Laserfiche WebLink
1 Issue 3. Petitioners assert that there was an obligation by the County to show no <br /> 2 other option available before de-designating agricultural land.42 <br /> 3 Petitioners rely on WAC 365-196-310(4)(c)(v) which states: <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Consideration of resource lands issues. Urban growth areas should not be <br /> expanded into designated agricultural, forest or resource lands unless no other <br /> 6 option is available. Prior to expansion of the urban growth area, counties and <br /> 7 cities must first review the natural resource lands designation and conclude <br /> 8 the lands no longer meet the designation criteria for resource lands of long- <br /> term commercial significance. Designated agricultural or forest resource lands <br /> 9 may not be located inside the urban growth area unless a city or county has <br /> 10 enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 The Intervenor argued at the Hearing on the Merits that technically there can be no <br /> 13 violation of this WAC since prior to designating Parcel A, it was removed from the <br /> 14 agricultural lands designation and then included in the Attalia UGA, while parcel B was <br /> 15 taken out of the UGA and included into the agricultural lands. The swap of two 160-acre <br /> 16 parcels has no net impact on the relative size of the Attalia Industrial UGA and the total <br /> 17 acres of agricultural lands within the county. In fact there is substantial convincing evidence <br /> 18 <br /> that this action enhances the agricultural land base and economic viability especially area- <br /> 19 <br /> 20 wide if not county-wide.43 <br /> 21 Both the County and Intervener have shown facts in the record about the extensive <br /> 22 analysis of these two parcels individually and in relation to the surrounding parcels, as well <br /> 23 as other options outside of the area and county.44 <br /> 24 The Intervenor further argues that "Petitioner's argument is fundamentally flawed <br /> 25 because it is based on an incorrect burden. Petitioner would have the GMHB treat this <br /> 26 <br /> 27 solitary sub-factor, one out of nearly a dozen, as the only necessary element, and any <br /> 28 failure to satisfy this one factor would, in Petitioner's view, be fatal to any application for de- <br /> 29 <br /> 30 42 Issue 3: Does Ordinance No. 468 meet the burden of showing "no other option is available" before de- <br /> designating agricultural land under WAC 365-196-310 (4)(c)(v) and RCW 36.70A.030(2), RCW <br /> 36.70A.030(11), RCW 36.70A.050, RCW 36.70A.060, RCW 36.70A.110, RCW 36.70A.170, RCW 36.70A.177 <br /> 32 and RCW 36.70A.190? <br /> 43 Ordinance No. 468, page 4-6. <br /> 44 Exhibit 85.pg. 2-5; Exhibit 03, Comp Plan Amendment Application, Exhibit B. <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 14 of 17 Olympia,WA 98504-0953 <br /> Phone:360-664-9170 <br /> Fax: 360-586-2253 <br />