No Way To Treat A Nationally Recognized Expert

Goodness!  This is an email from Shireene to update the County's CAO Implementation Team. The title of this post refers to the fact that Dr. Adamus has often been touted as a nationally recognized wetland scientist, but look how Shireene talks about him. Amidst mention of crises and bayonets, it certainly looks as if Dr. Adamus is being elbowed out of the way in favor of what Shireene calls "my alternative wetlands buffer approach" which was subsequently refined by Dr. Adamus into the current Abacus Kadabra. This email certainly suggests that the whole approach is Shireene's to begin with, and everyone else involved, including Dr. Adamus, is just along for the ride.

How is it that our buffers are supposed to be scientific when they've apparently been designed quick and dirty as part of a CAO rescue mission by a planner and then justified after the fact by Dr. Adamus? The email also suggests that the addressees have known for quite some time that the buffer approach is Shireene's, not Dr. Adamus', but that hasn't stopped them from claiming that the latest wetland CAO is based on BAS. Increasingly, the record appears to show that Dr. Adamus is being used like a front man for the ideas of CDPD and Ecology, who appear to be desperate to ram home the CAOs at all costs and despite all opposition.

-----Original Message-----

From: Shireene Hale [mailto:shireeneh@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:53 AM
To: Richard Fralick; Patty Miller; Lovel Pratt; Pete Rose; Randall Gaylord; Jon Cain; Janice Biletnikoff; Colin Maycock; Rene Beliveau
Subject: CAO/ SMP meeting Wednesday?

So are we meeting Wednesday? If so just let us know what time.

At this point, if you all can give me the go ahead to vet my alternative wetland buffer approach with our local citizen scientists and perhaps the Public Works engineers (or at least Rachel) that will allow us to move forward on the next draft of the Wetland regulations. It would not be an open ended, start from scratch discussion, nor a situation where they all have to agree, but rather me looking for input on my proposal.

If it makes you more comfortable I can discuss issues with them separately - though I think there is value in a focused group discussion. My recommendation is to send them the proposal (with a little more fleshing out) via e-mail, ask for comments (either verbal or via e-mail), rework it based on those comments, and then have one conference call to discuss where I ended up after incorporating pertinent suggestions. Even if not everyone agrees, as least the technical people will understand how this alternative approach would work. The biologists, hydrologists, engineers and wetland specialists I propose to include are: Steve Belluomini, Ed Kilduff, Scott Rozenbaum, Janet Alderton, Dr. Adamus, Dan Nickel, and Rachel Dietzman.

On the Voluntary Stewardship Program, Janice will be sending the Council an update, but basically we are proceeding with meeting the requirements of the law, which include conferring with Ag, tribal and environmental interests (meeting scheduled for Dec. 9) and preparing to do SEPA review/ notice and providing broad notice to the public (notice scheduled to be published November 30). I understand the Council will be considering the draft resolution and taking testimony on whether to opt in on December 13. Janice is putting the finishing touches on the draft resolution today and will give it to Randy for his review/ signature.

She will also put together a staff report on the program and the resolution (which will be headed for Pete's approval within the next week or so).

On the SMP update, Colin could use some guidance on whether the council wants to approve the shoreline inventory and characterization before he and the consultants begin working on draft goals and policies. We understand that some property owners are gathering information about their property and may wish to have some discussions with us once the draft shoreline designations are released, but I think that can be worked into the process. As long as their existing land use is not radically different than the properties surrounding them, the designations should recognize the built environment that currently exists.

For CAO at some point we should probably discuss if we are going to change the way we have been involving our citizen scientists in the review of technical issues. What we and the consultants have been doing is having direct conversations with them (either phone or e-mail) so that we understand their points of view and they understand our thinking. Steve Belluomini, Ed Kilduff, Scott Rozenbaum, Jim Johannessen, Russel Barsh and Janet Alderton have all been involved in this manner throughout the process including during the drafting of the BAS Synthesis (I am sure there are others as well given all the various disciplines we are dealing with). We do need to remain vigilant about separating personal comments that are outside the scientists' respective areas of expertise, from comments relating to their areas of expertise. Anyway, this approach has been working well and I would continue it (being mindful to include all who have expertise and would like to be involved).

At some point soon we do need to discuss Dr. Adamus' role moving forward. While he can be quite helpful, it is a problem if he doesn't have time to attend hearings (which we have not asked him to do but which would help him understand the comments we receive), review materials, and participate in problem solving in a constructive manner. His lack of attention and input into the last wetland draft resulted in a significant waste of both our time, and the public's time. If we had known he did not review the materials carefully and did not have time to do so we could have postponed the hearing until he did have adequate time to devote to the project.

Pete mentioned establishing some sort of field procedures for dealing with unexpected crises (e.g. last Thursday). If we learn from our mistakes, that crisis won't be repeated, and the next one will be something different. Some guiding principles might be helpful. Now that we are no longer faced with an impending Planning Commission hearing (which was to occur today) we can take a breath and think about how to navigate the difficult situations we will continue to face. I would suggest that bayonetting the wounded after the battle is probably not a good approach.

So, please keep us posted on whether the implementation committee is meeting next Wednesday and have a nice weekend!

Shireene Hale, EHS 

Planning Coordinator/ Deputy Director 

San Juan County Community Development & Planning 

PO Box 947 

135 Rhone Street 

Friday Harbor, WA 98250 

360.370.7569

shireeneh@sanjuanco.com

Is The State Copied On Everything?

See the email below.  It looks like at least one Council member thinks Tim Blanchard has to be refuted.  Is that why Lovel copies her email to both Linda Lyshall from the Puget Sound Partnership and Erik Stockdale of Ecology? Are they going to learn Tim some of their best available truth?

For those of you who may not know who Tim Blanchard is, he is an Orcasite and Common Sense Alliance Vice President who has donated enormous amounts of effort and time to shed a little light on the CAO process. It doesn't look like his efforts are much appreciated by Lovel.

And despite the appearance of Erik Stockdale being well integrated into many aspects of the County CAO process, I have to wonder about (yes, here it is again) the recent quote by Ecology that says:

"We don’t have regulatory authority in local critical areas ordinance issues. We don’t make rulings or issue enforcement actions under local critical areas ordinances. Those tasks are on local government turf" (Gordon White, Eco-Connect Blog, February 14, 2012.)

From: Lovel Pratt [mailto:LovelP@co.san-juan.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:16 PM
To: Pete Rose
Cc: Richard Fralick; Shireene Hale; Linda Lyshall; Erik C. Stockdale (esto461@ecy.wa.gov)
Subject: Feb 2nd CAPR mtg

Hi Pete,

I read on the Island Guardian that Tim Blanchard is the guest speaker at tomorrow night’s CAPR meeting (at the Grange).  Prior to last Tuesday’s meeting, Richard met with Tim and told me that he was hopeful that Tim is interested in working productively – and expeditiously – on the CAO update.  I am not convinced of that given the communications I received from him last week (attached - and for some of those copied here FYI the Council’s identified next steps for the CAO update process).

Tim has some wrong assumptions about the CAO adoption process.  During public testimony last week (where he outlined what is included in the attached documents) there were no responses from the Council or staff to refute his wrong assumptions regarding the CAO update process.  While he was present to hear the Council’s later discussion (with the PA there answering questions) about the CAO update process, I’m not sure that he now has and will be presenting accurate information at the CAPR meeting.

My bottom line question is: How do we best get accurate information about the CAO update process to the public?

I would appreciate any insight and ideas you have!

Thank you!

Lovel

Lovel Pratt

San Juan County Council, District 1

Office: 55 Second St. N., 1st Floor

360-370-7473

Mail: 350 Court St. #1, Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Everyone is welcome to join me for a community meeting and brown bag lunch on the 4th Monday of every month at noon in the legislative building's large conference room (55 Second St.).

Confidentiality Notice:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is subject to the Washington State Public Records Act, RCW Chapter 42.56 et al.  This e-mail and attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information.  Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended recipients is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Our Independent Expert Doesn't Appear to be Either

Dr. Adamus was hired as the County's independent wetlands expert, and yet he apparently needs to ask the Department of Ecology about basic matters of wetland regulation.  From the email below, Dr. Adamus does not even seem to know that wetlands are subject to provisions of the Clean Water Act (anti-degradation policy).

This single email is representative of many more, obtained through Public Records Act requests, showing an open and direct line of communication between Dr. Adamus and the Department of Ecology regarding Dr. Adamus' work with San Juan County.  When Dr. Adamus came on board we also got, from the Department of Ecology, Erik Stockdale, Paul Anderson, and Tom Hruby as a "bonus".

Begging the question of whether it is even proper for the Department of Ecology to have a blog in the first place, Ecology's own Eco-Connect blog says, "We don’t have regulatory authority in local critical areas ordinance issues. We don’t make rulings or issue enforcement actions under local critical areas ordinances. Those tasks are on local government turf."

Then why are they involved, and why does our independent expert rely on them so heavily?

From: Paul Adamus [mailto:adamus7@comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:35 PM
To: Stockdale, Erik (ECY); Hruby, Tom (ECY)
Subject: BAS-related questions

Erik and Tom,

My questions are as follows:

1. Wetlands and Antidegradation (section 401 CWA).  Must all wetlands in WA be protected from degradation?  How do you explain to the public it's OK for wetlands to be used passively as filters for pollution, yet antidegradation applies?  Can Antidegradation be applied to physical changes to a wetland as well, such as ditching or vegetation removal in the wetland buffer -- which can indirectly affect water temperature?  But then, there are no adopted water quality standards for wetlands, correct?  Have any been adopted in WA for seasonal (Type Ns) streams?

2. Wetlands and stormwater.  Are all wetlands off-limits for intentional routing of stormwater, or only Category I?  Any explicit limits on passive incidental stormwater, other than as described in #1?

3.  Do you know of any WA jurisdictions (other than King Co.) that explicitly allow wetland or stream buffer narrowing if LID practices are used?  How much narrowing, maximum?

4.  For jurisdictions that are considering land use intensity as a factor in tailoring buffer widths, are they all using the land use types or activity types in the WDOE documents to define the intensity levels, or are there some like Island County that use the percent of a parcel's vegetation proposed for removal (and its location) as the primary factor that defines intensity level and thus (partly) the buffer width?

5.  Do any jurisdictions allow an "adaptive management" approach wherein property owners may opt for smaller buffers if they agree to and pay for onsite monitoring of contamination and/or resource harm? I have problems with that approach site-specifically, for the many reasons I mentioned in the BAS.

Thanks,

Paul

Who Would Gandhi Beat Up?

Read the email at the bottom of this post and ask yourself if the Mahatma would have gone after Charles Dalton? What about Rosa Parks? I wonder if Stephanie Buffum earns 86% of what Charles earns? The email is from the Director of the "Friends" to one of her friends working for the County. Just a few months after this email, Stephanie started going after Charles.

Gandhi, Rosa Parks, MLK were, of course, notorious law breakers of unjust laws. Since the Dalton video broke, I've heard some defend the "Friends" actions by saying that Charles broke the law, and for them, that's all that matters. We should, of course, obey just laws. However, one difficulty the average citizen faces nowadays is that our laws have become so convoluted that it can be impossible to know how to follow them. We often don't know when we're breaking the law, and we don't know that we have to disprove something just to live our lives on our own property.

When Stephanie "The Mahatma" Buffum reported Charles for building in a wetland and along a stream, that was before any report of a wetland or stream on Charles' property existed.  In other words, she claimed there was a wetland and stream, and then the wheels of "justice" turned to make her self-fulfilling prophecy stick. As for whether it is or is not a wetland and stream, there are conflicting scientific studies in that regard. One study was authored by someone with no science degree, and the other was authored by someone licensed by the State in a scientific discipline (and two scientific subspecialties) and with degrees in science. Guess which one the Department of Ecology chose?

If we are to respect the law, then we must all follow it equally. We cannot have a situation where some are more equal than others. Many feel the wheels of justice work differently for well-connected "Friends" here. They often seem to be different for County and State officials too.  When reports come in that County and State officials were trespassing on Charles Dalton's property and even inside his buildings without his permission, that deserves scrutiny. When Ecology and the County pay no attention to the Geology Licensing Laws, that deserves scrutiny. County and State officials should not be above the law.

Lastly, I would venture to say that many San Juan County residents have something out of place on their property at this very moment, and they may not even be aware of it. When the CAOs and SMP go into effect, complicated as they are, there will be many more "sleeper" violations just waiting for a complaint from our self-styled Mahatma to pick on. As the email below suggests, their cause is just, so you may be in for it, even if they have to break the law to prove it. After all, you're just a Charles Dalton, and they're Gandhi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephanie Buffum [mailto:stephanie@sanjuans.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 2:41 PM
To: Barbara Rosenkotter
Subject: CAO - unplugged

It’s not often that I rant, but I need to among friends…

I went to an Anti-Critical Areas Ordinance meeting and dinner last night at the San Juan Grange...there were 90 people there! I know at least 3 of the people as we had seen each other in court a few times on landuse issues. There was a panel of 9 people representing members of the: Common Sense Alliance (Mike Carlson); CAPR(Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights – Frank Penwell, Richard Civille and Steve Cotton (the former Republic Chair for SJC), the SJ Builders Association (Gordy Peterson/John Evans); SJ Realtors Association (Sam Buck); and private landuse attorney Stephanie O'Day and her staff planner Francine Shaw.

The meeting was supposed to be a balanced discussion, but no one with alternative opinions were invited to sit on the panel. The orca, salmon, sea birds, surf smelt, eelgrass, wetlands, water were no represented on the panel.

Main presenter themes were:

· Don't bother me with the biology or facts.
· There’s no biological problem in SJ County.
· No one believes that their property is a source for pollution.
· Private property owners don’t want pay for protection of the environment.
· Write to your elected officials tell them to protect your private property.
· Govt is taking all your property without compensation.

The meeting was insightful to the human condition and the power of fear and greed...Here's what I learned:

· About 90 people took the time to attend.
· The group felt defensive and many fronts: backlash from the presidential election,
   backlash from the economic turning, personal loss at so many level;

· Most of the people were concerned about the financial burden of protecting the
   environment.
· I think most people left with the same amount of information they arrived with…little.

After attending meeting like last night, I can better understand…

· why some took to arms to preserve slavery
· how Germans in WWII sat in complacency against their own government while millions
  of Jewish people were killed.

· how Japanese Americans were detained during WWII while non Japanese American
  stood idle.
· why people were moved to take action in 1968 and assassinate MLK, Jr and Kennedy.
· why women still make 86 cents to the $1 that a man makes.

I can better understand why Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus and MLK, and Gandhi sat in, sat down, and Rachel Carson and Terry Tempest Williams took to the pen.

I appreciate you and your service to preserve this amazing place we reside.

The opposition is well organized, we need to get ourselves better organized. We are trying to get letters into the editor weekly and calls to elected councilors. We need to communicate common values and common sense to protect this place for another 40 years. Our values are so closely tied to human preferences which are manifested wholistically. An integration of place, ethics, religion, sexuality, beauty and economics. Attempts to focus exclusively on an “economic” value that value monetarily will generally fail to adequately represent culture, community and aesthetic values.

The future needs all of our voices…. Calls and letters to friends, family, neighbors, and our elected officials.

The County council especially needs to hear from all of us often and frequently through November on why we value living here in the San Juans and what we want in our community.

And we support the CAO with some modifications. The CAO is a C+ and meets the minimum standards. It needs some modifications for sure, but we can articulate that it is something worth defending.

· Lovel Pratt (Dist 1 SJ South) 370-7473 LovelP@co.san-juan.wa.us
· Rich Peterson (Dist 2 SJI North) 378-2898 richp@co.san-juan.wa.us
· Howie Rosenfeld (Dist 3 Town of Friday Harbor) 378-5788 howier@co.san-juan.wa.us
· Richard Fralick (Dist 4 West Orcas) 370-7473 richardf@sanjuanco.com
· Gene Knapp (Dist 5 West Orcas East) 378-2898 genek@co.san-juan.wa.us
· Bob Myhr (Dist. 6) 378-2898 or 468-2258; myhr@rockisland.com or BobM@co.san-juan.wa.us

Cheers, Stephanie Buffum

More Public Records - Jamie and a Constituent Talk CAO

In the red highlighted part below, Jamie suggests the Council has to make hard choices. I agree that they have to make hard choices, but will they make the right choices?  From my perspective, so far the answer has been "No."  By the way, the black bolded parts of the following emails are part of the original email, not modifications by me.

Also, Jamie says that we've lost money. What money exactly? I am not aware of "millions" in lost grants and loans.  And do we really want millions in grants and loans anyway? Grants often establish policy and financial obligations that seem to cost us more money in the long run. Do we really want more loans? And is that really the reason that we're doing the CAOs: to get grants and loans for a grant-and-loan-fueled economy? I thought we were protecting the environment. I am confused.

From: lopezsound@hotmail.com
To: jamies@sanjuanco.com; arnoldjune@msn.com
Subject: RE: Concern over CAO Activities
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:12:27 +0000

Jamie,
Thanks for the fast response.  I am not in the "chicken Little" crowd on this issue, but the somewhat cavalier way the maps are being classified has me concerned.  Lets take a specific REAL world example....SUNSET... We sit on a 4+ acre special zoned "commercial" center on the island.  The current map shows a "wetland" across a good portion of our parcel (which is not true) and an associated 1% potential to flood designation across most of the lot.  As you know from being on our lot many times, the yard is elevated approximately 15' above the level of the adjacent wetland (to ensure it doesn't flood by the way).  If the maps persist as drawn, what specifically can I expect when we go to expand our main building (we have had drawings in the works for 18 months now)? or we want to add an additional dry storage building in the NW corner of the property (which we have also drawn and intend to operate an equipment rental business for the island).  The expansion of the store in the designated "Commercial area" is exactly what is supposed to happen....we concentrate commercial enterprises into logical pockets so that mixed land use doesn't occur willy-nilly all over the island.  We have been planning the expansion for some time to better serve the community with a wider variety of products.  One example would be more storage for a low end paint  as today we only have room for one, so we carry what the builders want Benn Moore at the expense of the home owner who might want a $20/gal general can of paint.  Additionally, expanded clothing, sporting goods, expanded pet department, and an expanded house wares/cooking section to fill obvious voids in our small community.  The only way to expand the building is to push it to the west by about 50', in doing so we can pick up an additional 2000 SQFT of retail space.  Today, the 50' of expansion to the west would flow without a hitch (no impervious surface or lot coverage issues) permitting the process would move along the normal path.  Now comes the new maps and the new regs......What will happen? (if right now your answer is I don't know, then you can't in your right mind consider passing and approving them).  How are the fish and frogs going to be effected by my building expansion in the new era? Is it better to have treated lumber sitting in that area, or an expanded building?  Who ultimately decides what's best? Who has the final say?  How much more will it cost me to conduct studies to prove that the fish and the frogs are going to be OK?  The building addition as planned will cost more than $100K to complete, the reason it isn't done yet is that it only can marginally return the investment in a reasonable timeframe.  Now because someone may have been a little cavalier with the pen designating wetland areas, the burden of proof (and cost associated with it) shifts to me, the land owner, to shoulder.  If I choose not to build what does it mean.....Maybe nobody in the community covers these needs, which means more people must drive off island, consume fossil fuels, burden the failing ferry system, and what happens....the environment suffers (including fish and frogs).

I always hear the same kind of return response (refreshingly so far not from you)...."well you have a vested interest in development" your damn right I do and so does every other person living on Lopez.  Every project undertaken employs architects planners, inspectors, carpenters, plumbers, electricians.  Those people have families, those families keep teachers doctors, dentists, and other professionals employed.  Anything that potentially upsets this balance and introduces new burdens of cost has the potential to destroy the system.

I get that there needs to be updated regs, but how will we ever account for the unintended consequences of the decisions we are going to make, its not good enough to just hope its all going to workout.  Real damage is going to be done here.

Joel

---

Subject: RE: Concern over CAO Activities
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:46:35 -0800
From: jamies@sanjuanco.com
To: lopezsound@hotmail.com

Joel:

Thank you for your email.  

I do appreciate your concerns about the Council's update of the CAO and the impacts it will have on property owners and developers. I agree that most property owners are and want to be good stewards of their property and that education can be far more effective than regulations.  However, the council is required to comply with state law, and this update to the CAO is a long overdue state requirement.  In the time since this update was due (2005) the state requirements have become even more onerous from the perspective of property owners and developers, so the delays we have had are not providing a better outcome.  

The council is also working to address what I see as improvements needed in the current code.  One example is that the update will allow non-conforming homes that are destroyed by fire to be re-built in the existing footprint - something that is not an option in the current code. Much has been disseminated from property rights groups and environmental groups looking at tiny portions of the code and then taking it to the extreme. Much of the code that is being criticized is current and hasn’t been altered. These groups haven’t mentioned that in another section a buffer was reduced from200’ to 100’ because it couldn’t be backed up by best available science.

To better understand the state requirements that dictate the CAO General Section update process I urge you to read the analysis of SJC's existing code (available on the county website on the CAO Notices & Documents page): http://www.sanjuanco.com/cdp/docs/CAO/GenSection_Recs_2011-06-02.pdf

The ordinance won’t please everyone  in the end but rarely  do large complex code revisions. The general section that we just finished needs some tweaking for a part that was purposely general for flexibility but seems to have back fired. It can be done before final passage.

This process has stalled many times because no one was willing to make hard choices. By not doing it, it has cost the county millions in lost grants and loan opportunities that could have helped our economy. It has also been a giant suck on staff time. Prescriptive measures were thought to be too harsh and one size fit all. The variable approach gives more flexibility but it harder to implement. The current council is committed to getting through this process and is devoting a tremendous amount of time to be informed.

I would be happy to talk further with you about this - or any other issue.

Jamie Stephens

District 6

From: Joel Arnold [mailto:lopezsound@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:51 PM
To: Jamie Stephens
Subject: Concern over CAO Activities

Jamie,
I hope this note finds you well.  I wanted to take an opportunity to contact you to express my concerns over the current path towards implementation of the CAO regulations.  While June and care deeply about the environment, we are even more concerned about the fragile state of our little local economy on Lopez and the greater San Juan County.  I haven't spoken with you directly, so I am not clear on where you stand on this critical issue, but I implore you not to let this half-baked set of rules and red tape make it to implementation without a real scrubbing of what we are really getting for the significant risks we are going to assume to the livelihood of our community.

For years, the county has had rules and regulations in place that more than adequately provide for the balancing of the needs of the environment and the need for our community to responsibly grow at a reasonable and sustainable pace.  You need only walk the beaches and forest lands of the county to confirm this fact.

While it might be easy to dismiss this plea as we have an obvious "vested interest" as business owners in your community. The health of our business is directly tied to the overall health of the local economy and nearly every job in it.  A new set of onerous and expensive needless regulations will certainly have a negative impact on nearly every working member of our community as we all rely on a steady and predictable path of responsible growth.

Please make a stand for a more rational less restrictive approach to balancing the various needs in our community before its too late

Joel And June Arnold
Sunset Builders Supply
Lopez Island
 

Stephanie Buffum - Welcome to Use the CDPD Database as Lisa Brown

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Matthews [mailto:StanM@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:47 PM
To: 'stephanie@sanjuans.org'
Subject: re Your Public Records Request about Shoreline Structures

It does not appear that we have documents which directly provide the information you are requesting. Please see Lisa Brown’s note below, including her reference to the attached spreadsheet.

She indicates that the older data can be made available for your lookup and perusal through an aging database system.

Please review her suggestions and the attached material, and let me know how you would like to proceed.

Stan Matthews
Public Records Officer
Voice: 360-370-7405
Mail: 350 Court St #5, Friday Harbor, WA 98250

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Brown [mailto:lisab@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:47 AM
To: Stan Matthews
Cc: Rene Beliveau; Chris Laws
Subject: RE: Public Records Request for Shoreline Structures

Hi Stan - I have listed all code investigations from our three databases and have gone so far as to pull out the obvious shoreline investigations and compile them on separate sheets. Unfortunately there is no way to differentiate shoreline from upland in the Paradox DB. Be sure to advise Stephanie that not all of these actions resulted in violations, but that information is only available by either viewing the record online, or looking at the hard file, which would require possible redaction of information in each file. If you don't see any issues with Stephanie coming in to review the Paradox information under my log-in, I can set her up so that she can search the individual files in Paradox to get the tax parcel numbers and then do her own research through Polaris to see if the parcels are in the shoreline.

The attached is a spreadsheet includes the following information on separate worksheets:

1) All Code Investigation (CI) records from EDEN (October 20, 2009 - present)
2) Obvious shoreline investigations (may not include all)
3) All Code Investigation (CI) records pertaining to Land Use in Access (1999-2009)
4) Obvious shoreline investigations (may not include all)
5) All Code Investigation (CI) records pertaining to Land Use in Paradox (1994-1999)

Please let me know if this will satisfy her request. Thanks, Lisa

Lisa J. Brown, Office Manager
San Juan County
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING
360-378-2354 | 135 Rhone Street | PO Box 947 | Friday Harbor, WA 98250

From: Stan Matthews
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:51 PM
To: Lisa Brown
Subject: RE: Public Records Request for Shoreline Structures

Thanks.

Stan Matthews
Public Records Officer
Voice: 360-370-7405
Mail: 350 Court St #5, Friday Harbor, WA 98250

From: Lisa Brown
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:50 PM
To: Stan Matthews; Rene Beliveau
Subject: RE: Public Records Request for Shoreline Structures

I'll see what I have, or easily have capability to pull.

Lisa J. Brown, Office Manager
San Juan County
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING
360-378-2354 | 135 Rhone Street | PO Box 947 | Friday Harbor, WA 98250

From: Stan Matthews
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Lisa Brown; Rene Beliveau
Subject: FW: Public Records Request for Shoreline Structures

Stephanie Buffum has filed a public records request that reads like an information request (see below).

Please let me know if we have the information she is requesting in some index or report format, or if it is reasonably ascertainable from existing documents, which we could provide her.

We do need to be as helpful as possible, but we are under no obligation to prepare reports or create documents that don't already exist (i.e. we don't need to undertake a research project to compile information).

Thanks,

Stan Matthews
Public Records Officer
Voice: 360-370-7405
Mail: 350 Court St #5, Friday Harbor, WA 98250
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Stephanie Buffum [mailto:stephanie@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 2:05 PM
To: Stan Matthews
Subject: Public Records Request for Shoreline Structures

Since 1994, how many SJC enforcement actions have been issued in the marine shoreline?

Of these actions, how many required the removal of a shoreline home or any overwater structure (e.g. bulkheads, boat ramps, barge landings, marine railways. Please specify the date that the structure was removed.

Stephanie


Stephanie Buffum Field
FRIENDS OF THE SAN JUANS
Executive Director
360. 378.2319 office
360.472.0404 cell
Stephanie@sanjuans.org