Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - Page updated at 11:03 A.M.

County approves three of land-use regulations

By Keith Ervin
Seattle Times staff reporter


The Metropolitan King County Council last night passed three proposed ordinances that will significantly limit what rural landowners can do with their property, in an effort to better protect streams, wetlands and wildlife.
Early this morning council members passed the clearing-and-grading ordinance — the most controversial part of the package. The ordinance will allow rural landowners to clear only 35 to 50 percent of their land, depending on the parcel size.

The council also passed the critical-areas ordinance and the surface-water ordinance. The critical-areas ordinance establishes wider no-development buffers along streams and some wetlands; the surface water ordinance tightens regulations on how much water can run off newly developed sites. All three ordinances passed by a 7-6 vote along party lines.

The wetland buffers County Executive Ron Sims proposed last spring were revised to allow low-density rural homes to be built closer to wetlands and require wider buffers in high-density urban development.

Environmentalists supported the package, while rural landowners mounted months of protests and blasted it as "a massive land grab" that violates their property rights.

Yesterday's action came six days after the Pierce County Council became the first in the state to adopt a tough clearing rule that requires rural residential landowners to keep 65 percent of their land in native vegetation.

Sims' original proposal contained that restriction, but the council's growth-management committee last month reduced the native-vegetation requirement to 50 percent on properties of 5 acres or less.

If adopted, the modified ordinance would allow owners of more than 5 acres to set aside 2½ acres or 65 percent of the land, whichever is less.

The clearing restriction is intended to protect streams and species such as threatened chinook salmon by preserving forests throughout watersheds. Advocates cited scientific research that suggests deforestation significantly alters the runoff of rainwater, damaging streams.

Members of the Republican minority on the County Council blasted the package as unfairly putting the burden of environmental protection on rural residents, while city dwellers and suburbanites shoulder little of the burden.

"I feel very much like the rural part of the county has been disenfranchised over and over again," said Councilwoman Kathy Lambert, R-Woodinville.


Democrats said urban residents have shouldered their share of the burden of growth management.

Julia Patterson of SeaTac said city dwellers have accepted jails, airports, sex-offender housing, traffic and pollution, largely in order to prevent sprawling development across the countryside.

Dow Constantine, the Seattle Democrat who chairs the growth-management committee and shaped much of the package, said it represents "a very good package of regulations that responds to our legal and our moral obligations."

Despite amendments, the package keeps most of the major features Sims proposed in March.

At a news conference held by Republicans council members before yesterday's hours-long meeting, Rob McKenna, R-Bellevue, called the package "the most draconian land-use regulations in the state, if not the country."

"This is a momentous occasion — not necessarily a positive momentous occasion," said David Irons, R-Sammamish. He predicted that landowners will file numerous lawsuits against the new ordinances.

Republicans also argued that the county's analysis of "the best available science" didn't show the need for stricter regulation. Robert Crittenden, a fisheries biologist, said at the news conference that the author of a key paper in the county analysis "did not show his methods, so there's no way to ascertain whether it is valid or not."

Sims said a body of peer-reviewed research confirms the need for restrictions on land-clearing and storm-water runoff caused by homes and driveways. He called Republican attacks on the science report "an argument the Earth is flat. ... The Earth is no longer flat."

Sims rejected Republican arguments that existing regulations could protect the environment.

Sims yesterday proposed an ordinance that would allow property-tax breaks for owners who obtain "rural stewardship plans," approved by the King Conservation District, that protect streams, wetlands and wildlife more than regulations require.
=================================

Here's a link to the 2004 King County Council members if you'ld care to see how they voted.

http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/members/members.htm

no way aunty...poor people first!!

It will drive the value of my land through the roof. CAO is the right thing to do for the environment but it is a land grab on the govt's part.

This is the latest in Ron Simms' misguided "vision" for the future. Huge dense population centers with thousands of housing units close to town and as in the Martin Luther King neighborhood, close to the illfated light rail line. The county is going against much of the constitution in terms of "taking" of land without due compensation and the lawsuits have already started. Once again King County invites lawsuits and will no doubt settle for mega millions of the taxpayers money...Big deal to Simms though since he will just propose more taxes....

Rory, King, Grandpa,

What should the County do in your opinion. I'm not trying to be a Sims supporter, but he was right when he responded to a critic that existing regulations will protect the environment. Existing regulations are part of what has contributed to the existing degradation.

It seems to me that the social choices are either draconian conservation measures or what I call "write offs" where segments of the environment are essentially written off and no attempt is made to maintain natural environmental attributes, and society gives a free pass to such areas for unlimited housing developments and strip malls, as that's what society seems to value most. People are generally better at giving lip service to environmental protection than actual action to protect it.

And Rory, why should it matter if Sims fishes?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

First off, since my parents are property owners, I will concur with all the local signs around Enumclaw ("NO CAO!").

Second, I agree that Ron Simms has contributed to many new policies in King County. Some of these policies are the very reasons why it took my parents more than TWO YEARS to get permits to build their horse arena a few years back. TWO YEARS just to get the rights to build. Add that to the THOUSANDS of dollars to get those permits.... It's insane.

You guys want good country rights? Vote for a good country boy. It seems the people who are mostly trying to support CAO and other such land grabs are city folk who have nothing to lose by it.

Curtis

seems like i read some where that this was in response to a state mandate to protect wet lands and streams. each county has to pass something to make the state happy. they wanted farmers to fence off something like 100 feet on each side of a stream and wet land. if i rememberer right.

Well folks, we can't have it both ways. King County still has fish and wildlife resources worth saving. We all want to exercise our "right" to fish and hunt for those resources.

The King County Council has made the tough choice. They have voted to "protect and preserve" the fish and wildlife habitat that remains in the county.

On the one hand this is viewed as a "take" of private land by the County government.

On the other hand this kind of action may just protect enough salmon habitat to produce sufficient quantities of naturally produced coho (for example) to allow our valued fisheries to continue (oversimplification but you get the idea).

I think King County has demonstrated, with this vote, the type of action that is required within the "habitat" part of the "three H's" (habitat, harvest and hatcheries). Dramatic change is underway in both the harvest and hatchery "H's" but we see too little in the habitat "H."

King County has become accustomed to being a progressive County. Leadership among the counties is needed. Whether this survives the legal challenges or not, one must applaud the effort to lead Washington counties in the interest of protecting what fish and wildlife habitat remains.

Lets face it folks, if people (& companies?) were going to voluntarliy protect the fish and wildlife habitat that exists on their property we would not have the problems we do now and the King County council would not have been motivated to take the action they did.

Salmo,

Streamside buffers are critical and they need to be protected and increased. Unfortunately, the urban areas trashed theirs long ago and now they would like to move the cost of their mistakes to the rural landowners. I think it is perfectly OK to require strong protections along waterways and to ensure surface water is kept clean, but a blanket 65% taking on all rural land regardless of location is simply arbitrary. There are going to be many properties where minimal protections are necessary, and others where 65% may not be enough, but the ordinance doesn't seem to address that obvious difference. I just wish there was flexibility in the new law and if the County does see the need to "quaranteen" a significant part of someones property to protect the County's natural resource base, they should pay for it. Of course if I had the answers, I'd be running things instead of spouting off here.

DL is right. This affects all rural landowners & prospective buyers. I could understand if wrote the legislation to target low lying wetlands or property that borders streams. I agree that sometimes measures or changes need to be made but this was a drastic step. Land owners that live up in the hills that have minimal impact are included. Not sure if thats right.

This is nothing short of steeling and it WILL be over turned.

This is just another example of liberal Seattle democrats trying to please special interest groups.

There is NO SCIENCE involved in this move.

There is NO MANDATE by ANY govt agency to take these measures.

By all means protect the fish - but this is not the way to do it.

AM had it right in that we need to clean up the poisons leaking in from the big cities first. Hold cities and companies accountable. Ensure sound laws are in place and enforced regarding buffer zones, drainage, and wet lands. Focus on habit improvement and give local companies incentives to work with them and fine those who are in violation.

Blanket 'band aid' laws make NO SENSE. Most of the property involved has little or no effect on streams and rivers anyway. Why not just focus on those properties that do???

Get involved:

http://www.proprights.org/

Did You Know?


T*he proposed Critical Areas Ordinance will allow DDES to extort 65% of your property in exchange for permission to use the other 35%.
T*he new rules apply to new construction, additions, remodels, and proposed changes in land use.
*The new buffers can be as large as 3,700 feet. That is 986 acres for one spotted owl nest.
*A one-acre bog or fen will consume an additional 11.5 acres of perfectly good land for its buffer.
*You can clean agricultural drainage without a clearing and grading permit as long as it has been approved as part of your farm plan. Mitigation will be required.
*Adaptive management is much touted but it only works one way. If King County changes its mind down the road, the landowner will be responsible for making the newly mandated changes to the plan. King County is under no obligation to correct regulations that result in unintended and detrimental consequences to property owners or to the environment. It’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance deja-vu!
*Only maintenance, repair and limited replacement of structures is allowed in the new buffers. If your home is located in one of the many new buffers and burns or is destroyed by earthquake, it is unlikely that you will be permitted to rebuild.
*The ordinances give broad legislative powers to DDES and DNRP via administrative rules in violation of Washington State laws such as RCW.36.70.550-670.
*The bureaucrats contend that the affordable housing provisions of the GMA don’t apply to rural areas. The new ordinance provides for a reduction of buffer sizes in urban areas if 50% of the houses built are valued at $252,000 (affordable?) or less.
*Big developers can choose to pay a fee in lieu of mitigation. The fees are to be paid into a fund that can be used for enforcement. Bribes used to be illegal, didn’t they?
*Best available science does not differentiate between urban and rural areas. The decision to treat the two areas differently was made by the seven members of the Critical Areas Ordinance Policy Group. [see “Democracy in Action” page 3]
*Rural Stewardship Plans are touted as a way that landowners can reduce the size of the huge buffers called for in the ordinance. But ... in order to get a buffer reduction you must give up use of 85% of your property. [see Harry Reinert quote, “Possible restrictions outrage landowners”, Seattle Times, April 15, 2004, p. B6]
*The bulk of the new regulations apply only to the 15% of the land area of King County that is in between the urban areas (25%) and the forest production area (60%). If they confiscated all the land in unincorporated King County and turned it back into forest, the percentage of forest cover in King County would raise from 60% to 75%. The urban 25% will be just as devoid of fish and wildlife habitat as it is now.
*A blue heron rookery gets a 48-acre buffer.
*A red-tailed hawk gets 7.6 acres if she lives in the rural area but nothing if she should decide to nest inside the urban growth

Why do you think I dont live in King Co. Its bad enough I have to work in it!!!!!!!!!

Sims is an idiot!!!!! Just think of what he could have done to the state!!!!!

Ken Schram Commentary:

Can You Say, 'Hypocrites?'

October 26, 2004

By Ken Schram


SEATTLE - So now they're stewards of the land.

The King County Council has had what can only be described as an "environmental epiphany."

Under the guise of protecting wetlands, streams and wildlife, the council has passed ordinances that severely restrict what rural property owners can do with their land.

Want to cut some trees down?

You're screwed.

Clear those bushes?

Nope.

Build a small horse barn?

Don't think so.

With these new ordinances, up to 65% of rurally zoned property can't be touched.

Ever.

You may own it, but the county controls it.

That'd be the same county that, in the past, has allowed massive apartment complexes to spring up like weeds.

The same county that's shoehorned in condo units and housing developments.

Can you say "hypocrites?"

Landowners should expect some restrictions on property development, but this is too sweeping; too arbitrary.

It's one thing to take care with the environment, quite another to basically steal someone's property.

Maybe that's what we should expect from big city politicians who only see a salmon when it's packed in ice at the market.

Or maybe we should expect them to respect property rights, along with the environment.

Salmo G.

BTW CAO has been cooking for 15 years. It was the reason Ken Bering and Port Blakeley started the whole Cedar County movement back in the 80's.

The CAO actions are the right thing to do IMHO . It would be great if it where an individual choice. On the other hand should Govt. tell us what we can or cannot do with private property? It is clear however that the majority of people will not make that choice.
Example: I have a neighbor that claims to be an environmentalist. He is a geologist and a consultant so he understands the net effect of his decisions. Yet the cleared most of his 5 acres and fenced it for horses. They sit on a 15% or greater slope that butts a stream feeding into the Snoqualmie river. The fenced areas hold grass in the spring and summer but are all mud in the winter. Having heavy hooved animals on such land is wrong for the horses and really wrong for the streams. CAO would have required them to buffer 200 feet on the stream side effectively stopping them from having horses on their land. But should the government tell private land owners what they can and cannot do? The density and devlopment proposals in CAO are right on IMHO. It suggests populations densities equal to those found on Capitol hill in certain areas in East King county. It will create some wealthy land owners and will cost others a lot of money. We have a choice to make. Ruin it all for ever or do something to preserve what we all calim to be the very reason we live here. The CAO sword will cut both ways.

Once again TK and I are in agreement. The CAO was very heavily reviewed, discussed and argued over. Bottom line is we all want more fish, but no one wants to make any sacrafices.

Yes. I live in rural King County and yes this will effect me. If not us who? If not now when?

Who cares if Simms is an idiot, or if he fishes. It was voted on by the entire King County council. That, like it or not, is how democracxy works.

Is it legal? I don't know but I'm sure the courts will tell us.

"Bottom line is we all want more fish, but no one wants to make any sacrafices. "

More fish is good. But at what cost? What's next? These liberal wackos will be after the sportsman next. Gotta leave those poor creatures alone!!

TK - CAO goes too far. Your buddy and his horses are part of the problem, and should be addressed. But that specific situation isn't the norm. Most land owners impacted by this won't have rivers\streams on or near their property.

This is not about good science, good environmental protection - it is about some liberal city slickers who want us all to move into tiny appartments, ride on their expensive mass transit systems, and use their govt programs...

Ahhhh, the old 'american dream' is alive and well! LOL

All I can say is...well just read below.

BD

PP<

"CAO goes too far. Your buddy and his horses are part of the problem, and should be addressed. But that specific situation isn't the norm. Most land owners impacted by this won't have rivers\streams on or near their property. "

If you understand the sheet flow nature of our soils in WW and the topography almost every piece of land has some net effect on rivers and streams. Biofiltration issues and runoff have major impacts on lakes, streams ponds etc. Drill a well 100 feet deep and measure the fecal coliform, houshold chemicals etc. for miles downstream of major developments.

"almost every piece of land has some net effect "

Big deal - so does every time I pi$$ in the woods. What about all the cars on the roads? Are they going to outlaw cars in King County?

"Some net effect"??? What doesn't have some net effect??

What I'd like to see is some actual study going it to descisions like this:

What are the major concerns?
What areas are impacted the most?
Who is most responsible?
What are the alternatives for addressing the issues?
How do you measure the specific problem before and after to make sure you are acheiving your goals?
....
....

Again, this blanket approach is a bogus band aid made only to promote some extreme liberal enviro agenda.

At a minimum, the peole impacted by this should receive some kind of compensation - such as not having to pay 65% of their property taxes.... Like that is going to happen...