Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Friends Board Member Wants Ag Restrictions

No Ag, no septic, no view.  Why doesn't she just say, "No people"? This is a letter from Janet Alderton, a Friends Board member who is considered a technical expert on the CAOs by CDPD. She's also one of our most outspoken citizens about the CAOs.

Outspoken? ... hmmm ... that doesn't quite capture the frequency and tone of her comments from my perspective.  Abundantly outspoken? ... artless perhaps? ... relentless? As always, you decide. However, if you added up Janet Alderton's emails (word count especially), transmitted articles, private meetings with staffers, technical meetings with government staffers, comments during citizen access time, and hearings testimony, I doubt there is any other citizen who can match her volume of CAO-related comments. There is probably no other citizen who has had freer access to the CAO process.

Never was so much said by so few, it seems, and I think it suggests that some of us are more equal than others.
From: Janet Alderton [] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:41 PM
To: Lovel Pratt; Rich Peterson; Howard Rosenfeld; Richard Fralick; Patty Miller; Jamie Stephens
Subject: Fish&Wildlife CAO draft May 1, 2012

May 15, 2012

Dear County Councilors & Planning Commissioners,

A "High Risk" approach requires monitoring of both water quality and habitat components to assure "no net loss" of Critical Area functions and values. The May 1, 2012 draft of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) component of the Critical Areas Ordinance update moves beyond a "Moderate Risk" approach in the following key areas.

1. On page 24 of 36, Table 3.10 f. permits new and expanded agricultural activities in critical areas, the first 50 feet of the buffer closest to the water, and in the remainder of the buffer. There is no special consideration given to threatened, endangered, or sensitive species (Table 3.12) or to habitats of local importance (Table 3.13). Best Management Practices must be used, but these practices do not protect locally important habitats and the species that live within these habitats. The Voluntary Stewardship Program for agriculture requires water quality monitoring, but Table 3.10 f. requires no monitoring for water quality. 

Limited new and expanded agricultural activities might be permitted in the outer portion of a buffer (outside of the first 50 feet closest to the water) for Critical Areas without the species listed in Table 3.12 and for Critical Areas that do not contain the habitats listed in Table 3.13. Water quality monitoring should be required as it is by the Voluntary Stewardship Program.

2. On page 26 of 36, Table 3.10 r. Components of on-site sewage systems should be permitted only in the outer 25% of the buffer (not in the entire buffer), and annual testing of the septic system should be required and enforced. 

3. On page 27 of 36, #6, the variance for a "view," is vague and will allow a building to be sited anywhere on a parcel. #7 is specific for a 90-degree view from the shoreline. #6 should be removed from this draft ordinance. Mitigation should be required for a variance in a Critical Area as it is required for the Reasonable Use Exception.


Janet Alderton
PO Box 352
Deer Harbor, WA


  1. This is ultimately about the largest expansion of police power in the history of the county driven by an authoritarian world-view fueled by outside money funneled largely through one organization established here in 1979. That organization is the Friends of the San Juans. Many of us were proud members. But we left as the Friends lost their way. The FOSJ is no longer part of this community. They are determined for reasons unknown, to destroy our communities for the sake of some misguided notion that humanity and nature must be separated. That is not only impossible, it is pure nihilism that can't be reconciled with why we all moved here to begin with. You cannot negotiate with this this kind of sick and twisted world-view. You have to prevent it from catching hold and dominating our discourse, government and media. Real islanders are fighting back.

  2. Hey, don't be saying "fighting"! That would be uncivil! "Civil discourse" is required. That means sitting and listening to state and county bureaucrats blowing smoke and nodding like automatons in agreement. When a citizen says, "What you are proposing will ruin my family's livelihood!" the important thing to remember is that he raised his voice; then complain about how "threatened" you feel. Or if a video of you (acting in a public role in a public meeting) is posted, be sure to look past the point being made and complain about "personal" attacks, because it is, after all, all about YOU.

  3. Also, if you work for the planning department, don't forget to ask the County PA's office if you can charge citizens with a Class B felony for criticizing you:

    From: Shireene Hale []
    Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:16 AM
    To: Jon Cain
    Cc: Colin Maycock; Lovel Pratt; Patty Miller; Pete Rose; Randall Gaylord; Rene Beliveau; Richard Fralick; Shireene Hale
    Subject: Intimidating a Public Servant discussion for CAO Imp Team meeting?


    Would it be possible on Monday for you to briefly discuss whether any of the actions we are seeing that are directed at individuals, constitute intimidation of a public servant (including planning staff, consultants, Planning Commissioners, and County Council members)? Examples include Gordy's statement to Janice that she should call in sick and not attend the Planning Commission hearing because "it is going to be ugly", the personal attacks we heard at the March 16 Planning Commission hearing, and John Evan's latest articles in the Island Guardian (attached). See applicable codes below.



    RCW 9A.76.180

    Intimidating a public servant.

    (1) A person is guilty of intimidating a public servant if, by use of a threat, he or she attempts to influence a public servant's vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a public servant.

    (2) For purposes of this section "public servant" shall not include jurors.

    (3) "Threat" as used in this section means:

    (a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or

    (b) Threats as defined in RCW 9A.04.110 .

    (4) Intimidating a public servant is a class B felony.

    [2011 c 336 § 407; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.76.180 .]

    RCW 9A.04.110


    (28) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent:

    (a) To cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or

    (b) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or

    (c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or

    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or

    (e) To expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

    (f) To reveal any information sought to be concealed by the person threatened; or

    (g) To testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or

    (h) To take wrongful action as an official against anyone or anything, or wrongfully withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding; or

    (i) To bring about or continue a strike, boycott, or other similar collective action to obtain property which is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group which the actor purports to represent; or

    (j) To do any other act which is intended to harm substantially the person threatened or another with respect to his or her health, safety, business, financial condition, or personal relationships;

    Shireene Hale

    Planning Coordinator/ Deputy Director

    San Juan County


  4. Patty, how many horse's do you have and where is your property located?? I think you are about to be upheld to your own rules. So sad, to bad.