[No. 35569-8-II. Division Two. October 16, 2007.]
[1] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Administrative Review Growth Management Hearings Board Local Compliance With Act Clearly Erroneous Test In General. A growth management hearings board may not invalidate a local comprehensive plan provision or development regulation under the clearly erroneous standard of RCW 36.70A.320(3) unless the board is left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made. [2] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Construction Deference to Hearings Board. While a growth management hearings board is required by RCW 36.70A.320(1) to defer to a county's or city's planning choices that are consistent with the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW), the board itself is entitled to deference in determining what the Growth Management Act requires; i.e., a court must give "substantial weight" to the board's interpretation of the act. [3] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Hearings Board Decision Judicial Review Appellate Review Board Record. When an appeal is taken from a judgment entered by a superior court on judicial review of a growth management hearings board decision, the appellate court reviews the decision made by the board and applies the review standards of RCW 34.05.570(3) directly to the record created before the board. [4] Administrative Law Judicial Review Substantial Evidence What Constitutes. For purposes of the substantial evidence standard of RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), "substantial evidence" is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order. [5] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Hearings Board Decision Judicial Review Burden of Proof. The burden of demonstrating that a growth management hearings board erroneously applied the law or failed to follow prescribed procedures is on the party asserting error. [6] Administrative Law Judicial Review Question of Law Standard of Review. Under the error of law standard of RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), issues of law in an administrative adjudication are reviewed by a court de novo. [7] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Agricultural Land What Constitutes Determination Factors. For purposes of the RCW 36.70A.170(1)(a) mandate that counties designate for protection "agricultural lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products," "agricultural land" is land that (1) is not already characterized by urban growth; (2) is primarily devoted to commercial agricultural production; and (3) has "long-term commercial significance" for such agricultural production, as indicated by soil, growing capacity, productivity, and whether the land is near population areas or vulnerable to more intense uses. "Long-term commercial significance" is defined by RCW 36.70A.030(10), but counties may also consider the development-related factors enumerated in WAC 365-190-050(1) in determining which agricultural lands have "long-term commercial significance." Counties have discretion regarding how to apply the factors enumerated in WAC 365-190-050(1). [8] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Agricultural Land Designation Minimum Parcel Size Validity Test. A county may set a minimum parcel size for designating land as "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance" under the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) so long as the limitation is consistent with the act, with definitions applicable to the act, and with the development-related factors enumerated in WAC 365-190-050(1), if they are applied. [9] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Agricultural Land Designation Minimum Parcel Size Soil Mapping Data Lack of Correlation to Parcels. A county may not set a minimum parcel size for designating land as "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance" under the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) based on a determination that such minimum parcel size correlates well to the accuracy of particular soil maps if the soil mapping units relied upon are geographic and do not correlate to land parcels. [10] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Agricultural Land Designation Minimum Parcel Size Soil Mapping Data Readability and Reliability. A soil map's lack of readability as to small parcels because of the map's scale is not a sufficient basis for setting a minimum parcel size for designating land as "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance" under the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) if the soil map provides reliable data on small parcels notwithstanding the readability problem. [11] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Agricultural Land Designation Minimum Parcel Size Factors Predominant Parcel Size Validity. A county may set a minimum parcel size for designating land as "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance" under the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) based on a determination that such minimum parcel size correlates with the predominant parcel size for the county's small farms. [12] Administrative Law Judicial Review Findings of Fact Substantial Evidence Record as a Whole. For purposes of the substantial evidence standard of RCW 34.05.570(3)(e) for reviewing findings of fact entered in an agency adjudication, a court determines whether substantial evidence supports a finding of fact by viewing the administrative record as a whole. [13] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Agricultural Land Designation Ordinance Statement of Complete Rationale Necessity. A county ordinance designating land as "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance" under the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) need not necessarily set forth the complete rationale for the designation. The validity of the designation may be determined from the entire administrative record. Such ordinances are crafted to guide future Growth Management Act decisions and are not meant to set out a county's policy reasons for enacting the ordinance. As such, language in an ordinance stating the reason for designating land as "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance" is extraneous to the validity of the ordinance. [14] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Administrative Review Growth Management Hearings Board Local Compliance With Act Clearly Erroneous Test One Invalid Reason for Decision Effect. A growth management hearings board may invalidate a local comprehensive plan provision or development regulation under the clearly erroneous standard of RCW 36.70A.320(3) only if the provision or regulation itself is "clearly erroneous," not because one stated reason for enacting it lacks merit. [15] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Hearings Board Decision Judicial Review Appellate Review Deference. When a county's comprehensive plan provision or development regulation is supported by the administrative record, a reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the county's legislative authority; nor will a court reverse a growth management hearings board decision that followed a mandatory presumption of validity based on a review of the administrative record as a whole. [16] Counties Land Use Controls Growth Management Act Agricultural Land Designation Minimum Parcel Size Factors Predominant Parcel Size Proof Sufficiency. The record before a growth management hearings board supports a determination that a county set a minimum parcel size in designating land as "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance" under the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) based on the permissible factor of predominant parcel size where the evidence shows that the county considered predominant parcel size when setting the minimum parcel size, despite not stating the predominant parcel size factor in the resulting comprehensive plan provision or development regulation, and that the minimum parcel size established by the county undisputedly correlates to the lesser range of predominant parcel sizes for small farms in the county. BRIDGEWATER, J., dissents in part by separate opinion. Nature of Action: A pair of public interest groups sought judicial review of a growth management hearings board decision validating a county ordinance setting a five-acre minimum parcel size in designating land as "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance" for purposes of growth management planning. Superior Court: The Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 05-2-01959-7, Gary Tabor, J., on October 25, 2006, entered a judgment upholding the board's decision. Court of Appeals: Holding that the county improperly analyzed soil mapping data in setting the minimum parcel size but that the county was nevertheless justified in setting the minimum parcel size because it correlated to the permissible criterion of predominant parcel size, the court affirms the judgment. Keith P. Scully- (of Futurewise) and Alexandria K. Doolittle-, for appellants. Robert M. McKenna-, Attorney General, and Martha P. Lantz-, Assistant; and Gerald A. Horne-, Prosecuting Attorney for Pierce County, and M. Peter Philley-, Deputy, for respondents. Ά1 QUINN-BRINTNALL, J. Futurewise and Friends of Pierce County (Futurewise) appeal the decision of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) upholding Pierce County Code (PCC) 19A.30.070(B)(3)(a) In 2004, the Pierce County Council enacted that ordinance, which declares that parcels of land smaller than five acres are not significant agricultural lands of long-term significance that must be conserved under the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW. Ά2 Futurewise challenged the ordinance, claiming that the five-acre minimum parcel size is premised on a factual error about soil mapping data and an incorrect application of the GMA definition. We agree that the soil mapping data does not support the five-acre minimum parcel size. But the council's decision does not rest solely on this erroneous basis and we hold that Pierce County correctly applied the statutory and regulatory definitions of agricultural land of long-term significance. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTS Ά3 Two of the GMA's goals are to protect natural resource land from uncontrolled urban growth and to encourage robust natural resource industries on suitable land. RCW 36.70A.020(1)-(2), (8). To achieve these goals, the GMA requires that Pierce County (1) determine what land meets the definition of natural resource land and then (2) adopt a comprehensive plan and development regulations to protect and preserve this natural resource land. RCW 36.70A.040. One type of natural resource land is "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance." RCW 36.70A.020(8), .060(1)(b). Ά4 Pierce County amended its comprehensive plan in 2004. PCC 19A.30.070. As relevant here, the county redefined "agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance," requiring protection and preservation under the GMA. PCC 19A.30.070(B)(3). The county concluded that plots of land smaller than five acres do not fulfill the definition and are exempt from GMA preservation requirements. PCC 19A.30.070. Ά5 An important factor in identifying agricultural land is the soil's agricultural suitability. Pierce County explicitly reasoned that soil maps are unreliable for plots smaller than five acres and such plots should be excluded from the definition. PCC 19A.30.070. But the PCC also allows land owners and community members to petition the county to designate specific plots smaller than five acres for equivalent status as agricultural lands of long-term significance. PCC 19A.40.070. Ά6 Futurewise challenged PCC 19A.40.070, arguing that the five-acre minimum parcel size is erroneous. The Board disagreed and held that the ordinance complies with the GMA. The Board reasoned: [T]he County's use of a minimum parcel size of five acres is within its discretion, neither the Act nor the [Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED)] criteria [in WAC 365-190-050] require or prohibit minimum parcel sizes. Futurewise urged the County not to use the five acre minimum parcel size[ ] because in 2002, 527 farms (35.75%) in Pierce County were between 1 and 9 acres, with the average small size farm being 4.5 acres. Also, Futurewise contends that the parcel size cut-off excludes farms made up of many small parcels of land or small parcels associated with larger farms. The County shows that the average farm size in the County is 39 acres and the median farm size is 20 acres and that 88% of the area designated as [Agricultural Resource Lands (ARLs)] are parcels less than 30 acres in size. Further, the County's stated rationale for the five acre parcel minimum was that this size correlated well to the accuracy [i.e., scale] of the soil maps as explained in the Soil Survey Manual. The County did not err by including a minimum lot size as part of its ARL designation criteria. Suppl. Administrative R. (AR) at 2336 (citations omitted). In short, the Board held that the five-acre minimum is valid because it correlates to (1) soil sample accuracy and (2) predominant parcel size. Futurewise appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the Board's decision. Ά7 This appeal requires that we consider whether Pierce County properly analyzed soil mapping data to set a minimum size and, if not, whether it was nevertheless justified in setting the five-acre minimum parcel size because the minimum correlated to another GMA criterion: predominant parcel size. ANALYSIS STANDARD OF REVIEW DEFINING "AGRICULTURE" UNDER THE GMA Ά14 The GMA mandates that counties apply the correct definition of "agricultural land" designated as having "long-term significance." Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., "Agricultural land" means land primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, Christmas trees not subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 through (Emphasis added.) Ά15 The legislature defined long-term commercial significance as follows: "Long-term commercial significance" includes the growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition of the land for long-term commercial production, in consideration with the land's proximity to population areas, and the possibility of more intense uses of the land. RCW 36.70A.030(10). CTED refined this definition in the following regulation: (1) In classifying agricultural lands of long-term significance for the production of food or other agricultural products, counties and cities shall use the land-capability classification system of the United States Department of Agriculture [(USDA)] Soil Conservation Service as defined in Agriculture Handbook No. 210. These eight classes are incorporated by the [USDA] into map units described in published soil surveys. These categories incorporate consideration of the growing capacity, productivity and soil composition of the land. Counties and cities shall also consider the combined effects of proximity to population areas and the possibility of more intense uses of the land as indicated by: (a) The availability of public facilities; (b) Tax status; (c) The availability of public services; (d) Relationship or proximity to urban growth areas; (e) Predominant parcel size; (f) Land use settlement patterns and their compatibility with agricultural practices; (g) Intensity of nearby land uses; (h) History of land development permits issued nearby; (i) Land values under alternative uses; and (j) Proximity of markets. WAC 365-190-050 (emphasis added). Counties may use the regulation to determine whether land has "long-term commercial significance." Lewis County, AUTHORITY TO SET MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE Ά16 Futurewise argues that a county may not set a minimum parcel size for agricultural lands. The County contends that because there is no legislative or agency prohibition on a county setting a minimum or maximum agricultural parcel size, it is free to set any minimum parcel limit it chooses. We reject Pierce County's assertion on appeal that it may set a minimum parcel size for any reason it chooses. Ά18 As interpreted by case law, a county may set a minimum or maximum parcel size if that result is warranted by a correct application of the GMA definitions set forth above. For example, in Manke, the Court of Appeals affirmed the setting of a minimum parcel size of 5,000 acres for long-term commercial forest land. 91 Wn. App. at 807-08. Based on two WAC 365-190-050 factors, predominant parcel size and tax status, Mason County had properly determined that forest land parcels smaller than 5,000 acres did not have "long-term commercial significance." Manke, 91 Wn. App. at 807-08. A county's decision to set a minimum parcel size is valid only if the county correctly applied the GMA definition of "agriculture" and CTED regulations. SOIL TYPE Ά19 Futurewise contends that the Board erred in finding that "the five acre parcel minimum . . . correlated well to the accuracy [i.e., scale] of the soil maps as explained in the Soil Survey Manual." Suppl. AR at 2336. Futurewise asserts that Pierce County reasoned that parcels under five acres did not satisfy the definition of "agricultural" because the USDA soil samples were not accurate for soil-mapping units under five acres. This is an issue of fact and we review it to determine whether the fact is supported by evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of its truth. Ferry County, 155 Wn.2d at 833. Ά20 Pierce County articulated its reason for the five-acre limit as: "The threshold size used as a basis for the designation of Agricultural Resource Lands is 5 acres or larger in size because soils data is most reliable at this size." PCC 19A.30.070(B)(3)(a)(1). Pierce County Planning and Land Services Department also issued a memorandum entitled "Explanation and Rationale for Designating Agricultural Lands in Pierce County." 2 AR at 1358. In that memorandum's "Soil Designation Criteria" section, the planners explained: [The Planning and Land Services Department] chose to consider parcels that are five acres or larger in size based on the purity of map units explained in the Soil Survey Manual. Due to the minimum delineation size by map scale, soil class is more accurately determined using a scale 1:24,000 (approximately five acres). 2 AR at 1367. The proposal identifies only parcels five acres or larger to be included in the [Rural Farm (RF)] and [Valley Farm (VF)] designations. The predominant parcel size for both VF and RF designations is between 5 and 30 acres. 2 AR at 1362. The significance of this note is discussed in the section entitled "Predominant Parcel Size," infra. [A] portion of the landscape that has similar characteristics and qualities whose limits are fixed by precise definitions. Within the cartographic limitations and considering the purpose for which the map is made, the soil mapping unit is the unit about which the greatest number of precise statements and predictions can be made. Tbl. 1. This definition makes clear that a soil-mapping unit bears no relationship to land parcels, which are typically carved out in roughly rectangular shapes along access roads without regard to whether the landscape has "similar characteristics and qualities . . . about which the greatest number of precise [geological] statements and predictions can be made." Agriculture Handbook No. 210, Tbl. 1. Even if a soil-mapping unit smaller than five acres provides unreliable data, that unit would not correlate to a parcel. A 4-acre parcel could be located in a 300-acre mapping unit while a 300-acre parcel could be comprised of many 4-acre mapping units. Thus, the map units' reliability does not support the setting of a minimum parcel size. It is a logical fallacy to set a five-acre minimum parcel size based on the purported reliability of natural geographic mapping units. Ά22 Perhaps more important, the record contains no evidence that a soil-mapping unit smaller than five acres provides unreliable soil data. A thorough review of the USDA Soil Survey Manual, upon which the Planning and Land Services Department based its recommendation, does not support this claim. Instead, smaller soil-mapping units appear to be more, not less, reliable indicators of soil type because soil mappers take only small core samples from map units and use these to characterize the soil in the entire area designated. It appears that the smaller the mapping unit, the more representative the core sample is likely to be. Ά23 Moreover, we note that the Planning and Land Services Department did not base its recommendation for a five-acre minimum on the reliability of the data, as the challenged language in the ordinance implies. Its recommendation was based on the fact that the soil maps the Planning and Land Services Department uses are on a scale of 1:24,000. Ά24 And this map scale is easier to read. Using words and pictures, the Soil Survey Manual guides users by explaining the accuracy of different soil map sizes. For a 1:24,000 scale map, it indicates that the "minimum size delineation," or "the smallest area in which a symbol can be printed readily," is 5.7 acres. 2 AR at 1900. "Smaller areas can be delineated, and the symbol lined in from the outside; but such small delineations reduce map legibility." 2 AR at 1900. To demonstrate the minimum size delineation, the manual presents figure 2-4, showing the same map at different scales. At a scale of 1:31,680, which is smaller print than the 1:24,000 standard size, mapping units as small as .1 acre are readable and clearly delineated with a line pointing to the mapping unit. Ά25 In short, a map scale finer than that the County chose to use renders the map less readable but does not affect reliability; the smaller scale only results in the symbol for mapping units under five acres to be located slightly outside the unit and indicated by a line. This reason does not support the wholesale exclusion of all parcels under five acres from the definition of "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance." As set out above, even if the small mapping units were inaccurate (the ordinance's stated basis for setting parcel size), the mapping units do not correlate to parcels. (One of the Board's stated bases for upholding the size restriction.) Thus, this evidence does not support the Board's finding that "the five acre parcel minimum . . . correlated well to the accuracy [i.e., scale] of the soil maps as explained in the Soil Survey Manual." Suppl. AR at 2336. Accordingly, we hold that the Board erred when it held that the minimum five-acre parcel size correlates to soil sample accuracy and that substantial evidence supported Pierce County's setting of the parcel limit on this basis. PREDOMINANT PARCEL SIZE Ά26 But Pierce County points out that other evidence before its legislative body (Council) supports its five-acre minimum. We agree that the record contains other evidence sufficient to support the County's decision to limit "agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance" to parcels larger than five acres. Ά28 In Manke, 91 Wn. App. at 807-08, we upheld a 5,000-acre minimum parcel size for forest land with "long-term commercial significance" because Mason County found the WAC 365-190-050's factors of predominant parcel size and tax status warranted the setting of that minimum size. In Lewis County, Ά29 Similarly, Pierce County had discretion to set a minimum parcel size based on the 10 factors listed in WAC 365-190-050, including the factor of predominant parcel size. No one factor predominates over another. In other words, based on these factors and the evidence of parcel size before it, Pierce County had authority to decide that parcels smaller than the typical agricultural parcel did not have "long-term commercial significance" and, therefore, did not satisfy the GMA definition of "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance." The 5-acre minimum correlates with the predominant parcel size for the County's small farms, which is between 5 and 30 acres. On this basis, we hold that the County did not abuse its discretion by setting a 5-acre minimum on "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance" subject to development regulations conserving such properties. Ά30 Futurewise contends that because the ordinance does not mention the predominant parcel size evidence, we are limited to considering only Pierce County's stated rationale for setting the five-acre minimumthe reliability of the soil maps. We agree that, if that approach were proper, Pierce County appears to have based the parcel size minimum solely on its erroneous interpretation of soil mapping data. The ordinance explicitly mentions soil mapping accuracy in conjunction with the minimum parcel size and does not discuss predominant parcel size. PCC 19A.30.070. The case before us differs. Cowlitz County clearly expressed its legislative purpose behind replacing the culvert when it applied for a salmon recovery grant and stated that its sole purpose was to allow fish to pass. Here, Pierce County had before it two recommendations regarding the five-acre minimum, soil mapping reliability and predominant parcel size, and the County did not reject the later recommendation by failing to include it in the ordinance. Further, our legislature expressly prohibits counties from mandating condemnation to achieve the salmon recovery act's goals. RCW 77.85.050. We would contravene legislative intent if we allowed counties to simply articulate another purpose for condemnation when no evidence supports the argument that the county actually contemplated that purpose. In contrast, our legislature grants counties extremely wide discretion in executing the GMA, mandates that reviewers defer to counties acting within the bounds of their discretion, and does not require that counties state their reasons for GMA decisions. Thus, we would contravene legislative intent if we second-guessed Pierce County's authority on the basis that it did not write its full rationale into its ordinance. In short, whether it is appropriate for us to accept a legislative body's later-articulated rationale for an otherwise legitimate ordinance depends on the case's specific facts and the legislature's intent for our review of the particular law at issue. The proposal identifies only parcels five acres or larger to be included in the RF and VF designations. The predominant parcel size for both VF and RF designations is between 5 and 30 acres. 2 AR at 1362. Although the Council enacted the ordinance without stating the predominate parcel size factor, the County's attorney argued before the Board and this court that this factor supports the Council's decision to enact the ordinance. The record supports this claim and we agree. Ά34 We understand Futurewise's position that the parcel size evidence provides only minimal support for the five-acre minimum. But in light of the presumption of validity of the Council's designation and our legislature's intention to entrust local governments with discretion and autonomy over GMA decision-making, we hold that this evidence is adequate to affirm the Board's ruling that PCC 19A.30.070(B)(3)(a) defining "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance," is consistent with the GMA. As discussed earlier, the presence of explicit rationales in the ordinance does not mean that the Council did not consider other factors when it set the minimum parcel size. There is no mandate that the Council explain its reasoning in full when it wrote the ordinance. The "soil mapping" rationale embodied in the ordinance is superfluous. Thus, it is inappropriate for this court to usurp the Council's broad discretion in GMA matters on this basis. As to the dissent's second rationale, the Board's reliance on predominant parcel size is unchallenged and, thus, a verity on appeal. The Board found that small size farms in Pierce County average 4.5 acres and average farm size in general is 39 acres, with a median of 20 acres. The county contends that the predominant parcel size for small Pierce County farms is 5 to 30 acres. Futurewise has never challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting these facts, even though the numbers were cited repeatedly in briefing and oral argument. Rather, the stated Futurewise position is that no categorical exclusion based on parcel size is appropriate in any context. These unchallenged facts are, therefore, verities on appeal. Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35, 42, 59 P.3d 611 (2002). The county has broad discretion to implement WAC 365-190-050. As the regulation does not define "parcel," the County acted within its discretion and is not mandated to explain fully its rationale in order to withstand judicial review. Ά35 In summary, although the five-acre minimum is not supported by the factor of soil sample accuracy, it is supported by the factor of predominant parcel size. Accordingly, we affirm the Board's ruling upholding PCC 19A.30.070(B)(3)(a)'s definition of "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance." HUNT, J., concurs. Ά36 BRIDGEWATER, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part) I concur in the analysis that the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) erred when it held that the minimum parcel size correlates to soil sample accuracy and that substantial evidence supported Pierce County's (County) setting of the parcel limit on this basis. Ά37 But I respectfully dissent from the analysis that predominant parcel size supports its five-acre minimum. Two reasons support my position: Ά38 (1) The County specifically set out the four factors it relied upon to decide the five-acre minimum parcel size, including (a) soils; (b) intensity of nearby uses; (c) pressures to urbanize; and (d) landowner intent, as reflected by the land's tax status. The County did not consider predominant size as a factor. Ά39 (2) There is insufficient evidence that the predominant parcel size was between 5 and 30 acres, as disputed by Futurewise. There are some statements; but at oral argument we discovered that we do not know the basis of what is the "parcel"does it have a separate taxable description, can it be not contiguous with other parcels owned by the same farmer, are all tax parcels grouped together to discover the parcel size, were both of them using tax parcels or were they using another definition? The majority states that the "Board's reliance on predominant parcel size" is a verity. Majority at 218 n.6 n.6. But neither the County nor the Board relied upon predominant parcel size; they merely relied upon a flawed soil sample accuracy rationale, omitting any reference to "predominant parcel size." Thus, I find there is not substantial evidence to support this rationale because we do not have any definition of "parcel." The majority also points out that Futurewise did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for the predominant parcel size rationale, but the reason for the decision was not parcel size, it was the other flawed rationale. Ά40 Therefore, because the County did not use this method, there was not an opportunity for the public to test this premise. There is no doubt that a county could use predominant size as the deciding factor; but if it proposes to do so, then the public can present evidence as to (1) what is the predominant size of a parcel and (2) what is a parceltax, use, etc. Ά41 I would reverse.