Comments_Combined_KimleyHorn - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 In the Lewis County case, our Supreme Court established a three prong test for 2 designation of agricultural lands. 3 jW]e hold that agricultural land is land: (a) not already characterized by urban 4 growth (b) that is primarily devoted to the commercial production of agricultural 5 products enumerated in RCW 36.70A.030(2), including land in areas used or capable of being used for production based on land characteristics, and (c) 6 that has long term commercial significance for agricultural production, as 7 indicated by soil, growing capacity, productivity, and whether it is near 8 population areas or vulnerable to more intense uses. We further hold that counties may consider the development related factors enumerated in WAC 9 365-190-050(1) in determining which lands have long-term commercial 10 significance.15 11 12 • Prior designation 13 While both cases address the need to apply factors enumerated in WAC 365-190- 14 050, the Clark County case involved the de-designation of previously designated agricultural 15 lands and is cited by Petitioners for the proposition that, unless the original designation was 16 erroneous or a substantial change in the land area has occurred, the original designation 17 must remain. The Court of Appeals in that case does make a statement, in dicta, 18 Absent a showing that the designation was both erroneous in 2004 and 19 improperly confirmed by the Growth Board, or that a substantial change in the 20 land occurred since the ALLTCS designation, the prior designation should 21 remain.16 22 However, the Supreme Court in City of Arlington v. Central Wash. Growth Mgt. 23 Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d, 768 (2008) upheld a de-designation, specifically stating that the 24 25 fact that a previous agricultural designation was not clearly erroneous didn't mean that a 26 later de-designation from agricultural to commercial would be clearly erroneous. 27 In short, simply because the Board and courts previously held that the 28 agricultural designation was not clearly erroneous in view of the record and in light of the GMA, does not mean that an urban commercial designation would 29 be clearly erroneous in view of the same or similar record and in light of the 30 goals and requirements of the GMA.17 31 32 15 Lewis County, at 502. 16 Clark County, at 234. 17 Arlington, at 794. FINAL DECISION AND ORDER Growth Management Hearings Board Case No. 18-1-0001 1111 Israel Road SW,Suite 301 July 2,2018 P.O.Box 40953 Page 6 of 17 Olympia,WA 98504-0953 Phone:360-664-9170 Fax: 360-586-2253