Laserfiche WebLink
1 Here, the Board of County Commissioners considered the factors and found that <br /> 2 bringing Parcel A into the UGA while removing Parcel B from the UGA and re-designating it <br /> 3 as agricultural land provided the opportunity to meet the need for a processing plant that <br /> 4 would support the County's agricultural industry while not decreasing the total number of <br /> 5 commercially viable agricultural acreage surrounding the Attalia Industrial UGA.23 The <br /> 6 <br /> 7 County's action thus met the requirement of WAC 365-190-050(5), which states: <br /> 8 <br /> When applying the criteria in subsection (3)(c) of this section, the process <br /> 9 should result in designating an amount of agricultural resource lands sufficient <br /> 10 to maintain and enhance the economic viability of the agricultural industry in <br /> 11 the county over the long term; and to retain supporting agricultural businesses, <br /> 12 such as processors, farm suppliers, and equipment maintenance and repair <br /> facilities. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 • Area-wide process required for de-designation <br /> 15 Petitioners assert that the analysis comparing Parcel A to Parcel B cannot "justify de- <br /> 16 designating parcel A because there has been no `area wide' process to evaluate the de- <br /> 17 designation ...as required by WAC 365-190-050(1)."24 Petitioners reasoning is that, even if <br /> 18 <br /> the County's analysis of the factors set out in WAC 365-190-050(3)(c) is defensible, the <br /> 19 <br /> 20 failure to engage in a "'county wide' or `area wide"' process violates WAC 365-190-050(1), <br /> 21 which states: <br /> 22 In classifying and designating agricultural resource lands, counties must <br /> 23 approach the effort as a county-wide or area-wide process." <br /> 24 This argument suggests that in a de-designation action, the analysis called for in <br /> 25 WAC 365-190-050(3) must be part of a process as contemplated by WAC 365-190-050(1). <br /> 26 <br /> 27 In support of this proposition, Petitioners cite a recent GMHB case, Clark County Citizens <br /> 28 United, Inc., et al. v. Clark County, GMHB No. 16-2-0005c (FDO, March 23, 2017). <br /> 29 <br /> 30 <br /> 31 <br /> 32 <br /> 23 Ordinance No. 468, p. 6-7. <br /> 24 Petitioners Brief p. 8. <br /> FINAL DECISION AND ORDER Growth Management Hearings Board <br /> Case No. 18-1-0001 1111 Israel Road SW,Suite 301 <br /> July 2,2018 P.O.Box 40953 <br /> Page 8 of 17 Olympia,WA 98504-0953 <br /> Phone:360-664-9170 <br /> Fax: 360-586-2253 <br />