Skip to main content Skip main menu and go to secondary menu
King County
Executive Office
Ron Sims, King County Executive 701 Fifth Ave. Suite 3210 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-296-4040 Fax: 206-296-0194 TTY Relay: 711
Image: King County Exeutive Ron Sims, News Release

July 7, 2008

Questions and answers regarding the Appeals Court ruling on Critical Areas Regulations clearing limits

Q: What did the Court of Appeals decide?
A: The Court of Appeals decided that one provision of King County's Clearing and Grading Code was inconsistent with a state law that sets standards and limits on the taxes and fees a county may impose on development. The provision required property owners in rural King County who are proposing to develop their land to keep a certain amount of the trees and other native vegetation on their property.

Q: What was the basis of the Court's decision?
A: Because it determined that the requirements to maintain forest cover were similar to a tax or fee, the Court of Appeals decided that state law requires a more individualized evaluation based on the impacts that a particular development will have. Exactly how “individualized” the evaluation must be – and whether a site-by-site review is required – was not clear from the opinion. King County's regulation established a standard requirement based on lot size. This approach provided predictability for applicants, because they know what will be required when they apply for their permits.

Q: Did the Court of Appeals strike down King County's Critical Areas Ordinance?
A: No. The only issue before the Court of Appeals was whether King County's requirements to retain trees and other native vegetation violated a state law relating to how taxes and fees are to be imposed.

Q: Did the Court of Appeals say that King County's regulations were not based on science?
A: No. In fact, the Court of Appeals recognized the King County's regulations were well documented and that they demonstrated a connection between loss of forest cover and impacts to the environment. The Court of Appeals found that this was not enough under the state law at issue. The Court of Appeals found that the state law requires a more individualized evaluation based on the impacts that a particular development will have.

Q: Why does King County care about the amount of trees?
A: Scientific studies show that as the total amount of forest cover is reduced in a basin, there is increased risk of flooding and other adverse impacts to streams and wetlands in the basin. This is true, even if the clearing takes place far away from the stream or wetland. Forest cover is also important for recharging groundwater, an important source of drinking water for rural property owners.

Q: Does this decision affect stream or wetland buffers or other county regulations?
A: No. King County requires that the buffer around a stream or wetland be left alone. Those regulations were not affected by the Court of Appeals decision. King County's zoning and stormwater regulations are applicable as well.

Q: What happens next?
A: After consulting with the king county prosecutor office the county executive has decided to appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court.

Q: Does this mean that there are no limits on how many trees I can cut on my property if I live in unincorporated King County?
A: Until the appeal process has been completed – including review by the Supreme Court, if any – King County's regulations remain in effect. In addition, the Court of Appeals decision only applies to King County's regulations that require rural area (RA) zoned property to retain trees and other native vegetation. Other King County regulations may also apply to any particular property and may limit the amount of clearing that is allowed. King County regulations also require a permit when more than 7,000 square feet of clearing is proposed.

Q: Has this regulation prevented development?
A: No. The regulation only limited the amount of trees and other native vegetation that could be cleared. King County's zoning code establishes the uses that are allowed. Since adoption of the clearing limits, King County is not aware of any development proposals that have been denied as a result of these requirements.

 

  To top
  Updated: July 10, 2008