Council Republicans call for repeal of Critical Area Ordinance’s rural area clearing limits

In the wake of the 3-0 unanimous decision by the State of Washington Court of Appeals in Citizens Alliance for Property Rights v. Ron Sims, the Republican Caucus of the Metropolitan King County Council today introduced a repeal of the rural clearing limits imposed by the Clearing and Grading Ordinance adopted along with a package of legislation collectively known as the Critical Areas Ordinances (CAO).

“My colleagues and I urge the Council to act on this, thereby saving our county taxpayers two more years of unnecessary legal bills,” said Councilmember Reagan Dunn, chair of the Republican Caucus. “This ordinance takes us back to the system we had prior to the unlawful rural clearing limits. We want to work with our Democratic colleagues to fine-tune that system and make it better for the people who live there.”

The Appeals Court decision reversed the judgment of the Snohomish Superior Court and ruled in favor of aggrieved property owners who have been impacted by the rural clearing limits. The decision held that while protection of critical areas was mandated by the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA), King County’s blanket system of rural clearing limits was not required by GMA.

“Thousands of families who live in rural King County have been prohibited from using their property, even when that property does not have critical areas,” said Councilmember Kathy Lambert. “This unanimous court decision gives us an opportunity to revisit this county policy and create a strategy that balances environmental concerns and private property rights.”

The rural clearing limits were based upon a ‘65/10’ model which required that sixty-five percent of a development site would remain in native vegetation and allow up to ten percent for coverage by impervious surfaces. That standard was developed specifically for the Issaquah Basin and most applicable to areas with similar rainfall, vegetation, soil and topography.

The 2004 Clearing and Grading Ordinance expanded that 65/10 model to apply to all rural-zoned parcels, but modified it to allow smaller parcels to qualify for 50 percent clearing. Nevertheless, it severed the direct connection between the protection of watershed basins and clearing of native vegetation in those basins. In essence, it made the entire rural area subject to clearing limits developed from a model for a particular basin.

“The Growth Management Act creates specific guidelines for the protection of critical areas. It did not require King County to put the entire Rural Area under critical area protection,” said Councilmember Jane Hague. “The basin system we had previously provided a much clearer connection to why we were protecting tree cover in the first place. You could say, ‘These trees help to filter the water leading into that local creek.’”

The proposed repeal would return the county to the situation which had existed previously – and the 65/10 model would be retained for the Bear Creek Basin, Issaquah Creek Basin, Soos Creek Basin, May Creek Basin, and East Sammamish and Bear Creek Community Planning Areas. Basin plans would still be allowed to modify clearing limits in their respective areas.

King County Executive Ron Sims has announced that he will appeal the decision of the Appeals Court to the Washington State Supreme Court. It is uncertain whether the Supreme Court would hear such a challenge and whether it would render a decision that would provide additional guidance on the matter.

“I’m disappointed that it took an appeals court ruling to tell some county leaders what rural landowners have been saying for over four years now, these regulations are oppressive,” said Councilmember Pete von Reichbauer. “A roll back will spare the county a costly appeal while restoring the rights of rural residents”

All clearing activities more than 7000 square feet will continue to require a clearing and grading permit.