Petitioners filed petition for judicial review of a final decision of the Growth management Hearings board which upheld county’s comprehensive plan.
By agreement of the parties, the Superior Court certified the case for direct review, and appeal was transferred.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- A “capital facility,” as contemplated by comprehensive plan requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA), is a fixed, physical facility that has been built, constructed, or installed to perform a service relevant to the considerations at issue in the GMA, such as public services;
- Transportation facilities need be addressed only in the transportation element of a comprehensive plan, not both the transportation and capital facilities elements;
- GMA requirement that the capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan include the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities applies only to facilities owned and operated by the city or county preparing the plan; and
- Capital facilities element of county’s comprehensive plan did not have to include a detailed itemization of the amounts of money to be derived from identified public sources.