By Kevin Hanson, The Courier-Herald
King County representatives once again trekked to Enumclaw, to determine how locals feel about proposed changes that would determine how property owners use their land. And, once again, Plateau residents gave them an earful.
One difference at Thursday night's meeting at Enumclaw High School were the faces sitting at the main table. Instead of county staffers, those taking comments were five members of the Metropolitan King County Council. They make up the Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee, and the Enumclaw stop was the first in a five-meeting schedule spanning two weeks.
Committee members have received recommendations from staff and will, later this year, make their formal recommendation to the full 13-member council. The council will then forward a recommendation to King County Executive Ron Sims, who can either sign off on the proposal or reject it entirely.
There are two packages of legislation being considered, including the Critical Areas Ordinance, which has riled rural Plateau residents since it was first suggested.
Rural residents have screamed about the county's plan because it spells out how much of any given parcel can be used and also expands "setbacks" from critical areas such as streams and wetlands.
Twenty citizens stepped to the microphone Thursday night, and 18 were opposed to the new county proposals.
The two speaking in favor of the suggested changes were not Plateau residents and not private property owners. Rather, they were representatives from a pair of environmentally-friendly organizations, the Livable Communities Coalition and 1,000 Friends of Washington.
Opponents hammered some consistent themes. They argued that limiting a private individual's land use is an illegal "taking," and wondered (skeptically) if the county would be offering financial compensation for the loss of their land; they pointed to a perceived unfairness, where urban residents aren't looking at the same setback regulations as rural property owners; and questioned whether the "best available science" is really valid when it comes to the impacts brought by rural residents.
Above all - as has been the case during other Enumclaw meetings on the subject - there was a basic distrust that downtown-Seattle interests were forcing their views on rural parts of King County.
Wade Bennett, an Enumclaw-area farmer who was also representing the King/Pierce Farm Bureau, noted the group's opposition to increasingly wide buffers and touted the value of agriculture land. "Some day we are going to have a problem in this country and we are going to need these resource lands," he said, concerned that growing regulations are prohibiting land use.
A key element of the county proposal is the "65/10 equation," which says only 35 percent of a rural residential lot can be cleared; the rest mush remain in "plantings" to prohibit runoff and replenish groundwater supplies.
County Councilman Dow Constantine, who chairs the Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee, acknowledged the county's proposals are wildly unpopular in rural areas. But, he said, the county is absolutely required to meet the standards established through "the best available science." He admitted determining that science is a tricky business, but explained the county considers a number of scientific viewpoints and picks standards that fall in a consistent range.
The key question, Constantine said prior to Thursday's meeting, is, "How can we shift some of the burden from the folks who live in the rural areas to all of us who live in the county?"
Kevin Hanson can be reached at khanson@courierherald.com
