here in
planning.
Joel was concerned that the planning commission might refuse to
adopt our plan once completed. The Planning Commission will hold
hearings on the plan and may ask for clarification or other input
prior to sending to -the Commissioners, but it is very doubtful
that a diverse citizen effort such as this will be ignored!
The next meeting will be May 17 at 7:(--)(--) pm at the Ocean Park
Community Building. The first hour will be set aside for public
input to the committee. The work session will focus on a review
of and agreement on the development goals proposed April 19.

May 25, 1q?q6q8
Summary q!'@linquteqs, May 24, q1q?6q64q6
Dunes qI'lanagement Committee

Cql qay Balch, Bob Schmidt, Dick Hendrick
Members Present: son,
Elizabeth Fenner, Doro-t-hy Huggins, Pat Welling,_ Lucille Pierce,
Mike Parker, qk".ath I qeen Boyle, Joel Anderson, 1',qJorm Brier, Norma
Wal [email protected]

Absent: John Campich, Jim Hildermqan
St aqf qf qArdel I q1q1cPhai q1 , Doug Cann i ng

qThe speaker -for tqhe Public education m e e n g was Mr. Richard
Settle, Pro+. oqf Law at University of Puget Sound and Of Counsel
to Foster, Pepper, and 13hefelman, Seattle. Tqhe topic was Land
Use Law. Settle covered general issues and explained two
Constitutional limitations involving land use: taking: "nor shall
private property be -taken for public use without just
compensation" and substantive due process: ..can't be deprived of
life, liberty or property Without dque process of law".
q(The p r sen tat i on is on v IL d qe o tape and may be borrowed upon
request. )
After t'hqe public meeting, qSattqlqe met briefly with the Dunes
Committee to answer further- questions. Questions included.- Is
the State subject to policies we make in the dunes- area? (They
are Subject to -the Shorelines Master Program)
What about private rights of property owners to do maintenance
efforts on the dunes to retain view versus public risk? (qSEP6qA
requires that we look before we leap. qGeqt environmental
information, then make decisions about tradeoffqs. A solution
might be to make a policy that would not be a decision -for all
'time, but Could be continually reviewed, reassessed and -Adjusted.
May be appropriate, to do some modest no-risk- experiments in dune
maintenance that ca be monitored, etc.) Has there ever been
provisions for providing individuals with counsel for land use
questions as is done with criminal cases-- (There has never been a
Constitutional basis to have access -to -the courts to assert
environmental issues. 0qBenqerally one must rely o conservation
groups, or pro bono work. from lawyers to help pqay the costs of
I 6qi 0qt 6qi gat 6qi 8qonq. There are 4qaqlq5o some provisions- for recovering
attorneys' tees under- the Shorelines qt1anqagqement 16qAqct if qYqoqu win.
This is at the discretion o6qf -the court.)

Doug reported -that there are still fUndqs for bringing someone
from Oregon to speak about the dquqnqiqe maintenance efforts there.
The group qW4qO4qUld like to have that session soon. Doug -will call
and get- the consultant sqchqedqU6qlqed at his earliest date after June
7th.

0qThe group agreed -to meet weekly on Tuesdays. The next meeting
qw6qi 11 be strictly a w or session without public comment on
Tuesday, June 7 at 7:00 pm at the Ocean Park Community Building.

Subsequent meetings, have been scheduled through June at the same
place. (Perhaps we can meet in Seaview someplace +or the.JUlY
meetings to even up the travel burden a little.) It is
recognized that with weekly meetings in the summer, not everyone
will be available to attend every meeting. Members are
encouraged to make as many meetings as possible. The sessions
will be taped on cassettes for those missing to "make up" a
meeting.

The schedule for June follows:

All June meetings: 7:00 pm, Ocean Park Community Building

June 7
June 14
June 21
June '28

The tentative agenda for the June 7 meeting is:

1. Reach consensus on Development general goals
2. Prioritize issues to concentrate on in future sessions
and set new timeline.
3 whole group
3. Discuss options for developing policies: a.
discussions on everything; b. SUb-group develop policies to bring
to whole group; c. two groups concentrating on different issues,
then bring to total group; other options? Regardless of how we
develop the policies, the whole group will ultimately review them
and attempt to reach consensus. It is also important to continue
to look baCl-'.. at Our overall goals as vie proceed through this
process.

Dunes Management Committee

Summary Minutes, June 14, 1988

Present: Mike Parker, Kathleen Boyle, Joel Anderson, John
5 Campiche, Liz Fenner, Dick Hendrickson, Bob Schmidt, Jim
Hilderman, Clay Balch, Dorothy Huggins, Pat Welling

Absent: Lucille Pierce, Norma Walker, Norm Grier

Staff: Doug Canning, Ardell McPhail

It was agreed-that we would not meet on July 5. The speaker form
the dune management program in Oregon, Cortwright, will be here
on Tuesday, July 19.

Handouts included a draft paper from Clay Balch dealing with Goal
#2, Ensure an up-to-date plan. The group was asked to review it.
Also, copies of letters read last week were distributed.

Individuals were asked to comment on how they were feeling about
our progress and our direction. Comments included:-
I've learned alot, not sure how it all applies."
I
Concerned about goal #1 - the phrase "if possible". (The group
agreed to delete the negative "if possible" from that goal. It
now reads: Make a plan that is workable for all +actions.)
"Suggest we consider. calling the dUnal area "dunelands". Concern
about reason for breaking the Peninsula into sections. Want to
avoid the idea that "you do your thing in Seaview and we'll do
ours in Sur+side". (Most of the group did not interpret the
sectioning in that manner, but rather as a means of addressing
some issues that are different for different areas, even though
they have many in common.)

"I divided the Peninsula into seven sections. Two things we need
to resolve: a. height of the dune in front to protect views,
and b. flood plain elevations."

"I see some major issues to look at. one is- filling for
elevation for building. Would like to accomplish something in
the next few months. Glad to be having work-meetings now."
"Concerned about ambiguous laws, such as those for filling. Would
like more input on laws so we know where we stand. We don't want
to recommend contrary to state law." (We can if we make a good
case.)

"We'rL@ slowly becoming acquainted with the rules that are hemming
us in and fixing our freedom to move in a narrow set of
latitudes. Much is already defined."

"Frustrated. Need to see things laid out. It would be helpful
to take issues areas and have something written up about what
exists now." (It was suggested that individuals may wish to take
issues and research them and write something.)

"Confusion. Need simplification. Can we combine some of the
information?"

"Lots o+ regulation, much is contradictory. Think about 'How
should it be'? What would it take to make it that way?'"

Doug shared some notes he took last week while we were viewing
the slides. Some issues identified included:
Covering land with pavement and buildings- prevents
groundwater recharge.
Low taxes paid by mobile homes
Design standards - pros and cons
Ragged setback line
Public access- aesthetics
Elimination of dune vegetation at primary dune

Next -the@group agreed on the sections of the Peninsula that will
be used. Some policies will be the same -for the whole dunal area
and others may apply to only one or two sections. These sections
are as follows: I

Section 1- Cape Disappointment- river to Beard's Hollow
Section 2- Beard's Hollow to south city limits of Long
Beach
Section 3 Long Beach city limits
Section 4 North limit of Long Beach to 201st.
Section 5 201st to Bay Avenue
Section 6 Bay Avenue to Joe John's Rd. (290th)
Section 7 290th to north limits of Surfside
Section 8 North limits of Surfside to Leadbetter Point

The group was asked to prioritize the major issues they would
like to work on and make management policies +or. They are as
follows:

I Areas of Development in the dunelands

a. Setback lines,
b. Densities
C. Height restrictions (view issues and others)
d. Structural re strictions
e. Sewage disposal and water supply

f. Allowable uses of dunes property
g. Pavement
h. Filling
i. Proposed highway

2. Dune preservation/ alteration

a. View obstruction by dunes
b. Erosion/ accretion issues
C. Management options

3. Open Space

a. State Parks land classifications
b. ' Beach access: parkingg aesthetics, design
c. Walking paths (define and locate)

4. Enforcement

a. Adequacy of sheriff and police
b. Land use consistency and enforcement

5. Economics of dunelands

a. Tax revenues
b. Tourism

6. Design Review

a. How will it work?
b. To what will it apply?
C. Design standards

7. Safety

a. Fire protection
b. Hunting

The group asked to have Mark Carey come talk, about the present
allowable uses of dunes propertyg the residential categories for
buildingg zoning maps and other related items. (Mark will be
unable to attend on the 21st or 28th. Rick 'Erickson has agreed
to attend our June 21 meeting in Ocean.Park.)

It was agreed that we discuss the issue of Setbacks at the next
meeting. (Please review Section 23-Dunes and Map A in the Pacific
:,County Shoreline Master Program for this discussion.)

Dunes Management Committee

Summary Minutes, June 21, 19BB

Present: Lucille Pierce, Mike Parker, Kathleen Boyle, Norm
Brier, Dick Hendrickson, Bob Schmidt, Clay Balch, Joel Anderson,
John Campiche, Dorothy Huggins, Norma Walker, Pat Welling, Jim
Hilderman, Li-z Fenner

Staff: Ardell McPhail, Rick Erickson

Ardell read correspondence from Richard,Barlichs supporting the
group's efforts and expressing concern about dune modification in
SUrfside. He would like to see some type of management plan that
would protect views.

Handouts included information from Rick about the various lines
in the dunelands and how they affect building setbacks, a copy of
the zoning ordinance for RR, R-19 R-2, and R-3 relative to
setbacks,and sample maps that show these zone districts along the
dunes. Also, John Campiche wrote up some comments on topics we
will be discussing the next few sessions.
Since the discussion topic for the evening was Setbacks, Ardell
asked Rick to attend to help explain the existing situation and
answer specific questions. Norm drew a sketch showing the lines
and possible building locations in different areas.

It was suggested that it would simplify th.ings if the westerly
setback along the dunes property be a common number rather than
5', 10' and 15' as it is now. After much discussion, the group
agreed to make the following recommendation:
Where the westerly ownership is to the Western Boundary of Upland
Ownership line (WBUO), the westerly setback shall be 10 feet.
(Intent: The intent is to promote some uniformity in the setback
regulation. Also, even though the State may own from the WBUO
west, the setback would act as a buffer for building maintenance
without being on state land, and if there were a change in
ownership in the future, the 10 feet would buffer for fire
protection access. Variances could be considered -for decks if
appropriate.)

The group discussed some of John's proposals about setbacks. The
issue dealing with several lines that regulate building setback
was discussed at length. The group agreed to the following;

Recommend that the next survey in the dunelafnds be done as a
joint effort of Dept. of Ecology, State Parks, and Pacific County
in order to merge the timing of the survey and share costs,
resulting in a single line from which setbacks can be determined.

Other points of discussion included: State Park land remain
recreational without permanent structures; time of resurveying;
allowance for accretion and erosion; enforcement of setbacks;-
proposal to leave the area west of Seaview as a greenbelt-.
allowing building one row at a time; and confine multiple
dwellings and commercial structures to Long Beach. Issues were
raised about tax base, value of the area as open space versus
values as building sites.

No other specific recommendations were made regarding these
topics. Each of these issues will require lengthy discussion
before reaching consensus. The group agreed to continue work on'
the setback issue and perhaps begin a discussion of densities
next time.

The group was asked to give comments ab6ut how the meeting went.
Most indicated that it is good we are wrestling with issues and
struggling with our differences. It is difficult to stick to the
issues since they are so interconnected.
Rick was asked to submit que$tions to the group concerning
activities or-policies the planning dept. wrestles with that we
might discuss and make recommendations. One example he gave was
"How do you feel about horse rentals along the beach approaches?$*

The next" wort.. session is scheduled for June 28 at the Ocean Park
Community Hall, 7:00 pm. Ardell will not be able to attend, but'
Doug Can.ning will lead the discussion. Rick was asked to attend
also.

The subsequent meeting will be held Thursday, July 14 instead of
July 12. This will also be at the Ocean Park Community Hall,
7:00 pm.

A public meeting is scheduled for TuesdaLl, July 19 at.the Ocean
Park Community Hall at 7:00 pm. The speaker will be Cartwright
from Oregon to dis cuss the dune management program in Tillamook
Co.

June 8, 1988
Dunes Management Committee
Summary Minutes, June 7, 198B

Present: [email protected] Parker, John Campiche, Joel Anderson, Jim
Hilderman, Clay Balch, Bob Schmidt, Dick Hendrickson, Lucille
Pierce, Pat Welling, Kathleen Boyle, Norma Walker, Norm Grier

Absent: Liz Fennerg Dorothy Huggins

Staff: Doug Canning, Ardell McPhail

Ardell read letters of correspondence to the committee. These
included: Joel Pennoyer with ideas to consider when writing
ordinances; Nabiel Shawa with information about water supplies;
Floyd Rank concerning the plan for Seaview sewage expansion,- and
Jack McDonald. concerning fire safety. Doug will have All these
letters copied for the committee. Also, Hew Harrision, Plai-ining
Commission member, wanted the group to be aware that Hunting is
prohibited in all of Surfside, not just the.area we specified in
our policy. Ardell adso shared a video tape from the Dept. of
Natural Resources about "How to protect your home from wild
fires". Doug will have this tape copied for circulation among
the committee and use in the meetings. Individuals from the Fire
District and DNR have offered to speak to the grOUP when the fire
safety issue is discussed.
Committee members*Bob Schmidt and Norm Grier presented papers
with information -for the committee. Bob's paper deals with sea
swell adong the Peninsula and includes a dune modification
proposal. Norm's paper gives information about regulations and
policy that now exist in the Seaview accretion area and presents
three scenarios -for how land may be divided. The group as@,.ed a
-few brief questions about these papers and will refer to them at
a later date.

Mike Parker presented a series of slides of aerials he has taken
along the Peninsula. The purpose was to present the dUnal area
visually and raise some questions and ideas that the group may
wish to consider. The group should also be thinking about how
these slides might be used in -Future presentations once a plan
has been proposed.
Next the overall development goals were discussed. The following
were agreed upon by the group:
1. Ensure that any development in the dunal-areas shall be in an
WO
orderly fashion, and such developments complement each other, and
utilize and preserve our unique environment.
2. Maintain the aesthetics of the dunal area through a design
review process.

3. Ensure local input into land use issues.

Mike was asked to explain how a design review process would
operate. He will bring sample guidelines from other areas and a
written statement about-what it does and how it works. Concern
was expressed that it would add another layer of paperwork to an
already slow process.*

Now that the-general overall goals have been agreed upon, the
group discussed how they wished to proceed. It was decided that
we divide the Peninsula into sections and discuss one section at
a time, since there are some very different concerns in some
areas. (The group may wish to refer-to June Griffis' letter
presented at the public input meeting May 17.)

The group had asked to have a speaker from Oregon come to the
group to discuss the experimental dune management program at
Nedona Beach. Doug has contacted Bob Cortwright who is in charge
of the'overall management program. He is not available until
July. Doug will try to set a time with him for July 12"' or 19 if
possible.

The group agreed that policy recommendations previously discussed
by the committee concerning hunting be sent to the County
W Commissi.oners so they can begin to take action prior to the
actual hunting season. This issue can easily be separated -from
the rest.of the dune management considerations. Most of the
other issues we will discuss are inter-related and sh-ould be kept
in one complete plan and submitted at the end of our
deliberations. (Fire safety recommendations may be a possible
exception although-this is also related to,some of the dune
maintenance issues an the north end.)

The group also agreed to continue to discuss the issues as a
total group, rather than have several subgroups. We will
continue to meet weekly on Tuesday evenings. It was agreed that
we need to have several work sessions to begin to formulate
policies before holding another public input meeting.
Next week's agenda will include dividing the dunal area into
subsections and begin discussion on one or more of these areas.
Next meeting is Tuesday, June 13 at 7:00 pm at the, Ocean Park
Community Hall.

DUNES MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

OVERALL GOALS

1. Make aplan that is workable for all factionsg if possible.

2. Ensure an up-to-date plan.

3. Ensure enforcement of adopted regulations,

4. Ensure that the dunes area is a safe place.

5. Protect the dunes from destructive activities

6. Maintain a clean, beautiful Peninsula.

7. Preserve some areas of open space along the dunes.

S. Set aside areas for recreational activities.

9. Ensure adequate public access to the beach.

10. Ensure that any development in the'dunal areas shall be in-an
orderly fashion, and such developments complement each other, and
utilize and preserve our unique environment.

11. Maintain the aesthetics of the dunal area through a design
review process.

12. Ensure local input into land use issues.

Dunes Management Committee

Summary Minutes, June 28, 1988

Present: Joel Anderson, -Clay Balch, Liz Fenner, Dick Hendrickson,
Dorothy Huggins, Norman Grier, Jim Hilderman, Mike Parker'.
Lucille Pierce, Bob Schmidt, Norma Walker, and Pat Welling.

Absent: Kathleen Boyle and John Campiche.

Staff: Doug Canning

Guests: Eric Erickson

Doug announced that the Shorelands Program of the Department of
Ecology is contracting with Dr. Jim Phipps'for an update of his
1978 report on coastal accretion and erosion in southwest Wash-
ington. Phipps plans on completing his field work by September,
submitting a draft report by October, and his final report by De-
cember.

Discussion: The discussion at this meeting was a continuation of
June 21st discussion of density and setbacks. Mike Parker sug-
gested that setbacks should be influenced by density, and that
density is influenced by sewage disposal, water supply, and aes-
thetics.

Rick Erickson distributed two sample Planning Department staff
.reports on Shoreline Substantial Development Permit applications
illustrating differences between the locations of the Seashore
Conservation Line and the Pacific County Building Setback Line,
and the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership and the 1889 Meander
Line in Seaview and Ocean Park. Eric also distributed copies of
orthophotocontour maps of these areas, further illustrating the
disparity between the controlling survey lines.
Discussion of John Campiche's recommendations (distributed to the
Committee on June 21st) was put over until the next meeting when
Dr. Campiche would be present.
Discussion of the danger of erosion to building construction and
the alternatives for an Erosion Setback was tabled on the ratio-
nale that existing setbacks are adequate for the present, and
that should the existing accretion switch to erosion, that there
would be adequate time to enact an emergency ordinance and Ero-
sion Setback.

Following a discussion of zoning, density, and planned unit de-
velopments with clustered development and open space, Mike Parker
volunteered to make a slide presentation illustrating the PUD
open space concept at the next meeting.

Consensus: (Italicized material indicates the rationale for the
proposed planning goal.)

1. The formula which determines an easterly setback from the
Grass Line is understandable and is working; there is no need to
change the formula. Any problems which have arisen with respect
to this setback have been with the surveyed Grass Line, not the
setback formula.

2. The setback westerly from the Western Boundary of Upland Own-
ership should be standardized at ten feet. Verification of a
consensus decision from last meeting.

3. There should be a joint survey of a common Seashore Conserva-
tion Line - County Grass Line in 1989 by the Parks and Recreation
Commission, the Department of Ecology, and Pacific County. This
standardized line should be resurveyed every five years or as
necessary. The Pacific County Shoreline Master Program autho-
rized the mapping of the Grass Line, but never required a peri-
odic resurvey. Also, there should be a single line for purposes
of the Seashore Conservation Act and the Pacific County Shoreline
Master Program.

4. There should be an on-going (standing) Dunes Study Group to
monitor dunes issues and make recommendations to the County; mem-
bership on the committee should be staggered. The purpose of the
Dunes Study Group is to maintain a community awareness of dunes
issues and to provide a means for the community to send a message
to the County Commissioners and the County government. The terms
of membership should be staggered for continuity and to avoid a
loss of committee memory with a complete turnover in membership.
---------------------------
canning\dunesl\minutesl.doc

July 10q8,q194q64q8

Dunes Management Committee
Summary Minutes, July 14, @ q198q88q8

Present: Lucille4qPierce, Joel Anderqsqon-John-Campiche, Kathl2q6en
Boyle, Dorothy Huggins, Dick Hendrickson, Liz Fenner, Bob
Schmidtq Clay..Balch, Mike Parker, Norm 8qGrier,.-Pat Welling
Absent: Jim Hilderm8q@n, Norma Walker

Staff: Ardell McPhail.

Corresqp6q6ndence: Greg Schirqaqtqo, Washington State Dept. of
Wildlife, letter concerning saving habitat for the Oregon
Silverspot Butterfly; Connie Fenwick, Rainqi-er Oregon, letter
concerning value of Surfside property being diminished by dunes.

Announcements: Long Beach Pen insula Comprehensive Plan completed
and submitted to Planning Commission for hearing,Thurqsday, August
25 at 7:30 pm at the 8qSeaview Peninsula Church-Center.

Handouts: Clay Balch- Saving the DunesII Joel Anderson-
discussion about need for north-south road in 4qSeaview

Scheduling: The next several meetings were scheduled as follows:

Tues. July 19q- Speaker, Robert Cortwright, Oregon-Dune
Management Program 7:00 pm Ocean Park Community Hall
Tues. July 26 Work Session Seaview Fire Hall 7:00 pm
(Discussion topic: dune maintenance- dune
preservation proposals from Schmidt and Balch)

Tues. Aug. 2 Work Session - Seqaview Fire Hall 7:00 pm
Thurs. Aug. 11 Work Session- Ocean Park Fire Hall 7:00 pm
Tues. Aug. 16 Work Session- Ocean Park Community Hall 7:00 pm

Discussion:
Discussion centered around the philosophical' "2q,question-2qabout
whether to allow de'8qvelopment in the dune2qlandsq'ornqot.--q:q'@q*48qTh2qere was
initial general agreement about protecting the fr6qontalq.*dune-
(primary dune) from development west of the 18q828q89 line,but later
questions arose about controlled maintenance of-'the dunes on the
north end and concerns about using the 120q820q69 line for the whole
peninsula. Individuals expressed the0qi,rq,q,[email protected] these
".questions.

Comments included:
Concern about irretrievable damage if we*allow development.
Freeze the setback line in the,deflation plain. Evaluate in 5
years.
We have an obligation to save open space.for future.generations.
Allow some development but ensure design review for quality
development.
Allow no building on the +oredunes
Concerns about "takings" of property if-m6ratorium on.building.
Allow +ire access roads in the dunes
Rezone dunelands Conservation District, and create a National
Seashore.
There seemed to be a-difference of opinion about the "value" of
property - in' terms of potential building sites versus pristine
environment.

Discussion next centered on the Seaview area. Questions were
raised qis,to how many people own property west of the 1689 line
only and the potential for a "taking" if no development were
allowed in that area. Norm agreed to look this up at the
Assessor's office for the next meeting.
Joel*s written comments were discussed and his meaning clarified.

No consensus was reached on the philosophical issue to develop or
protect the dunelands west of the 1889 line. :.,Discussion will
continue at the July 26 meeting.

ABSTRACT #4

TITLE: Additional clerical support position for
Shorelines Management

AUTHOR: Pacific County Planning Department

SUBJECT: Amended contract for employment position

DATE: June 20, 1988 to June 30, 1988

PARTICIPANTS: Vivian Bleecker

PROJECT NUMBER: Amendment #2 to Grant Number G0088027

SERIES NUMBER:

SUMMARY: A contract amendment was requested to hire a part-time
clerical staff member to provide support in Shoreline
Administration and Willapa Bay Water Quality Coordinating
Committee. Immediate funding was needed to hire an individual by
the end of May. Coastal Zone Management monies were used to
supplement County funding of the position. The additional
position was needed to assist the existing full-time
administrative assistant in the extra work load brought on by the
Willapa bay Committee and adoption of the Long Beach
Comprehensive Plan.

On June 20th, Mrs. Vivian Bleecker was hired. To date, Mrs.
Bleecker has added measurably to the Planning Department's
ability to process routing shoreline documentation within the
legal requirements. The position will be extended into 1989. it
is hoped by the addition of this position Pacific County will
improve overall administration of the Shoreline Management Act
and the Pacific County Shoreline Master Program.

Exhibit #4

Amended contract agreement
Letter of offer

AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO GRANT NO. G0088027

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

AND

PACIFIC COUNTY

WHEREAS, Pacific,County has requested expenditure approval for
$750 of their Coastal Zone Management grant monies to pay for
additional clerical support for shoreline management and a new
initiative to establish a Willapa Bay Water Quality Coordinating
Committee; and

WHEREAS, Pacific County is also requesting expenditure approval
for $600 of their Coastal Zone Management grant monies to retain
the services of Mr. Arnold Shotwell to serve as advisor to the
Willapa Bay Water Quality Committee; and

WHEREAS, support for the aforementioned activities is consistent
with the goals of Washington State's Coastal Zone Management Pro-
gram; and

WHEREAS, approval of Pacific County's budget request would be in
the interest of the State of Washington;

THEREFORE, BE IT AGREED that the grant contract be amended such
that the Department of Ecology hereby approves the expenditure of
existing unspent Pacific County Coastal Zone Management grant
funds as described in the aforementioned.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute the amendment to
the Grant.

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PACIFIC COUNTY
oo
- @ 31
Ntll@ /@ Z,
D. Rodney Mack Signature Offici 1 Date
Program Manager of Grantee Auth rized
Shorelands & Coastal Zone to Make Agreement
Management Program t7>

Print Name of
Approved as to form this day Authorized official
of 1988.
ffici Date
A4uthrlized

Title of Authorized
Official
Assistant Attorney Gefteral

County of Pacific
0 Department of Planning
00 P.O. Box 68 * Courthouse
0. South Bend, Washington 98586 EXtension 373
gnu South Bend 875-6541 Long Beach 642-4475 Naselle 484-7136

June 9, 1988-

Mrs. Vivian Bleecker
Post Office Box 913
402 Pacific Street
South Bend, Washington 98586

Dear Mrs. Bleecker,

I am happy to offer you the part-time clerical support position
with the Pacific County Department of Planning. The position
offered to you is an entry level seven (7) administrative clerk
with a starting wage of $6.90 per hour to a maximum of $8.62 per
hour. The position has been budgeted for a maximum of twenty (20)
per week. You must work at least twenty (20) a week to qualify for
the County's insurance plan. Vacation and sick leave are given
under a percentage of the number of hours worked per week.
Since Kathy Noren is still an vacation, I would like for you to
start on Monday, June 20, 1988. On Monday we can discuss your
desired work schedule. once again let me welcome you to the
Planning Department. I am sure you will make a valued contribution
to the team. See you on Monday.

Sincerely,

Planning Director
Mark R. Carey

mrc

cc: Board of County Commissioners
Veryl Hill
File

ABSTRACT '#5

TITLE: Willapa Bay: Actions and Programs Required
to Insure its Continued.Value as a Major
Resource

AUTHOR: Dr. J. Arnold Shotwell

SUBJECT: Literary review and Needs Assessment of
Willapa Bay

DATE: July 1988

PARTICIPANTS: Dr. Shotwell, Pacific County Planning
Department and Board of County Commissioners

PROJECT NUMBER: Amendment #2 to Grant Number G0088027

SERIES NUMBER:

SUMMARY: Contract amendment #2 allowed Pacific County to retain
the services of Dr. J. Shotwell to serve as advisor to the
proposed Willapa Bay Water Quality Committee. Dr. Shotwell's
specific responsibility was to perform a complete literary search
of all relevant data concerning the water quality of Willapa Bay,
review the existing estuary management plans for timeliness, and
to provide a tertiary Needs Assessment of the water quality
situation. A formal personnel contract was executed between Dr.
Shotwell and the Planning Director (contract holder) on June 7,
1988 to perform said services.

On July 5th, Dr. Shotwell submitted a 16-page report which
analyzed the existing studies and recommended specific actions be
pursued. In summary, the report identified actions needed by the*
County, desired grant components, long-term monitoring
alternatives, and the need for an overseer group. The report was
short, concise and to-the point. It will provide a valuable
basis for-the Water Quality Committee to formulate initial
strategies during the project process.

Page 2
Abstract 5

Exhibit #5

Personnel contract with Arnold Shotwell

Grant Amendment

Document: Willapa Bay; Actions and Programs
Required to Insure its Continued Value as a Major
Resource.

PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT

THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the 7th day of June,

1988, by and between the County of Pacific, a political

subdivision of the State.of Washington, hereinafter referred to

as "County," and Arnold Shotwell, hereinafter referred to as

"Consultant."

(1) TERMS: The County shall retain the Consultant to serve

as a technical advisor to the Willapa Bay Water Quality

Committee. The Consultant will review the existing estuary

management plans for timeliness and adequacy. Also, the

consultant will prepare a water quality needs assessment of

Willapa Bay, addressing the current and future needs of the Bay

related to water quality.

(2) DUTIES: The Consultant shall well and faithfully serve

the County and complete the specific tasks and work products

included in Amendment No. 2 of Grant No. G0088027 between the

State of Washington Department of Ecology and Pacific County

attached hereto and hereby included as if it were herein

repeated.

(3) CONTRACT HOURS: The services shall be performed

pursuant to this contract on a temporary, part-time basis only.

The Consultant will be retained as long as needed to complete the

project.

Page 2

(4) COMPENSATION: The County shall pay the Consultant for

services rendered pursuant to this contract the sum of twenty

dollars ($20.00) per hour, said sum to be paid regularly upon

receipt of a proper statement of work progress and compensation
due for'such work and in the same manner as payment is provided
other regular bounty vendors.

(5) REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES: The County agrees to reimburse

the Consultant for documented use of a private vehicle by the

Consultant in performance of these services at the current County

mileage reimbursement rate ($.20 per mile) with a monthly maximum

reimbursement of one hundred fifteen dollars ($115.00).

Additionally, the County agrees to reimburse the Consultant

for the documented actual costs of other expenses incurred in

performing these services; including printing, photocopying,

communications (telephone, answering machine and postage), and

out of County travel.

(6) TERMINATION: This contract may be terminated by either

party upon two (two) weeks' written notice to the other party.

Page 3

(7) AMENDMENT/EXTENSION: This contract may be amended or

extended on agreement of both parties.

CONSULTANT:

Arnold Shotwe

PLANNING DIRECTOR:
oe

Mark R. Carey

WILLAPA BAY

Actions and Programs Required
to
Insure Its Continued Value as a Major Resource

A Report prepared for the Pacific County Commission
Financed through grant G0088027. Coastal
Zone Management Act, through the
Washington State Department of Ecology

J.Arnold Showell

July 1988

WILLAPA BAY
Actions and Programs Required
to
Insure its Continued Value as a Major Resource

A report prepared for the Pacific County Commission
by
J.Arnold Shotwell

INTRODUCTION

On June 7, 1988 a member of the Pacific County Commission and the
director of the Planning Department met with me and requested that I
prepare a report assessing the "water quality" needs and actions for Pacific
County. This report was to be prepared by July 1. 1988.

There is no sound body of data on the water quality of Willapa Bay.
Sampling has been conducted in the course of preparation of various studies
and in response to concerns However no regular program of sampling has
been carried out. Never the less, the data available indicate a number of
potential and real water quality problems . Actions and needs to access and
cure problems have been identified in these studies. I will review the salient
aspects of these studies particularly to provide a beginning point for a better
understanding of the water quality characteristics of the bay and its
watershed.

BACKGROUND

In 1972-1974 a WQMP (Water Quality Management Plan) was
prepared under the aegis of the Pacific County Regional Planning Council.
They in turn formed the River Basin Coordinating Committee to supervise
the development of the plan. This group included two citizens, myself and
Richard Claunch of Weyerhaeuser Company. The other nine members were
representatives of various governmental entities, local, state and federal.

I was chairman of the committee. The actual work was done by Keith
Christian of the Planning Department of Pacific County under the guidance of
Ken Kimura who was Planning Director. Except for a consultant who provided
the wastewater engineering information the work was in house. The plan
was funded by DOE and Pacific County

This plan was concerned largely with pollution sources. It identified
problem areas created by community, individual and industrial discharges.
The document is nearly 500 pages long and includes a tremendous amount
of information. It describes ground water supplies and their quality,
characteristics of surface waters, distribution of population, economy of the
area and its resources, land use and ownership patterns, development
trends, and includes a section on proposed sanitary wastewater systems.
This information is summarized in 38 maps and 90 tables.

The effects of pollution on Willapa Bay were a minor consideration of
the WQMP. The bay is only mentioned in passing.

Problem areas were segregated into Institutional. Sewage water
pollution and other areas. ( comments in parenthesis indicate status of
implementation of reccomended solutions of problems)

Institutional problems recognized were;'

Lack of a permanent citizen advisory group to oversee the
implementation of the WQMP, Solid Waste Management plan,
Shorelines Master Program and other water quality plans.
( not implemented )

Lack of staff for implementation
not corrected

Sewage Water Pollution problems included;

Inadequate or non-existent sewage collection and treatment
f acilities
Raymond-South Bend systems upgraded)
Need for control limiting use of on-site disposal systems
( Lot size limit in Health Department regulations)
Need for acceptable method of disposing of treatment plant effluent
on the Peninsula
not corrected)
Inadequate sewage treatment plant operating records
( don't know if this has been corrected)