IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

FRANKLIN COUNTY,

Appellant,

v.

FUTUREWISE,

Respondent.

and

CITY OF PASCO, and PORT OF PASCO

Appellants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 38907-3-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FEARING, C.J. — A cartophile loves to read maps. This appeal concerns the 

reading of a map, but all cartophiles would find only frustration and no joy in perusing 

this map. This appeal asks us to determine whether a map labeled as “Agricultural 

Lands” and identified as Map 8 in Franklin County’s 2008 comprehensive plan

designated land labeled as “Franklin Crops” for protection as agricultural land of longterm commercial significance (ALLTCS). This determination has significance under 

Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA), ch. 36.70A RCW, and the State 

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), ch. 43.21C RCW. Because of its significance to this 

appeal, we italicize the term “Franklin Crops” throughout this opinion. If we held that 

FILED

JULY 13, 2023

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals Division III
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

2

the 2008 plan identified Franklin Crops for ALLTCS protection, as so held by the 

Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB or Board), the 

County violated the two enactments when it placed a portion of the land in Pasco’s urban 

growth area (UGA) while updating its comprehensive plan in 2018 absent the application 

of the requisite ALLTCS de-designation criteria and environmental review process. 

This appeal involves the rare instance when abstruseness in a document benefits 

the drafter of the document, here Franklin County. Because the law directs us to defer to 

the meaning of a comprehensive plan accorded by the County when the plan is not a 

model of clarity and the County’s interpretation of the plan is reasonable, we rule that the 

2008 comprehensive plan did not designate Franklin Crops as ALLTCS. We reverse the 

GMHB’s decision. 

FACTS

Franklin County lies in the mid-Columbia region of Washington State. To the 

south and west of the County, the Columbia River flows and creates the border with 

Benton County. Grant and Adams Counties lie to the north. The Snake River and its 

tributary, the Palouse River, create separation from Walla Walla and Whitman counties

on the south and east. The post-World War II Columbia Basin Irrigation Project turned 

the County into a fertile crescent for a cornucopia of crops. In 2018, 700,000 of the 

County’s 809,485 acres of land lay in farmland. The County is rightly proud of its 

helping to feed Washington State, the United States, and the world. 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

3

The city of Pasco is Franklin County’s largest city and county seat. The city has 

undergone phenomenal growth in recent decades. The Washington State Office of 

Financial Management (OFM) recorded Pasco as having a population of 73,590 residents 

in 2018. The OFM predicts that, by 2038, the city’s population will increase by 48,238 

residents, to over 121,000 residents. AR at 1818. 

The GMA requires counties to adopt and periodically update a comprehensive 

plan. RCW 36.70A.020, .130. Comprehensive plans function as the centerpiece of local 

planning efforts, particularly land use. A comprehensive plan articulates a series of 

goals, objectives, policies, actions, and standards intended to guide the decisions of 

elected officials and local government staff. Relevant to this appeal, a comprehensive 

plan sets the direction for future growth in a county and identifies areas for protection 

from such growth. 

As part of a comprehensive plan, the GMA obliges counties to adopt guidelines 

for classifying agricultural lands. RCW 36.70A.050(1). Another section of the GMA 

directs counties to adopt development regulations to assure the conservation of 

designated agricultural land. RCW 36.70A.060. The GMA requires counties to preserve 

agricultural land not already designated for urban growth and that poses long-term 

significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products. The 

GMA categorizes such land as “Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial 

Significance” (ALLTCS). RCW 36.70A.170(1)(a). Our principal task on this appeal is 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

4

to determine whether Franklin County designated some specific acreage of farmland as 

ALLTCS in the County’s 2008 comprehensive plan. 

Pursuant to the GMA, Franklin County updated its comprehensive plan in 2008. 

One map and some language in the plan’s “Resource Lands” section control this appeal. 

Administrative Record (AR) at 1437. According to its duties under the GMA, the County 

disclosed, in the “Resource Lands” section, its methods for designating land as ALLTCS. 

AR at 1437. Unfortunately, the prose and the map use vague and undefined terms. 

Relevant language from the 2008 comprehensive plan read:

RESOURCE LANDS

The GMA requires counties to identify resource lands of long-term 

commercial significance, which in Franklin County include agricultural and 

mineral lands that can be economically and practically managed for 

commercial production. The Act encourages the conservation of 

productive resource lands and discourages incompatible uses. Generally, 

resource lands have special attributes that make them productive which, 

[sic] cannot be re-created if they are lost to development or mismanaged. 

The Act defines resource lands as having, [sic] “the growing capacity, 

productivity, and soil composition 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)]. . . . 

Franklin County identifies resource lands of long-term significance 

using distinctive characteristics such as soil types, geological structure, 

location, and other unique identifiers characteristic of the resource and set 

forth in the Act. . . . 

AGRICULTURAL LANDS

The GMA provides that cities and counties should “assure 

conservation of agricultural lands of long-term significance.” The Act also 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

5

requires local government to assure that land uses adjacent to designated 

resource lands do not interfere with the continued resource use. 

AR at 1437 (emphasis added) (alterations in original). Note that the first sentence of the 

last paragraph dropped the word “commercial” from the legal term “agricultural lands of 

long-term commercial significance.” We proceed as if the two variants hold the same 

legal significance. 

The 2008 comprehensive plan further read:

Prime, Unique, & Farmlands of State and Local Significance

Prime agricultural land are lands with soils best suited for producing 

food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and are also available for these 

uses. They have the soil qualities, growing season, and moisture supply 

required to produce economically sustained high yields of crops when 

managed according to modern farming methods. 

Farmland soils other than prime farmland used for the production of 

specific high value food and fiber crops are classified as unique 

agricultural lands. These lands have the special combination of soil 

quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to 

economically sustain high quality and yields when managed according to 

modern farming methods. 

Areas show in agricultural uses will be in, or already are in 

productive crop agricultural (these areas also include grazing land.) With 

water availability, the soils are sufficiently deep for irrigated cropping. 

Soils are also sufficiently deep for non-irrigated cropping. 

Areas within this designation should be conserved, insofar as is 

practicable and desirable, for the continued economic welfare of the farm 

industry and residents of the County. . . . 

In Franklin County agricultural lands of long-term commercial 

significance are soil classification 1-3 according to the Land Capability 

Classification of the USDA Soil Conservation Service. Further, the 

County’s Prime, Unique, and of State and Local Significance soils as 

generally shown and mapped by the Franklin Conservation District on Map 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

6

8, are also described as agricultural lands of long-term commercial 

significance in Franklin County. 

AR at 1438 (emphasis added). The last paragraph holds particular importance in this 

appeal. 

The 2008 plan’s definition section contained the following definition for “longterm commercial significance:”

Long-term Commercial Significance: 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).

AR at 1501 (emphasis added). 

The 2008 comprehensive plan continued: 

Agricultural and its related commercial and industrial businesses 

provide the economic base in Franklin County. The diversity of this 

agricultural base provides a relatively stable economic base and contributes 

to the areas’ cultural heritage and quality of life. 

Franklin County has approximately 809,485 acres of lands, 

including approximately 700,000 acres of farmland with a mixture of 

irrigated land, dryland, and rangeland agriculture. Map No. 8 illustrates 

the Irrigated/Dryland fields within Franklin County as provided and 

updated by the Franklin Conservation District.

Soils in these agriculture areas were classified using the U.S. Soil 

Conservation Service national classification of agricultural lands. There 

three classifications, Prime, Unique, and those of State and Local 

Significance. 

AR at 1437 (emphasis added). The language in the comprehensive plan neither explained

nor defined the term “State and Local Significance.” 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

7

Map 8 in the 2008 comprehensive plan followed four pages later. Franklin County 

labeled Map 8 as “Agricultural Lands.” AR at 1441. 

AR at 1441. The city of Pasco lies within the southwest edge of Franklin County on Map 

8. The 2008 plan did not provide that the County designated land within the area labeled 

“Fields with Quincy Soils” as ALLTCS, but the parties to this appeal agree that land 

encompassed by that label is ALLTCS. 

Unfortunately, Map 8 did not expressly delineate the ALLTCS region or regions 

in Franklin County. The legend lacked such a category. As already written, the body of 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

8

the comprehensive plan claimed that Map 8 identified “the County’s Prime, Unique, and 

of State and Local Significance soils.” AR at 1438. Nevertheless, when viewed on its 

own, Map 8 lacked any reference to types of soil. Map 8’s legend embraced the terms 

“Prime Irrigate[d] Lands” and “Prime Dryland,” which we assume correlated to the 

comprehensive plan’s reference to “prime farmland,” a category of agricultural land 

discussed further later. AR at 1438, 1441. The legend included no land labeled as 

“Unique” or “State and Local Significance.” Although the legend mentioned “Fields 

with Quincy Soils,” Map 8 did not reveal the soil classifications within this territory, and 

the body of the 2008 plan did not further reference “Fields with Quincy Soils.” 

The body of the 2008 comprehensive plan disclosed that Franklin County 

“identifies resource lands of long-term significance using distinctive characteristics such 

as soil types, geological structure, location, and other unique identifiers.” AR at 1437. 

Neither Map 8 nor any other language later in the plan assisted the reader in 

understanding what the County looks for regarding the geological structure of a piece of 

farmland when determining whether to afford it ALLTCS-protection. The plan did not 

reveal the “other unique identifiers” for the categories of land listed on the legend of Map 

8, but it did reveal them as they relate to prime agricultural lands and unique agricultural 

lands. AR at 1437. Specifically, the plan’s language indicated that growing season and 

moisture supply are unique identifiers of prime farmland and unique farmland. 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

9

Map 8’s legend listed Franklin Crops as one of the categories of land outlined on 

the map. Map 8 placed some of those areas labeled as Franklin Crops immediately 

adjacent to Pasco’s “Urban Growth Boundar[y]” in thin, solid-green lines. AR at 1441. 

The map depicted land labeled as Franklin Crops using irrigation circles and other 

polygon shapes. Portions of land labeled Franklin Crops overlapped with areas of land 

labeled “Prime Irrigate[d] Lands,” “Prime Drylands,” and “Fields with Quincy Soils” on 

Map 8. AR at 1441. 

The 2008 comprehensive plan did not employ the term Franklin Crops anywhere 

other than on Map 8. In these proceedings, no party has offered a definition or 

explanation for the term. We do not know the extent of the acreage within Franklin 

Crops. 

Neither party presented evidence to the GMHB as to the subjective intent, in 2008, 

of Franklin County regarding whether it designated Franklin Crops as ALLTCS. No 

county planner or county commissioner from 2008 came forward to assist. The County 

asserts that it has consistently interpreted ALLTCS designations within the County to 

include only those areas labeled on Map 8 as “Prime Irrigate[d] Lands,” “Prime 

Dryland,” and “Fields with Quincy Soils” as ALLTCS. AR at 1441. Futurewise 

contends Map 8 plus prose addressing ALLTCS within the 2008 plan showed an intent

on the County’s behalf to include Franklin Crops within the ALLTCS protection. 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

10

The body of the comprehensive plan suggested that the United States Soil 

Conservation Service classifies soils as prime, unique, and those of state and local 

significance. Our review of United States Department of Agriculture literature does not 

unearth any such classifications of soil. It does, however, reveal that the USDA classifies

agricultural land as “prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local 

importance, or farmland of unique importance,” and assigns these classifications to areas

of farmland based on the composition of soil found within the land. See Title 430 –

National Soil Survey Handbook (430-622-NSSH, June 2020). Given this information 

and the language used by Franklin County in the 2008 plan when explaining that “[p]rime 

agricultural lands are lands with soils best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, 

and oilseed crops,” and “[f]armland soils other than prime farmland used for the 

production of specific high value food and fiber crops are classified as unique 

agricultural lands,” this court assumes that, instead of suggesting that the USDA 

classifies soil as prime, unique, and of state and local significance, the County meant to 

suggest that the USDA classifies farmland as prime, unique, or of state and local 

significance according to the soil composition of the land. AR at 1438 (emphasis added).

To repeat, the body of the 2008 comprehensive plan explained that Franklin 

County categorized ALLTCS as lands with a soil classification of 1-3 according to the 

Land Capability Classification of the USDA Soil Conservation Service. The USDA
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

11

recognizes eight classes of soil, 1-8, with the best soil being 1 and then descending in 

desirability as the number increases. 

A later section of Franklin County’s 2008 comprehensive plan declared:

Soils are an important factor in determining appropriate land use and 

the costs associated with development. The soils of Franklin County were 

studied and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service and a soil survey was 

published in 1914. The Soil Conservation Service updated the soil map for

Franklin County during 2005. Area soils have been divided into 13 types, 

which are presented in Map 1 and generally described in Table 3. In 

Franklin County, agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance 

are Soil Types 1-3 according to the Land Capability Classification System 

of the Soil Conservation Service. The predominate Land Capability 

Classification of each generalized soil association is additionally identified 

in Table 3. 

AR at 1372-1373. The parties dispute whether any of the land inside areas labeled as

Franklin Crops hold soil of the classification of 1, 2, or 3. 

Table 3 of Franklin County’s 2008 comprehensive plan lists the thirteen varieties 

of soils found in the County. The names of the soils often include the names of 

agricultural communities in eastern Washington. The table listed the USDA 

classification of soils found in each variety of soil. None of the varieties carries Class 1 

or Class 2 soils. Three of the thirteen varieties contain Class 3 soil: Ritzville-RenslowRitzcal, Kahlotus-Farrell-Quincy, and Ritzville-Wacota-Ritzcal. 

A map entitled “Generalized Soils” follows Table 3 in the 2008 comprehensive 

plan. The colored map depicts the location of the varieties of soil within Franklin 

County. The map does not contain the term Franklin Crops. The areas labeled as 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

12

Franklin Crops on Map 8 contain a variety of different soils, including Quincy-HezelBurbank soil, a loamy fine sand to gravely soil. This type of soil variety bears a Class 7 

USDA classification, one of the worst classifications for growing crops. 

The 2008 comprehensive plan also inserted a map identified as “Map 2 — Land 

Use Map” and entitled “Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” AR at 632, 634. This map did

not delineate any area designated by Franklin County as ALLTCS. The legend of Map 2, 

however, identified an area as “Agriculture.” AR at 634. The map does not employ the 

term Franklin Crops. Portions of land labeled as Franklin Crops on Map 8, including 

areas north and south of W. Sagemoor Road, fell within the area identified as 

“Agriculture” in Map 2. AR at 634. 

As required by the GMA, Franklin County updated its comprehensive plan in 

2018. At that time, the City of Pasco asked the County to extend the city’s UGA by 

4,855 acres of land and to designate the acreage as low density residential, mixed 

residential, industrial, and commercial. The County responded that the request was 

excessive. Pasco reduced its request to 3,573 acres of land. 

The 2018 comprehensive plan initially proposed to remove and place in the UGA 

nine acres of indisputably ALLTCS-designated farmland. Pasco eventually eliminated 

the nine acres from its proposed UGA expansion. 

After Pasco reduced its proposed UGA expansion, the city wrote that the 

“proposed Urban Growth Area avoids agricultural lands of long-term significance.” 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

13

AR at 2442. The Franklin County director of planning and building confirmed this 

conclusion in a November 17, 2020 Franklin County Planning Workshop. 

Franklin County’s planning staff prepared a report for the Franklin County Board 

of County Commissioners when the commissioners considered adoption of the 2018 

comprehensive plan. The report claimed that Pasco’s UGA expansion included no acres 

earlier designated as ALLTCS. The report assumed that the 2008 plan did not designate

Franklin Crops as ALLTCS, but did not analyze the question. The staff report read:

No agricultural resource lands are proposed for inclusion in the 

UGA as the City worked diligently to specifically exclude lands that have

been previously identified as agricultural resources lands (also known as 

Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance) in the 2008 

Franklin County Comprehensive Plans.

AR at 2520 (footnote omitted).

Before adopting its 2018 comprehensive plan modifications, Franklin County 

completed a SEPA checklist. As part of the checklist, the County issued a declaration of 

nonsignificance that stated its proposal “does not have a probable significant adverse 

impact on the environment.” AR at 1791. The County further declared that an 

environmental impact statement was not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). 

On June 1, 2021, Franklin County passed Ordinance 07-2021, which adopted the 

2018 comprehensive plan modifications. The plan increased the city of Pasco’s UGA by 

3,407 acres and placed, into the UGA, portions of land labeled as Franklin Crops on Map 

8 found immediately north of Pasco in the 2008 comprehensive plan. 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

14

In its 2018 comprehensive plan, Franklin County wrote about its ALLTCS 

designation criteria: 

Consistent with WAC 365-190-050 the following criteria will be 

used when determining whether an area will be designated as Agricultural 

Resource Lands or whether it should be considered for an alternative use 

(dedesignated) and may only be used during a county-or area-wide process 

(and not on a parcel-by-parcel basis). The County should consider requests 

for de-designation only in connection with Urban Growth Area expansion 

requests, and during Periodic Updates of the Comprehensive Plan.

1. The land is not currently characterized by urban growth.

Designated Agricultural Resource Lands make up the majority of 

Franklin County. Agriculture and its diverse, but related, commercial and 

industrial businesses provide a relatively stable economic base in Franklin 

County that contributes to the cultural heritage and quality of life in the 

area. These lands do not include urban growth and of the approximately 

809,485 acres of land, approximately 700,000 acres are farmland with a 

mixture of irrigated land, dryland, and rangeland agriculture. Map 17 

illustrates the Irrigated/Dryland fields within Franklin County as provided 

by the Franklin Conservation District with other features, such as UGA 

outlines, for reference. Counties and cities must have a program for the 

transfer or purchase of development rights prior to designating agricultural 

resource lands in urban growth areas in accordance with WAC 365-190-

150(1).

2. The current use of the land is agriculture, or the land is 

capable of being used for agriculture.

The second criteria for determining whether an area is or should be 

designated as Agricultural Resource Land considers the current use of the 

land and the physical and geographic characteristics of the land. Areas 

shown on the Land Use Map in agricultural uses will be in, or already are in 

productive crop agriculture (these areas also include grazing lands). With 

water availability, the soils are sufficiently deep for irrigated cropping.

Soils are also sufficiently deep for non-irrigated cropping. Specific 

information about the type and quality of soil also leads to determining 

whether the land is ideal for agriculture. Soils in Franklin County were 

classified using the Natural Resources Conservation Service national 

classification of agricultural lands. A map of the classifications and more 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

15

information about the soils in Agricultural Resource Lands can be found in 

the Natural Element of this Plan.

3. The land has long-term commercial significance for 

agriculture.

The third consideration when designating Agricultural Resource 

Lands is whether or not the land has long-term commercial significance for 

agriculture. The criteria for this decision are listed in WAC 365-190-

050(3)(c) and are used to designate agricultural lands of long-term 

commercial significance in the County. One of those criteria is the 

classification of prime and unique farmland soils as mapped by the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. In Franklin County, agricultural lands of 

long-term commercial significance have soils classified as 1-3 according to 

the Land Capability Classification of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation service. The County’s Prime, 

Unique Farmland, and Farmlands of State and Local Significance are 

shown and mapped by the Franklin Conservation District on Map 17 and 

are also designated as agricultural lands of long-term commercial 

significance in Franklin County. Appendix 5 shows this information in 

greater detail in a series of six maps.

AR at 1208-09.

Map 17, referenced in the above-quoted paragraphs, parallels Map 8 found in the 

2008 plan, but does not include in its legend the term Franklin Crops. The County 

labeled Map 17 as “Designated Agricultural Resource Lands.” AR at 1210. We include

Map 17 below:
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

16

AR at 1210. 

As with Map 8 to the 2008 comprehensive plan, Map 17 to the 2018 

comprehensive plan did not expressly label the area or areas of land designated by 

Franklin County as ALLTCS. So, we assume that the County intended for all three 

categories of “Ag Resource” land to hold the ALLTCS designation. AR at 1210. Also,

as with Map 8 of the 2008 plan, Map 17 did not identify the type and government 

classification of soils found in the many farmlands in the County. 

In September 2019, Futurewise compiled an appendix titled “Soils Pasco Urban 

Grown Area (UGA) Expansion.” AR at 421-22. Futurewise garnered the information for 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

17

the appendix from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The appendix read that 

94.8 percent of the area in the northwest section of Pasco’s UGA expansion contained

“Land Capability Classification 1 through 3 soils.” AR at 421. The appendix further 

read that 80.6 percent of the area in the northeast section of the UGA expansion 

contained “Land Capability Classification 1 through 3 soils.” AR at 422. The appendix 

did not list what percentage of acreage fell within the respective three soil classifications. 

The GMA and SEPA require counties to follow a process for de-designating land

previously designated as ALLTCS. This process demands the application of specific

ALLTCS de-designation criteria and an analysis of the environmental impacts that may 

result from de-designation. Franklin County did not apply ALLTCS de-designation 

criteria or complete an environmental analysis when revising the agricultural land map to 

eliminate the term Franklin Crops and to place a portion of Franklin Crops land into 

Pasco’s 2018 UGA. The County either impliedly or expressly concedes that, if the 2008 

comprehensive plan designated Franklin Crops as ALLTCS, the GMHB’s decision 

should be affirmed and the County directed to engage in this environmental review. 

PROCEDURE

Futurewise is a Washington organization created to assist communities with 

environmentally sound growth strategies. On August 5, 2021, Futurewise challenged, 

before the GMHB, Franklin County’s adoption of Ordinance 07-2021 and the 2018 

comprehensive plan. The GMHB allowed the City of Pasco and Port of Pasco to 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

18

intervene, and both entities joined the County in seeking dismissal of the challenge. 

Before the GMHB and this court on appeal, all three municipal corporations generally 

advance the same positions. Thus, we reference only the County as the defending party 

to Futurewise’s challenge. 

In its challenge, Futurewise contended that the 2018 comprehensive plan violated 

the GMA because Franklin County did not use the proper criteria to de-designate, as 

ALLTCS, the areas of land labeled as Franklin Crops on Map 8 in the 2008 plan. 

Futurewise highlighted the following language in the 2008 plan:

In Franklin County agricultural lands of long-term commercial 

significance are soil classification 1-3 according to the Land Capability 

Classification of the USDA Soil Conservation service. Further, the 

County’s Prime, Unique and of State and Local Significance soils as 

generally shown and mapped by the Franklin Conservation District on Map 

8, are also described as agricultural lands of long-term commercial 

significance in Franklin County.

AR at 1093 (footnote omitted). Futurewise asserted that the County designated Franklin 

Crops as ALLTCS in the 2008 plan, because Franklin Crops is mentioned on the plan’s 

Map 8, contains land with soil classifications of 1-3, includes prime farmland and 

farmland of statewide importance, and was not labeled any differently than the “Prime 

Irrigate[d] Lands,” “Prime Dryland,” or “Fields with Quincy Soils” classifications. AR at 

1441. 

Franklin County responded that it did not designate Franklin Crops as ALLTCS in 

the 2008 plan. The County maintained that, although it uses soil classifications as one
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

19

factor in determining whether to designate land as ALLTCS, soil type alone does not 

control the designation. The County explained that it removed the Franklin Crops label 

from Map 17 of the 2018 plan because the 2008 plan lacked any definition for the term. 

The GMHB ruled in favor of Futurewise. The Board wrote: 

Based upon the Board’s review of the record, it is clear that the 

County’s 2008 comprehensive plan designated the “Franklin Crops” as 

ALLTCS. The 2008 comprehensive plan states:

In Franklin County agricultural lands of long-term 

commercial significance are classification 1-3 according to 

the Land Capability Classification of the USDA Soil 

Conservation service. Further, the County’s Prime, Unique

and of State and Local Significance soils as generally shown 

and mapped by the Franklin Conservation District on 

Map 8, are also described as agricultural lands of longterm commercial significance in Franklin County.

There is no dispute that “Franklin Crops” are included on Map 8. As 

illustrated below, a review of Map 8 includes the “Franklin Crops,” 

outlined in a sold green line, the “Prime Irrigate Lands,” shaded green, and 

the “Fields with Quincy Soils,” shaded pink. The “Franklin Crops” also 

include prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. 

Because “Franklin Crops” are included on the County’s Map 8 of

ALLTCS and have land capability soil classifications of 1-3 and qualify as 

agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance under the 2008 

comprehensive plans, the Board finds that the 2008 comprehensive plan, 

including Map 8, was not ambiguous in its inclusion of the “Franklin 

Crops” as ALLTCS. The plain language of the 2008 comprehensive plan 

supports this finding, and the Board cannot look beyond the language of the 

comprehensive plan itself to decide otherwise. 

. . . .

The Board finds that the record indicates that the 2018-2038 

comprehensive plan de-designated the “Franklin Crops” ALLTCS 

identified on Map 8 of the 2008 comprehensive plan without applying dedesignation criteria.
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

20

AR at 1126-28. 

The GMHB entered combined findings of fact and conclusions of law for four 

discrete issues it reviewed. Each combined finding and conclusion reads more like a 

conclusion of law or a mixed finding and conclusion, rather than an unadorned finding of 

fact. On the issues before this reviewing court, the Board wrote: 

Issue 1:

A. The Board finds that the area designated as “Franklin Soils” 

included land capability soil classifications of 1-3, were included on the 

map designating ALLTCS in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, and otherwise 

were included as ALLTCS under the County’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan. 

B. The Board finds that the 2018-2038 comprehensive plan failed to 

include “Franklin Soils” as ALLTCS and failed to apply de-designation 

criteria identified by the Board and Washington courts. 

C. The Board finds and concludes that the Petitioner [Futurewise] 

has met its burden in demonstrating that the County [is] in noncompliance 

with the requirements of the GMA in de-designating the “Franklin Soils” 

ALLTCS. 

. . . .

Issue 3

A. The Board finds that the Pasco FEIS [final environmental impact 

statement] and other SEPA documents included in the record failed to 

disclose the environmental impacts of the de-designation of the “Franklin 

Crops” ALLTCS and any environmental impacts. 

B. The Board finds and concludes that the Petitioner has met its 

burden in demonstrating that the County is in noncompliance with the 

requirements of the SEPA in failing to disclose and analyze de-designating 

the “Franklin Soils” ALLTCS.

AR at 1136-37. We assume the GMHB meant Franklin Crops when referencing 

“Franklin Soils” in its findings for Issue 1. 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

21

Franklin County appealed the GMHB’s ruling to the superior court. The superior 

court certified the appeal for review by this court without any superior court ruling.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

On appeal, Franklin County maintains that the GMHB committed legal error and 

that the evidence did not support the Board’s findings when the Board ruled that the 2008 

comprehensive plan designated Franklin Crops as ALLTCS. The County either 

impliedly or expressly agrees that, if Franklin Crops were designated as ALLTCS in the 

2008 plan, it failed to adequately de-designate Franklin Crops as ALLTCS in the 2018 

plan and prepare the environmental review required under SEPA when placing land 

previously designated as ALLTCS in Pasco’s UGA. If the 2008 plan omitted Franklin 

Crops from ALLTCS designation, Futurewise does not otherwise contend that the 

County violated the law. 

Before directly reviewing this appeal’s primary question, we must resolve a 

procedural assertion of Futurewise. We also first discuss our standard of review and the 

method or methods by which we resolve the key question of whether Franklin Crops

were designated as ALLTCS in the 2008 plan. 

Findings of Fact

We previously quoted the findings of fact for Issues 1 and 3 encompassed within 

the GMHB’s final decision and order. Futurewise maintains that Franklin County, in its 

assignments of error, reworded some of the GMHB’s findings and conclusions and that 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

22

the County did not refer to the challenged findings by number. Futurewise also asserts 

that the County’s colleague, the City of Pasco, failed to make a separate assignment of 

error for these findings of fact and did not refer to them by number. 

RAP 10.3(g) declares in part:

A separate assignment of error for each finding of fact a party 

contends was improperly made must be included with reference to the 

finding by number.

RAP 10.3(h) reads:

Assignments of Error on Review of Certain Administrative Orders. 

In addition to the assignments of error required by rules 10.3(a)(4) and 

10.3(g), the brief of an appellant or respondent who is challenging an 

administrative adjudicative order under chapter 34.05 RCW shall set forth a 

separate concise statement of each error which a party contends was made 

by the agency issuing the order, together with the issues pertaining to each 

assignment of error.

(Boldface omitted.) Futurewise asserts that the relevant findings of fact are verities 

because the County and City of Pasco failed to comply with RAP 10.3(g). Although 

Futurewise does not expressly so argue, adoption of this assertion would effectively end 

this appeal. 

The GMHB lettered, rather than numbered, its findings of fact. Contrary to the 

implication of Futurewise, Franklin County assigned by letter its challenged findings of 

fact and conclusions of law. Also, the City of Pasco incorporated separate assignments of 

error for each of the challenged findings. For these reasons alone, we reject Futurewise’s 

request that we accept all of the GMHB’s findings of fact as verities. 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

23

We also reject Futurewise’s technical argument because the challenged findings 

are more in the nature of conclusions of law. The challenged findings entail an 

interpretation of a county document when the underlying facts are not challenged. The 

line between a finding of fact and a conclusion of law can be challenging to identify. 

Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State Highway Commission, 84 Wn.2d 271, 

282-84, 525 P.2d 774, 804 P.2d 1 (1974) (plurality opinion). A finding of fact is the 

assertion that a phenomenon has happened or is or will be happening independent of or 

anterior to any assertion as to its legal effect. State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 220-21, 

634 P.2d 868 (1981). If a statement carries legal implications, the validity of the 

statement is a conclusion of law. Para-Medical Leasing, Inc. v. Hangen, 48 Wn. App 

389, 397, 739 P.2d 717 (1987). RAP 10.3 does not require a separate assignment of error 

or any numbering for challenges to conclusions of law. 

Finally, Futurewise does not assert, as a result of any purported failure by Franklin 

County and its allies to satisfy RAP 10.3(g), any confusion regarding the arguments that 

the government entities asseverate on appeal. This court readily understands the nature 

of the County’s challenge to the GMHB’s ruling. Futurewise ably and zealously 

responds to the County’s arguments. 

We construe the rules of appellate procedure liberally to promote justice and 

facilitate the decision of cases on the merits. RAP 1.2(a); State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315, 

318-19, 893 P.2d 629 (1995). When the nature of the appeal is clear and the relevant 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

24

issues are argued in the body of the brief, we will consider the merits of the case 

regardless of the failure to properly assign error. Ferry County v. Growth Management 

Hearings Board, 184 Wn. App. 685, 725, 339 P.3d 478 (2014). 

Standard of Review

The GMA charges the GMHB with adjudicating GMA compliance and 

invalidating noncompliant plans and development regulations. RCW 36.70A.280, .302; 

Lewis County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 157 Wn.2d 

488, 497, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006). RCW 36.70A.320(3) declares:

[T]he board shall determine whether there is compliance with the 

requirements [of the GMA]. . . . The board shall find compliance unless it 

determines that the action by the state agency, county, or city is clearly 

erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the 

goals and requirements of [the GMA].

For an action to be clearly erroneous, the GMHB must have a “firm and definite 

conviction” that the county committed a mistake. Lewis County v. Western Washington

Growth Management Hearings Board, 157 Wn.2d 488, 497 (2006) (quoting Department 

of Ecology v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Jefferson County, 121 Wn.2d 179, 201, 849 

P.2d 646 (1993)). 

RCW 36.70A.3201 declares: 

[T]he legislature intends for the board to grant deference to counties 

and cities in how they plan for growth, consistent with the requirements and 

goals of [the GMA]. Local comprehensive plans and development 

regulations require counties and cities to balance priorities and options for 

action in full consideration of local circumstances. The legislature finds 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

25

that while [the GMA] requires local planning to take place within a 

framework of state goals and requirements, the ultimate burden and 

responsibility for planning, harmonizing the planning goals of [the GMA], 

and implementing a county’s or city’s future rests with that community. 

Whereas the GMHB reviewed Franklin County’s decisions, we review the Board’s 

decision. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ch. 34.05 RCW, governs judicial 

review of GMHB actions, including those concerning a county’s compliance with the 

GMA or SEPA. Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings

Board, 164 Wn.2d 329, 341, 190 P.3d 38 (2008). The appellant carries the burden of 

demonstrating the invalidity of the Board’s decision. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Thurston

County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 164 Wn.2d 329, 

341 (2008). This court is not bound by the GMHB’s interpretation of the GMA, but must 

afford substantial weight to the Board’s interpretation. Thurston County v. Western

Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 164 Wn.2d 329, 341-42 (2008). 

The appellant is entitled to relief from an agency’s adjudicative order if it meets

any of nine standards delineated in RCW 34.05.570(3). Lewis County v. Western

Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 157 Wn.2d 488, 498 (2006). 

Franklin County seeks relief from GMHB’s decision under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) and 

(e). Those subsections read: 

(d) The agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; 

(e) The order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when 

viewed in light of the whole record before the court, which includes the 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

26

agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence 

received by the court under this chapter. 

This court reviews challenges raised under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) de novo and reviews 

those raised under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e) for substantial evidence, meaning “a sufficient 

quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the 

order.” City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 

136 Wn.2d 38, 46, 959 P.2d 1091 (1998) (quoting Callecod v. Washington State Patrol, 

84 Wn. App. 663, 673, 929 510 (1997)). 

We defer to the statutory interpretation of an administrative agency charged with 

administering and enforcing a statute. Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings Board,

85 Wn.2d 441, 448-49, 536 P.2d 157 (1975). We could take this principle to require us 

to defer to Franklin County, charged with administering the GMA when updating its 

comprehensive plan. We could also read this principle to demand that we defer to the 

GMHB, charged with enforcing the GMA. In the end, we conclude we should defer to 

the County’s interpretation of the comprehensive plan because the parties do not dispute 

the meaning of any of the provisions of the GMA. 

We note the ostensibly conflicting legislative policies that the GMHB defer to 

Franklin County and this court defer to the Board. Does this reviewing court defer to the 

GMHB if the Board fails to defer to the County? The Washington Supreme Court has 

answered this question. Deference to county planning actions consistent with the goals 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

27

and requirements of the GMA supersedes deference granted by the APA and courts to 

administrative bodies in general. Quadrant Corp. v. State Growth Management Hearings

Board, 154 Wn.2d 224, 238, 110 P.3d 1132 (2005). If we determine that the GMHB 

failed to defer to the County, we will not defer to the Board. 

Comprehensive Plan Interpretation

In addition to addressing our standard of review, we must ascertain how to read 

the controlling language in Franklin County’s 2008 comprehensive plan, including the 

details of Map 8. Futurewise asks us to apply rules of statutory construction when 

reading the 2008 comprehensive plan. It cites Lakeside Industries v. Thurston County, 

119 Wn. App. 886, 896-97, 83 P.3d 433 (2004) to support this request. Yet, Lakeside 

Industries concerned a zoning ordinance, not a comprehensive plan. 

Regardless, we do not consider rules of statutory construction contrary to our 

ruling. Courts must ascertain and carry out the intent and purpose of the local legislative 

body promulgating a local ordinance or code. Neighbors of Black Nugget Road v. King 

County, 88 Wn. App. 773, 778, 946 P.2d 1188 (1997). To determine legislative intent, 

we look first to the plain language of the ordinance. Fraternal Order of Eagles, Tenino 

Aerie No. 564 v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wn.2d 224, 239, 59 P.3d 

655 (2002). 

We seek to resolve this appeal by discerning the intent of Franklin County by 

examining the plain language of the 2008 comprehensive plan, but we wonder what to do 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

28

if the language confuses us. The County drafted the 2008 comprehensive plan. We 

generally construe a document against the drafter. Cronin v. Central Valley School

District, 23 Wn. App. 2d 714, 756, 520 P.3d 999 (2022). But we reject this principle in 

this setting because the County acted in its legislative capacity when adopting the 2008 

plan, and this principle conflicts with Supreme Court precedent in King County v. Central 

Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 91 Wn. App. 1, 12, 915 P.2d 1151

(1998) rev’d in part on other grounds, 138 Wn.2d 161, 979 P.2d 374 (1999). Under 

Washington State Supreme Court precedent, when interpreting a comprehensive plan that 

is not a “‘model of clarity’” the local government’s “interpretation is entitled to great 

weight.” King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 91 

Wn. App. 1, 12 (1998). As analyzed later, the ALLTCS designation criteria identified in 

the County’s 2008 plan, particularly as it applies to Franklin Crops, lack clarity. 

We do not give unlimited deference to Franklin County’s intent. The County’s 

interpretation must be reasonable. State v. Yon, 159 Wn. App. 195, 199, 246 P.3d 818 

(2010); Hansen v. Transworld Wireless TV-Spokane, Inc., 111 Wn. App. 361, 375, 44 

P.3d 929 (2002). 

The GMHB wrote that it cannot look beyond the language of the 2008 

comprehensive plan when discerning whether the plan designated Franklin Crops as 

ALLTCS. Both parties rely on evidence extrinsic to the comprehensive plan when urging 

their respective positions. We consider conduct and writings of Franklin County 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

29

subsequent to the 2008 comprehensive plan helpful in discerning intent. Scott

Galvanizing, Inc. v. N.W. EnviroServices, Inc., 120 Wn.2d 573, 580-81, 844 P.2d 428 

(1993); Hansen v. Transworld Wireless TV-Spokane, Inc., 111 Wn. App. 361, 375 

(2002). 

Franklin Crops

We now arrive at the controlling question: did the 2008 comprehensive plan 

designate Franklin Crops as ALLTCS? We ruminate out loud over the arguments for 

declaring Franklin Crops to be ALLTCS and, conversely, for ruling Franklin Crops to be 

outside the confines of ALLTCS protection. Counterarguments oppose each argument. 

We refer to arguments supporting the designation of Franklin Crops as ALLTCS in the 

2008 plan as the “pro arguments” and to arguments against such designation as the “con 

arguments.” 

We first review arguments untethered to the language of the 2008 comprehensive 

plan. On the con side, the GMA distinguishes between agricultural land in general and 

agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. The GMA refers to 

“agricultural lands” without referring to the lands as ALLTCS. Thus, the GMA assumes 

that some agricultural land will not be designated as ALLTCS. Just because Franklin 

Crops constituted farmland does not necessarily mean that it was designated as ALLTCS. 

Farmland closest to a major city and adjacent to an UGA, such as small portions of 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

30

Franklin Crops, would be less likely to be considered ALLTCS. On the pro side, much 

of Franklin Crops lies miles from Pasco and the city’s UGA.

Both parties mention RCW 36.70A.060(4), a statute that precludes a county from 

designating agricultural land as ALLTCS unless the county “has enacted a program 

authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights.” Franklin County lacks any such 

program. We consider the absence of such a program unenlightening in discerning the 

County’s intent behind including Franklin Crops on Map 8. No evidence suggests that 

county officials knew of this statute and purposely ignored the statute or attempted to 

comply with it in 2008. 

On the con side, the Franklin County planning director declared, on November 17, 

2020 at a county planning workshop, that the proposed Pasco UGA did not include any

ALLTCS. In a report prepared for the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners, 

county planning staff wrote that the UGA expansion included no acres earlier designated 

as ALLTCS. The County stated this position before any dispute arose with Futurewise. 

The report assumed that the 2008 plan did not designate Franklin Crops as ALLTCS. On 

the pro side, neither the planning director nor the planning staff revealed any analysis 

behind the conclusion nor specifically declared that Franklin Crops had not been 

designated as ALLTCS. The planning staff’s position came a decade after the adoption 

of the 2008 comprehensive plan. The County presented no evidence that the 2020 

planning director or planning staff played any role in the preparation of the 2008 plan. 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

31

On the con side, Franklin County did not draft the 2008 comprehensive plan with 

the aim toward defending it in court. The plan may have been drafted by a planner who 

lacked a detailed understanding of agriculture and soils. On the pro side, the county staff 

should have competently prepared the comprehensive plan and the Board of County 

Commissioners should have demanded that the plan be a model of clarity before 

approving its adoption. In an agricultural county, planning officials should readily

possess knowledge of soils and other agriculture subjects. 

We move to arguments connected to the language of Franklin County’s 2008 plan. 

One paragraph of the 2008 comprehensive plan began by defining “agricultural lands of 

long-term commercial significance” as “soil classification 1-3 according to the Land 

Capability Classification of the USDA Soil Conservation service.” AR at 1438. That 

same paragraph further added to the definition the “County’s Prime, Unique and of State 

and Local Significance soils as generally shown and mapped by the Franklin 

Conservation District on Map 8.” AR at 1438. Map 8, titled “Agricultural Lands,” listed 

Franklin Crops in its legend. As the pro argument goes, crops are agricultural in nature. 

Since the 2008 comprehensive plan employed Map 8 to assist in identifying ALLTCS, 

Map 8 must have designated Franklin Crops as ALLTCS. Map 8 did not differentiate 

between agricultural lands included in ALLTCS-designation and excluded from 

ALLTCS-designation, so the map must have intended that ALLTCS encompass all 

cropland. 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

32

On the con side, Map 8 is a poor indicator of the land designated as ALLTCS in 

Franklin County because the map does not expressly identify land embraced inside this 

important classification. Although the 2008 comprehensive plan referenced Map 8 in its 

definition of “agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance,” the plan language 

limited the designation to those lands shown with “Prime, Unique and of State and Local 

Significance soils.” AR at 1438. Map 8 did not identify “Prime Irrigate[d] Lands,” 

“Prime Dryland,” “Fields with Quincy Soils,” and Franklin Crops as possessing any of 

these types of soil. Map 8’s legend entries concerning irrigated land and dryland 

incorporated the word “prime” to create the categories of “Prime Irrigate[d] Lands” and 

“Prime Dryland.” AR at 1441. Thus, these two categories must have included land with 

the requisite soil composition to classify it as prime farmland. On the pro side, Franklin 

County agrees that land designated as ALLTCS included the land in the legend category 

“Fields with Quincy Soils,” but this designation lacks the word “prime.” Although the 

2018 plan establishes that the County classifies land within the “Fields with Quincy 

Soils” label as unique farmland, one having access only to the 2008 plan would not have 

been privy to this important piece of information as that plan was silent in that regard. 

On the con side, the 2008 comprehensive plan’s definition of “long-term 

commercial significance,” not only mentioned soil composition, but also the land’s 

proximity to population areas. AR at 1437. Thus, the proximity of an area of land in 

relation to the city of Pasco is a factor to be considered in determining whether that land 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

33

may properly be designated as ALLTCS. Futurewise challenges land adjacent to Pasco 

from entering the UGA. This portion of Franklin Crops should not be deemed ALLTCSdesignated. 

On the pro side, Franklin County lacked any purpose for creating the category of 

Franklin Crops and assigning that label to land on Map 8 unless it desired to designate 

the land within that label as ALLTCS. No other literature employs this term for land 

within the County. On the con side, Map 8 also lists the categories of “Urban Growth 

Boundaries,” “Federal Lands,” and “Rural Lands,” but Futurewise does not suggest that 

the County designated these other three categories as ALLTCS because they were 

included on Map 8. AR at 1441. Furthermore, some portions of Franklin Crops land on 

Map 8 are shown to fall within areas of land labeled “Prime Irrigate[d] Land,” “Prime 

Dryland,” and “Fields with Quincy Soils,” whereas other portions of Franklin Crops land

on the map are shown to fall outside of those labeled areas. AR at 1441.

On the con side, the origin and meaning of Franklin Crops is a mystery wrapped 

in an enigma. The phrase Franklin Crops is found nowhere in the 2008 comprehensive 

plan other than Map 8. The prose inside the body of the plan nowhere identifies Franklin 

Crops as ALLTCS. No evidence helped to explain why Franklin County distinguished 

land within Franklin Crops from other land in the county. The County would not have 

placed, in the important ALLTCS category, land attached to a map label that was an 

anomaly and not created as part of deliberate planning. 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

34

On the con side, the 2008 plan defined ALLTCS as “soil classification 1-3 

according to the Land Capability Classification of the USDA Soil Conservation service.” 

AR at 1438. The plan’s “Generalized Soils” map (Map 1) and Table 3 assigned a portion 

of land within Franklin Crops a soil classification of 7. This portion of land cannot 

reasonably be considered to be ALLTCS-designated. 

On the con side, intervenors argue that it employed Map 1 and Table 3 in the 2008 

comprehensive plan be indicative of soil types for ALLTCS-designation purposes. On 

the pro side, Franklin County’s argument ignores the plain language of the 2008 

comprehensive plan. Table 3 did not reference “soils,” but rather “soil associations” or 

groups of related soils. AR at 1344. The land capability classifications are not indicative 

of any particular soil type. Instead, they are “[c]lassification[s] of each generalized soil 

association.” AR at 1373 (emphasis added). Map 1 includes “Generalized Soils,” not the 

actual soils. AR at 1376. 

On the pro side, Futurewise submitted an appendix that analyzed soils as described 

in Natural Resources Conservation Service mapping data from September 2019. The 

data shows a high percentage of the soils falling within the USDA classifications of 1, 2, 

and 3. We are unable to reconcile Futurewise’s appendix with the “Generalized Soils”

map and Table 3 of the 2008 comprehensive plan. AR at 1376. Consistent with 

Futurewise’s appendix, the GMHB found that soils with Franklin Crops bore a USDA 

classification of 1 through 3. 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

35

On the con side, we seek to discern the intent of Franklin County in 2008. A table 

contemporaneous to 2008 holds more importance than an appendix compiled in 2019 in 

deriving this intent. The 2008 comprehensive plan also did not solely define ALLTCS as 

land with soil classifications of 1-3. The plan read that the County adjudged land to be 

ALLTCS based on “soil types, geological structure, location, and other unique 

identifiers.” AR at 1437. Thus, according to the County, even if Franklin Crops

included land with a soil classification of 1-3, the land did not necessarily require 

ALLTCS designation. From this argument, it follows that, in 2008, the County possessed 

the liberty to exclude farmland from ALLTCS designation regardless of the class of soil 

in the land. We may rule in favor of the County without rejecting the GMHB’s finding.

On the con side, the 2008 plan did not clearly outline Franklin County’s ALLTCS 

designation criteria. Instead, as illustrated by the following language taken from the 2008 

plan, the County provided conflicting information regarding the amount of weight it 

places on soil classification in determining whether to designate land as ALLTCS: 

Franklin County identifies resource lands of long-term significance 

using distinctive characteristics such as soil types, geologic structure, 

location, and other unique identifiers characteristic of the resource and set 

forth in the Act. 

. . . .

In Franklin County agricultural lands of long-term commercial 

significance are soil classification 1-3 according to the Land Capability 

Classification of the USDA Soil Conservation service.

AR at 1437-38 (emphasis added). 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

36

On the con side, the record failed to show that Franklin County took any steps in 

2008 to determine the geology, location, or other unique identifiers of Franklin Crops

and assess whether those characteristics rendered Franklin Crops amenable to ALLTCS 

status. The record even failed to show any recognition by the Board of County 

Commissioners in 2008 as to the soil qualities inside Franklin Crops. The presumption 

should be that agricultural land is not considered to be ALLTCS-designated unless the 

record establishes that the County considered the identifiers and characteristics of an area 

of land labeled on Map 8. On the pro side, the record also fails to show that the County 

took any steps to determine the characteristics of the land in “Prime Irrigate[d] Lands”

and “Prime Dryland.” AR at 1441. Yet, the County concedes that ALLTCS-designation

embraced these two areas on Map 8. 

After dissecting and reconstructing Map 8 and other language within Franklin 

County’s 2008 comprehensive plan, we remind ourselves of the principle that we should 

defer to the GMHB when substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual 

determinations. One might argue that the interpretation of a comprehensive plan resolves 

a dispute of facts. As the argument goes, we are discerning the meaning of a document, 

rather than a statute or regulation. We are discerning the intent of the drafter of the 

document, not the intent of a legislative body. Under contract principles, when two or 

more readings of contract language are reasonable, a question of fact exists when 

discerning the parties’ intent. Western Farm Services, Inc. v. Olsen, 114 Wn. App. 508, 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

37

519, 59 P.3d 93 (2002), rev’d in part on other grounds, 151 Wn.2d 645, 90 P.3d 1053 

(2004). 

We decline to apply deference to the GMHB with regard to its ruling as to the 

intent behind language in the 2008 comprehensive plan for several reasons. First, the 

Franklin County Board of County Commissioners adopted the 2008 comprehensive plan

as part of the legislative process. Second, the parties do not dispute any underlying facts,

only the meaning of language scattered throughout a document. Assuming one deems the 

interpretation of the 2008 plan to constitute a factual determination, we would still 

conclude that the GMHB committed legal error by failing to defer to Franklin County’s 

interpretation of Map 8. 

After anatomizing and rebuilding Franklin County’s 2008 comprehensive plan, we 

conclude that land designated as ALLTCS in the plan did not encompass the land labeled 

as Franklin Crops on Map 8. Map 8’s reference to Franklin Crops lacks clarity. Many 

of the provisions of the plan support exclusion of Franklin Crops from ALLTCSprotection. The County’s interpretation of the plan, although not the only reasonable 

interpretation, is reasonable. No evidence suggests that the County employs fraud or 

deceit when now advocating a construction of the 2008 plan as excluding Franklin Crops

from ALLTCS-designation. RCW 36.70A.320(3) declares that the GMHB should find 

compliance of the County’s comprehensive plan unless the County acts “clearly 

erroneous in view of the entire record before the board.” The County’s actions were not 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

38

clearly erroneous. Deference to the County’s planning actions supersedes our deference 

to the GMHB. 

We value Futurewise’s devotion to environmental goals. We also recognize, 

however, the need for housing in a burgeoning community in an era of pandemic 

homelessness. New housing will support agriculture by accommodating Franklin County 

farmworkers and workers in Pasco’s thriving food processing industry. We expect that 

Futurewise wishes for any expansion to occur upward rather than outward and such wish 

is a legitimate, if not important, goal. We also encourage upward expansion but, because 

of the nature of the Tri-Cities, expect most expansion to occur outward in the coming 

decade. 

Finally, we recognize that, although unlikely, some of the UGA can return to 

agricultural designation in future comprehensive plans. A comprehensive plan is a guide 

and not a document designed for making specific land use decisions. Citizens for Mount

Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997); Lakeside

Industries v. Thurston County, 119 Wn. App. 886, 894-95 (2004). 

CONCLUSION

Franklin County’s 2008 comprehensive plan did not designate Franklin Crops as 

ALLTCS. Therefore, when adding acreage to the city of Pasco’s UGA in the 2018 plan, 

the County did not need to follow the steps required by the GMA and SEPA to include 

land previously labeled by Map 8 as Franklin Crops inside the UGA. We reverse the 
No. 38907-3-III, 

Franklin County v. Futurewise

39

GMHB’s ruling in favor of Futurewise and remand for further proceedings consistent 

with our decision. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to 

RCW 2.06.040.

_________________________________

Fearing, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Siddoway, J.

______________________________

Pennell, J.