CAPR King County Chapter Response and Comment to Proposed CAO Update and Other Ordinances

8/20/25 By Dominique Scarimbolo

Dear Councilmembers, 

On behalf of the Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR), King County Chapter as the new President, I submit the following written comments to be entered into the record regarding the August 20, 2025 Local Services and Land Use Committee meeting packet and agenda. CAPR represents property owners and small business stakeholders across King County who are deeply concerned about the ongoing erosion of private property rights under the guise of “comprehensive planning,” “equity,” and “environmental stewardship.” 

I. Accessibility and Transparency Failures 

The meeting materials for this agenda exceed 800 pages, filled with technical amendments to dozens of code provisions. This sheer volume and complexity makes it impossible for the average property owner to meaningfully participate. When King County produces documents of this size, written in bureaucratic and legal jargon, it effectively denies citizens the ability to understand or challenge the policies being advanced. 

Public comment under these circumstances becomes a hollow procedural checkbox, not a meaningful consultation. This lack of accessibility undermines public trust in the process and raises serious questions about whether the Council is meeting its obligations for transparency and fair notice. 

II. Predetermined Outcomes 

CAPR has observed that Comprehensive Plan amendments and Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) updates follow a familiar pattern: lengthy public comment processes are held, yet the final outcome has already been decided. Language is adjusted for optics, but the core policy direction remains unchanged. 

This meeting continues that pattern. The Council has already signaled support for the 30-Year Forest Plan, the expansion of critical areas regulations, and new monitoring and adaptive management systems. Citizens are asked to engage, but the decisions are preordained. This undermines democratic legitimacy. 

III. Critical Areas Ordinance Expansion (Ordinance 2024-0408) 

The proposed amendments to K.C.C. 21A and related provisions represent a significant expansion of the CAO. Each update imposes greater restrictions: larger buffers, more setbacks, reduced buildable land, and heightened permitting requirements. 

Particularly troubling is the incorporation of “adaptive management” provisions, which allow unelected staff to impose further restrictions without direct Council vote or meaningful public oversight. This creates open-ended regulatory power over private property and amounts to a regulatory taking without compensation, contrary to both state and federal constitutional protections. 

For rural property owners in unincorporated King County, this translates into a loss of use, value, and economic opportunity. These residents are being asked to subsidize the County’s environmental ambitions by sacrificing their private rights without relief or fair balance. 

IV. 30-Year Forest Plan (Motion 2025-0204) 

The Forest Plan, finalized in 2021 and now formally before the Council, is framed around seven “priority areas,” including climate mitigation, salmon habitat, urban canopy expansion, and sustainable timber. 

While laudable in theory, the plan is riddled with vague commitments, reliance on “equity frameworks,” and perpetual obligations to align all forestry-related work with other bureaucratic initiatives. This locks King County into policy silos that privilege climate agendas and cultural priorities over the rights of private landowners who already bear the majority of stewardship responsibility. 

Instead of rewarding rural landowners for the forests they already maintain at their own expense, the County envisions further restrictions, conservation easements, and programs that reduce landowner control. This is not partnership; it is control through regulation. 

V. Snoqualmie Pass Mobility Study (Briefing 2025-B0119) 

The study on alternatives to driving alone to Snoqualmie Pass is another example of fiscal waste. Despite survey data and stakeholder meetings, King County Metro has already stated that service to Snoqualmie Pass does not align with County service guidelines or priorities. Yet funds are still being spent on duplicative studies that ignore economic and workforce realities. 

At a time when rural infrastructure needs remain unmet, taxpayers should not be funding studies and pilot programs that will never result in practical or cost-effective service. 

VI. Equity, Environment, and Unincorporated Communities 

King County consistently uses the language of equity, climate, and environmental stewardship to justify greater regulation. Yet unincorporated residents – those most directly impacted – are left without meaningful support. 

• Salmon recovery efforts continue to fail despite decades of regulation. 
• Tree planting initiatives are symbolic but do not compensate landowners for the burdens imposed. 
• Small businesses and rural economies suffer as permitting barriers and compliance costs mount. 

Equity, properly understood, should mean equal protection of the law for all residents. Instead, the County’s approach has become selective, divisive, and discriminatory against rural property owners. 

VII. CAPR’s Position 

For these reasons, CAPR respectfully urges the Council to: 

1. Reject Ordinance 2024-0408 as an unconstitutional expansion of the Critical Areas Ordinance. 
2. Decline to adopt Motion 2025-0204 until a transparent cost-benefit analysis is conducted and landowner compensation mechanisms are included. 
3. End wasteful spending on mobility studies that Metro has already deemed misaligned with its priorities. 
4. Commit to genuine transparency by producing summaries of all Comprehensive Plan and CAO amendments in plain language, under 25 pages, so ordinary citizens can understand the impacts. 

Conclusion 

King County’s current process is inaccessible, predetermined, and fundamentally dismissive of property owners’ rights. CAPR stands firmly opposed to the continued erosion of property rights under the guise of planning and environmental stewardship. 

We call on the Council to restore balance, accountability, and respect for the citizens of unincorporated King County. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dominique Scarimbolo
President, King County Chapter
Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR)