Wn.2d 896, 902, 748 P.2d 1118 (1988). 20 Although the Board did not explicitly adopt a five acre bright-line rule, such a rule was implicit in its decision because of the way the issue regarding rural densities was framed. The Board framed the issue as to whether the County’s comprehensive plan failed to comply with the GMA by allowing “development at densities of greater than one unit per five acres when this board has determined that such densities fail to comply with the GMA.” AR at 2546. 21 See Bremerton, 1995 GMHB LEXIS 384, at *102 (adopting a bright-line urban density of a minimum of four dwelling units per acre); Vashon-Maury v. King County, No. 95-3-0008, 1995 GMHB LEXIS 428, at *149, 1995 WL 903209 (Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd. Final Dec. and Order Oct. 23,1995) (<HOLDING>); Yanisch v. Lewis County, No. 02-2--0007c,
holding that an acceleration clause is not subject to antitrust scrutiny where plaintiffs conceded that they could be procompetitive in some circumstances but noting that noag clauses are subject to antitrust scrutiny holding a mandatory sentence is still subject to constitutional scrutiny holding densities of one dwelling unit per 10 acres or less is rural and greater densities are subject to increased scrutiny holding market supply factors of 25 percent or less are presumed reasonable while factors exceeding 25 percent will be subject to increased scrutiny holding racebased affirmative action subject to strict judicial scrutiny and noting that to the extent if any that fullilove held federal racial classifications to be subject to a less rigorous standard it is no longer controlling