Comments_Combined_KimleyHorn - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 As the County appropriately notes, it is the Petitioners burden to demonstrate "that 2 the County's analysis that there will be no area-wide or county-wide impact stemming from 3 the swap was wrong. ..." The County found that a swap of what appears to be a more 4 productive square parcel with a less productive parcel, which is better suited to industrial 5 use, would have no negative impact on the county's agricultural economy. The Petitioners 6 7 cannot articulate how this no-net loss analysis is erroneous."29 8 In should be noted the Department of Commerce specifically raised concerns about 9 the area-wide impact of the de-designation of the 18.27 acres (Roberta Cavalli application)30 10 but raised no concerns about the swap of Parcel A and Parcel B.31 11 In reply, Petitioners argue that an analysis cannot substitute for a process, as if these 12 two words are interchangeable.32 They are not. Because both the briefs and the testimony 13 in the hearings sometimes used the words process and analysis interchangeably, the Board 14 15 believes it will be helpful to clarify the terms as used in WAC 365-190-050. 16 The Bouvier Law Dictionary33 defines process as follows: 17 A method of doing anything, including a legal action. A process is a means of 18 doing or performing any task. A process as a matter of patent is a particular 19 routine that, when followed, allows the production of a particular device or 20 thing. [Emphasis added.] The same legal dictionary defines analysis as: 21 22 A very careful study based on a process of examination without prejudged 23 conclusions. Analysis is a generic term for a wide range of processes of examination of any argument, idea, practice, or thing. Among the 24 characteristics forms of analysis share are these: the use of a process of 25 examination rather than an ad hoc consideration; the study of anything by its 26 components as well as by the whole; the examination of causes that lead to the thing studied as well as results that come from it; the context of the 27 thing, including comparisons to similar and dissimilar things; the testing 28 29 30 29 County's brief at 11. 30 Petitioner's Exhibit 68 at 1-4; County's Brief at 10. 31 31 County's brief at 10; IR 55, at 10. 32 32 In the hearing the Petitioner's counsel could not define what a "process" would look like and often used the two words ("process" and "analysis") interchangeably. 33 The Wolters Kluwer Bouvier Law Dictionary Desk Edition, CCH, Inc. (2012). 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 10 of 17 Olympia,WA 98504-0953 Phone:360-664-9170 Fax: 360-586-2253