* Futurewise v. Spokane County & Growth Management Hearings Board

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
FUTUREWISE,
Appellant,
v.
SPOKANE COUNTY and GROWTH
MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 38657-1-III
OPINION PUBLISHED IN PART
PENNELL, J. — The Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW,
requires counties of specified populations to produce and regularly update detailed
comprehensive land use plans. One of the mandatory components of a comprehensive
plan is a capital facilities plan element. The capital facilities element requires an
inventory and assessment of public infrastructure with an eye toward development
and growth.
In 2020, Spokane County (County) updated its comprehensive plan (Plan or
Comprehensive Plan), including the capital facilities plan element. Futurewise challenges
the Plan, citing numerous problems with the capital facilities element. The County
concedes several of Futurewise’s challenges and agrees this matter must be remanded
for reassessment of the capital facilities element. Nevertheless, the parties dispute some
of the finer points of what is required of a capital facilities element.
FILED
SEPTEMBER 22, 2022
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
2
We accept the parties’ agreement that remand is required and we further provide
interpretive guidance on the capital facilities plan element for use on remand.
BACKGROUND
This case turns largely on statutory interpretation. Our discussion of the facts and
procedural background is therefore brief. On June 23, 2020, the Spokane County Board of
Commissioners (Commissioners) passed Resolution No. 20-0129, adopting the statutorily
required1 eight-year2 periodic update to the County’s Comprehensive Plan, including an
updated capital facilities plan element and associated developmental regulations.
Futurewise filed a petition for review of Resolution No. 20-0129 with the Growth
Management Hearings Board (Board), contending the resolution violated various
provisions of the GMA. The Board upheld the 2020 Comprehensive Plan over
Futurewise’s objections.
Futurewise then filed a petition for judicial review of the Board’s final decision
and order in Thurston County Superior Court. By agreement of the parties, the superior
court certified the case under RCW 34.05.518(1)(a) to Division Two of this court for
1 See RCW 36.70A.130(4); former RCW 36.70A.130(5) (2020).
2 Spokane County’s previous comprehensive plan had been adopted in 2007;
however, no update to this plan was approved until 2020.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
3
direct review. A Division Three panel considered this appeal with oral argument after
receipt of an administrative transfer of the case from Division Two.
ANALYSIS
The GMA
“The legislature enacted the GMA in 1990 and 1991 largely ‘in response to public
concerns about rapid population growth and increasing development pressures in the
state.’ ” Quadrant Corp. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 154 Wn.2d 224,
231, 110 P.3d 1132 (2005) (quoting King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt.
Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543, 546, 14 P.3d 133 (2000)). Unlike environmental measures
such as the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, chapter 90.58 RCW, and the State
Environmental Policy Act, chapter 43.21C RCW, “the GMA was spawned by
controversy, not consensus.” Richard L. Settle, Washington’s Growth Management
Revolution Goes to Court, 23 SEA . U. L. REV . 5, 34 (1999). As a result, Washington
courts have held the statute is “not to be liberally construed.” Thurston County v. W.
Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 164 Wn.2d 329, 342, 190 P.3d 38 (2008). Strict (as
opposed to liberal) construction means we will not rewrite the GMA even if the plain
meaning of the statute might appear problematic. Woods v. Kittitas County, 162 Wn.2d
597, 614, 174 P.3d 25 (2007).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
4
A major feature of the GMA is the requirement that counties with specified
populations adopt comprehensive growth management plans. Former RCW 36.70A.040
(2014). “The comprehensive plan is the central nervous system of the GMA.” Settle,
supra, at 26. A jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan “must contain data and detailed policies
to guide the expansion and extension of public facilities and the use and development of
land, as prescribed by the [GMA].” Id.
The Growth Management Hearings Board is empowered to adjudicate disputes
over GMA compliance and “invalidate noncompliant comprehensive plans.” Thurston
County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 164 Wn.2d at 340. Judicial review of board
actions is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, chapter 34.05 RCW. Id. at 341.
The Board’s interpretation of the GMA is accorded substantial weight, but we
nevertheless review issues of law de novo. Id.
Capital facilities
One of the mandatory components of any comprehensive plan under the GMA is
the capital facilities plan element, which must consist of
(a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities,
showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast
of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and
capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan
that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities
and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
5
requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short
of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital
facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan
element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall
be included in the capital facilities plan element.
RCW 36.70A.070(3).
The parties agree Spokane County’s 2020 Comprehensive Plan failed to satisfy the
required components of the capital facilities plan element. Specifically, they agree the
Plan failed to address noncounty-owned public facilities such as schools and failed to
include unincorporated rural areas. The parties further agree remand is required to address
these deficiencies. However, the parties disagree as to some of the details regarding the
capital facilities plan element. We address the areas of disagreement in turn.
1. What is the definition of “capital facilities?”
The parties dispute the foundational issue of what the legislature meant by “capital
facilities,” as that term is used in RCW 36.70A.070(3). This term is not defined in the
GMA. See RCW 36.70A.030. Thus, we must engage in statutory interpretation. “Our goal
in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and carry out the intent of the Legislature.” Skagit
Surveyors & Eng’rs, LLC v. Friends of Skagit Valley, 135 Wn.2d 542, 564, 958 P.2d 962
(1998). “We look to the language of the statute, interpreting all provisions in relation to
each other, to determine that intent.” Id. Because the GMA is to be strictly construed, we
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
6
do not attempt to interpret the GMA in a manner favoring some sort of policy goal. If our
legislature has not provided for something in the GMA, “we will not rewrite the statute.”
Id. at 567.
The Growth Management Hearings Board has recognized that “public facilities” as
defined by RCW 36.70A.030(20) qualify as “capital facilities.” See Wilma v. Stevens
County, No. 06-1-0009c, 2007 WL 1153336, at *15 (E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd.
Mar. 12, 2007), codified at WAC 365-196-415(1)(a). While we accord substantial weight
to the Board’s interpretation of the GMA, its legal proclamations are not binding.
Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 176 Wn. App. 555, 565, 309 P.3d
673 (2013). Nevertheless, given the consensus that public facilities are capital facilities
and the legislature’s choice not to amend the GMA to state otherwise, it appears the
legislature has acquiesced in this interpretation. See Skagit Surveyors, 135 Wn.2d at 542.
While it appears to be well established that “public facilities” as defined by
RCW 36.70A.030(20) qualify as “capital facilities” as set forth in RCW 36.70A.070(3),
any conclusion that the two terms are synonymous would require impermissible rewriting
of the GMA. A well-established rule of statutory construction holds that when the
legislature uses different terminology, it intends different definitions. Densley v. Dep’t of
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
7
Ret. Sys., 162 Wn.2d 210, 219, 173 P.3d 885 (2007). Thus, while we accept that all public
facilities qualify as capital facilities, we cannot conclude that the reverse holds true.
Based on the different language used, it appears the legislature intended the term
“capital facilities” to include, but not necessarily be limited by, the term “public
facilities.” We may consult dictionary definitions when a term is left undefined by the
legislature. Newton v. State, 192 Wn. App. 931, 937, 369 P.3d 511 (2016). Thus, we
discern the meaning of the term “capital facilities” by reviewing the definition of “public
facilities” along with the dictionary definition applicable to “capital facilities.”
The legislature has defined “public facilities” as including “streets, roads,
highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water
systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools.”
RCW 36.70A.030(20).
Merriam-Webster defines “capital” as “accumulated assets, resources, sources of
strength, or advantages utilized to aid in accomplishing an end or furthering a pursuit.”
WEBSTER ’ S T HIRD N EW I NT’ L D ICTIONARY 332 (1993). “Facility” is defined as
“something (as a hospital, machinery, plumbing) that is built, constructed, installed, or
established to perform some particular function or to serve or facilitate some particular
end.” Id. at 812-13.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
8
From the foregoing definitions it necessarily follows that an asset or resource built,
constructed, installed, or established to perform a particular function falls within the
scope of a capital facility, as contemplated by RCW 36.70A.070(3). This would naturally
include the narrower list of “public facilities” contained in RCW 36.70A.030(20), but it
would also extend to other facilities built or installed to perform some sort of service
identifiable under the GMA, such the “public services” in RCW 36.70A.030(21).3
The language of the capital facilities plan element also indicates the term “capital
facilities” refers to fixed, physical assets or resources, not moveable or intangible
property such as vehicles or school bus routes. Under RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a), an
inventory of capital facilities must show the “locations” of all capital facilities. This
requirement makes sense only if one understands the term “capital facility” to refer to a
fixed facility that cannot change locations.
According to Spokane County, the definition of “capital facilities” must further be
narrowed to include only those facilities “necessary to support development.” The
authority cited for the County’s claim is RCW 36.70A.020(12), which lists the following
as one of the GMA’s 13 planning goals: “Ensure that those public facilities and services
3 “Public services” are defined to “include fire protection and suppression, law
enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental protection, and other
governmental services.” RCW 36.70A.030(21).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
9
necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time
the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service
levels below locally established minimum standards.”
We disagree with the County that RCW 36.70A.020(12) modifies the definition of
the term “capital facility.” The definition of a “capital facility” as set forth above
contemplates that a facility is one that performs some sort of service. As noted above, it
stands to reason that the service contemplated by a capital facility under the GMA must
be GMA-related, such as the “public services” set forth in RCW 36.70A.030(21). But
nothing in the GMA empowers local jurisdictions to exclude capital facilities from the
capital facility plan element because the locality deems the facility unnecessary for
development. This is contrary to a strict reading of the statute.
In summary, a “capital facility” as contemplated by RCW 36.70A.070(3) 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 the “public services” listed
in RCW 36.70A.030(21). Capital facilities include the “public facilities” listed in
RCW 36.70A.030(20), but are not necessarily limited to facilities falling under the
“public facilities” definition.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
10
2. Are transportation facilities included as capital facilities
under RCW 36.70A.070(3)?
The parties take different positions on whether transportation facilities qualify as
capital facilities for purposes of RCW 36.70A.070(3). According to Futurewise,
transportation facilities fall within the definition of “capital facilities” and thus must be
included as part of the capital facilities plan element. The County disagrees.
Were we to view RCW 36.70A.070(3) in isolation, Futurewise’s position would
carry some weight. After all, an airport or a transit station is a fixed facility built or
installed to provide a government service such as facilitating public transportation. But in
interpreting the GMA, we must not look at statutory provisions in isolation. King County
v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d at 560. We therefore must
assess whether interpreting the capital facilities plan element to include transportation
facilities runs contrary to other portions of the GMA.
The GMA identifies a specific component of the comprehensive plan as the
transportation element. RCW 36.70A.070(6). The transportation element requires
an inventory of “air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services.”
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(A). It also covers most if not all of the more general
components contemplated by the capital facilities plan element contained in
RCW 36.70A.070(3). A well-accepted rule of statutory construction is that a specific
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
11
statute will supersede a general one when both apply. Kustura v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.,
169 Wn.2d 81, 88, 233 P.3d 853 (2010). Given the well-established general-specific rule,
it appears to be the legislature’s intent that transportation facilities need be addressed only
in the transportation element of a comprehensive plan (RCW 36.70A.070(6)), not both
the transportation and capital facilities elements.
Had the legislature intended localities to address transportation facilities in both
the capital facilities and transportation elements of a comprehensive plan, it would have
said so more clearly. Take the example of park and recreation facilities. Like
transportation facilities, park and recreation facilities fall under the definition of “capital
facilities” as set forth above. Also, like transportation facilities, the legislature has
specified that park and recreation facilities must be addressed in their own comprehensive
plan element. RCW 36.70A.070(8). Pursuant to the general-specific rule referenced
above, one might assume that park and recreation facilities need be addressed only in the
park and recreation element. However, in apparent recognition of this assumption, the
legislature specifically included park and recreation facilities in the capital facilities plan
element. RCW 36.70A.070(3). This double reference makes plain the legislature’s intent
that park and recreation facilities must be addressed in both elements. In contrast, the
legislature did not reference transportation facilities in its discussion of the capital
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
12
facilities plan element. This difference is significant and suggests the legislature did
not intend transportation facilities to be given double treatment within a comprehensive
plan. By its plain terms, the language used in RCW 36.70A.070 indicates transportation
facilities need be addressed only in the detailed transportation element set forth in
RCW 36.70A.070(6).
Recent amendments to the GMA reinforce our interpretation of the transportation
element. Engrossed Senate Substitution Bill 5593, which became effective on June 9,
2022, added subsection (c) to RCW 36.70A.130(3), and permitted counties to revise an
urban growth area (UGA) if, during regularly scheduled review, a county determines the
patterns of development have created pressure in areas that exceed the available and
developable lands within the UGA. See L AWS OF 2022, ch. 287. RCW 36.70A.130(3)(c)
lists eight requirements that must be met before a county may revise a UGA. One of these
requirements is “[t]he transportation element and capital facility plan element have
identified the transportation facilities, and public facilities and services needed to serve
the urban growth area and the funding to provide the transportation facilities and public
facilities and services.” RCW 36.70A.130(3)(c)(v). The structure of this sentence
indicates the “transportation element” covers “transportation facilities” and the “capital
facility plan element” encompasses “public facilities and services.”
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
13
Futurewise has not assigned error to the adequacy of the County’s transportation
element under RCW 36.70A.070(6). Thus, our order on remand does not require
reassessment of transportation facilities.
3. What are the ownership requirements of capital facilities?
As stated above, the capital facilities plan element must include “(a) An inventory
of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities
of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; [and]
(c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities . . . .”
RCW 36.70A.070(3).
Futurewise contends subsections (a) and (b) of RCW 36.70A.070(3) apply to all
publicly owned facilities, regardless of whether the county preparing a comprehensive
plan is the owner of such a facility. We agree with this interpretation of the statute. By
its plain terms, subsection (a) refers broadly to all publicly owned facilities. If the
legislature had intended to limit the scope of subsection (a) to facilities owned by the
county, it would have said so more clearly. In addition, subsection (b) refers to “such
capital facilities,” i.e., the same scope of facilities set forth in the preceding sentence,
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
14
subsection (a). Given the wording of subsections (a) and (b),4 the capital facilities plan
element of a comprehensive plan must include facilities such as public schools that are
not owned by a county but nevertheless fall under the category of a facility owned by a
public entity.
But subsection (c) of RCW 36.70A.070(3) is worded differently from subsections
(a) and (b). Subsection (c) refers simply to “capital facilities,” not publicly owned
facilities or “such capital facilities.” The Growth Management Hearings Board has
consistently interpreted RCW 36.70A.070(3)(c) to apply only to facilities “‘owned and
operated by the city or county’” as opposed to any public entity. Wenatchee Valley Mall
P’ship v. Douglas County, Case No. 96-1-0009, 1996 WL 731191, at *16-17 (E. Wash.
Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd. Dec. 10, 1996); Concerned Citizens for Sky Valley v.
Snohomish County, No. 95-3-0068c, 1996 WL 73491, at *49-50 (Cent. Puget Sound
Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd. Mar. 12, 1996). No final enactment of the legislature has ever
disturbed this longstanding interpretation.
4 The parties agree RCW 36.70A.070(3)(b) implicitly requires Spokane County
to set level of service standards for capital facilities in order to forecast future needs.
We accept this agreement, and further note that as RCW 36.70A.070(3)(b) applies to all
publicly owned capital facilities, on remand the County is required to set level of service
standards for all such facilities.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
15
There is a rational basis for treating subsection (c) of RCW 36.70A.070(3)
differently from subsections (a) and (b). Spokane County has little ability to control the
planning and development of other public entities. It makes sense that the County is
not required to make plans for expanded or new capital facilities outside its control.
We adopt the Board’s interpretation. Unlike subsections (a) and (b) of
RCW 36.70A.070(3) that require an inventory of “existing capital facilities owned
by public entities,” subsection (c) requires only “the proposed locations and capacities
of expanded or new capital facilities.”
4. Must the capital facilities element include not only the
sources of public money, but also a breakdown of the
amounts of money to be secured from each source?
The capital facilities plan element must include “at least a six-year plan that will
finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies
sources of public money for such purposes.” RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d). According to
Futurewise, the capital facilities element contained in Spokane County’s 2020
Comprehensive Plan fails to meet this requirement because it does not include a detailed
itemization of the amounts of money to be derived from public sources.
The plain meaning of RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d) defeats Futurewise’s argument.
A capital facilities plan element requires a planner to clearly identify only “sources” of
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
16
public money. There is no requirement for a planning jurisdiction to provide additional
information on the specific amounts of public money each source is to provide. To read
such a requirement into the GMA would be to improperly add to it. We therefore affirm
the Board’s determination that Futurewise failed to demonstrate the 2020 Comprehensive
Plan’s treatment of sources of public money was inadequate.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the Board with instructions that
the following corrections be made to the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan:
● 	Schools and other publicly owned capital facilities other than transportation
facilities must be included within the capital facilities plan element under
RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a) and (b).
● 	The capital facilities plan element must cover Spokane County’s entire
planning area, not just UGAs, and cannot simply rely on prior capital facility
plans without reanalyzing present validity.
A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this
opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder,
having no precedential value, shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
Whether the capital facilities plan element is internally inconsistent
Futurewise claims Spokane County’s capital facilities plan element is internally
inconsistent, in violation of RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e). Specifically, Futurewise points to an
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
17
implementation schedule in the capital facilities plan indicating there will be a capital
facilities plan update every seven years. In contrast, budget forecasts by the County in the
Plan cover only five-year or six-year increments. According to Futurewise, this creates a
danger of a one-year or two-year gap during which a seven-year comprehensive plan will
not have a corresponding budget.
Futurewise’s claim of inconsistency fails. There is a difference between the length
of time covered by a budget plan and the schedule for plan updates. At any point in time,
Spokane County must have a six-year budget plan in place. RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d). But
this does not mean the budget cannot or will not be updated before it expires. Spokane
County anticipates updating its budget annually. See Admin. Record at 155. This
expectation is consistent with regulatory goals that recommend six-year budget plans be
updated “at least biennially so financial planning remains sufficiently ahead of the
present.” WAC 365-196-415(2)(c)(ii). So long as the County regularly updates its six-
year budget forecast, the six-year forecast will constantly move forward in time and there
will be no danger of a gap between an existing budget and a full update of its
Comprehensive Plan.5
5 The parties also make reference to a strategy set forth in the appendix to the
Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, that mentions yearly updates to the capital
facilities plan. The County claims this statement is a recommendation, not a directive.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
18
Public participation under Spokane’s zoning code
The GMA requires covered jurisdictions to allow for early and continuous
participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans.
RCW 36.70A.140. Futurewise contends portions of the Spokane County Zoning Code
(Zoning Code)6 fail to comport with this requirement because the provisions do not allow
for early and continuous public comment when a proposed plan amendment is initiated by
a private party. At issue are sections 14.402.080 and 14.402.100 of the Zoning Code.
At the time of the Growth Management Hearing Board’s decision in this case, the
relevant portions of the foregoing codes provided as follows:
1. 	Initiation of the Amendment:
a. 	The Board [7] or Department of Building and Planning may initiate an
amendment to the text of the Zoning Code.
b. 	An interested party may request that the Board initiate a zoning text
amendment by submitting a request to the Department which will
then be forwarded to the Board for consideration. A request to
initiate an amendment is subject to a nonrefundable review fee. If
We agree. See Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, App. A, at A-3,
https://spokanecounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/36241/Comp-Plan-2020?bidId=
(Implementation strategies are recommendations “that may be used by the County to
facilitate accomplishing the goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan.”)
(emphasis added).
6 The Zoning Code is available in its entirety at
https://www.spokanecounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/26429/2021-Zone-Code?bidId=.
7 As used in the Zoning Code, “Board” refers to the Spokane County Board of
Commissioners. Zoning Code 14.300.100.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
19
initiated by the Board the request will be processed by the
Department subject to formal application and applicable fees.
Zoning Code 14.402.080(1).
2. 	Initiation of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Board,
Department or Commission.
The Board, at its discretion, may initiate annual Comprehensive Plan
amendments by resolution, including consideration of requests from the
Director or Commission. Requests from individuals shall be subject to
the requirements under 14.402.100(3) below.
3. 	Individual Requests for Initiation of Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Individuals may request initiation of an annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as follows:
a. 	The individual shall submit a “Request for Initiation of
Comprehensive Plan Amendment” subject to a nonrefundable review
fee as determined by the Board. The request shall be submitted
between November 1 st and December 20 th or the end of the last
business day prior to December 20 th , for amendments to be
considered in the following year.
b. 	Upon receipt of the initiation requests, the Department shall conduct
a preliminary review of the proposal(s). The preliminary review shall
then be forwarded to the Board for consideration in January or as
soon as possible thereafter. After consideration by the Board, they
may either deny the request or approve the request for consideration
in the annual amendment cycle. If the request is denied there will
[sic] no further consideration of the request during the amendment
cycle. Requests that are approved for further consideration may
proceed to the application phase of the process. The Board shall
provide their decision by resolution which shall be forwarded to the
Department.
c. 	The Board shall have full sole authority in the determination of
initiation and further review of Comprehensive Plan amendment
requests.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
20
Former Zoning Code 14.402.100(2)-(3) (2004).
As Futurewise asserts, the foregoing portions of the Spokane County Zoning Code
allowed the Spokane County Board of Commissioners to consider an individual request
for an amendment to a comprehensive plan without public input. This is contrary to the
requirements of the GMA. However, while this matter was pending review, Spokane
County amended Zoning Code 14.402.100 to read as follows:
2. 	Initiation of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Board,
Department or Commission.
The Board, at its discretion, may initiate annual Comprehensive Plan
amendments by resolution, including consideration of requests from the
Director or Commission. Requests from individuals shall be subject to
the requirements under 14.402.100(3) below.
a. 	Prior to initiation of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment under this
subsection, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one duly
noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission shall thereafter
forward a recommendation to the Board on whether or not to initiate
the requested amendment.
b. 	After receipt of the Commission’s Recommendation, the Board shall
hold a public meeting at which they may either approve or deny the
initiation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
c. 	If the request is denied there will [sic] no further consideration of the
request during the amendment cycle. Requests that are approved for
further consideration may proceed to the application phase of the
process. The Board shall provide their decision by resolution which
shall be forwarded to the Department.
d. The Board shall have full sole authority in the determination of
initiation and further review of Comprehensive Plan amendment
requests.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
21
3. 	Individual Requests for Initiation of Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Individuals may request initiation of an annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as follows:
a. 	The individual shall submit a “Request for Initiation of a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment” subject to a nonrefundable review
fee as determined by the Board. The request shall be submitted
between November 1 st and December 20 th or the end of the last
business day prior to December 20 th , for amendments to be
considered in the following year.
b. 	Upon receipt of the initiation requests, the Department shall conduct
a preliminary review of the proposal(s). The preliminary review shall
then be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration and
recommendation at a duly noticed Public Hearing in March or as
soon as possible thereafter. The Planning Commission will thereafter
forward a recommendation to the Board on whether or not to initiate
the proposed amendment.
c. 	After receipt of the Commission’s Recommendation, the Board shall
hold a meeting at which they may either deny the request or approve
the request for consideration in the annual amendment cycle. If the
request is denied there will [sic] no further consideration of the
request during the amendment cycle. Requests that are approved for
further consideration may proceed to the application phase of the
process. The Board shall provide their decision by resolution which
shall be forwarded to the Department.
d. 	The Board shall have full sole authority in the determination and
initiation and further review of Comprehensive Plan amendment
requests.
Zoning Code 14.402.100(2)-(3).8
8 The amendments to the Spokane County Zoning Code have been appended as
Attachment A to the County’s second supplemental brief, filed on July 20, 2022.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
22
According to Spokane County, the amendment to Zoning Code 14.402.100 moots
Futurewise’s concerns regarding the Zoning Code’s failure to provide for early public
participation regarding amendment proposals submitted by individuals. We agree. The
amendments to Zoning Code 14.402.100(2) and (3) make plain a public hearing must take
place regarding all proposed comprehensive plan amendments, regardless of whether the
amendment is initiated by the County or an outside individual. Under Zoning Code
14.402.100(3)(b), all individual requests for amendments will be to the Spokane County
Planning Commission for consideration at a public hearing. At the hearing, the Planning
Commission will formulate a recommendation regarding the request and then forward the
recommendation to the Spokane County Board of Commissioners. The Commissioners
must then act on the Planning Commission’s recommendation at a subsequent public
hearing as set forth in Zoning Code 14.402.100(3)(c). This process allows for early and
continuous public participation prior to any action accepting or rejecting the proposed
amendment. This is fully consistent with the public participation requirements of the
GMA.
Futurewise claims the amendments to the code are inadequate because they do not
change Zoning Code 14.402.080(1). Futurewise appears to argue this section still allows
the Commissioners to consider individual requests for amendments outside of a public
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-III
Futurewise v. Spokane County
23
hearing process. We disagree. Zoning Code 14.402.080(1) does not allow for an end-run
around the public participation process set forth in Zoning Code 14.402.100(3). All
Zoning Code 14.402.080(1) does is identify the fact that proposals for amendments
may be made internally by the Commissioners or the Spokane County Building and
Planning Department or externally by an interested party. Zoning Code 14.402.080(1)
does not address the process for how proposed amendments are considered. The process
for consideration is set forth in Zoning Code 14.402.100(3), as set forth above.9
Futurewise fails to specify how the process set forth in the amendments to Zoning Code
14.402.100(3) exclude public participation. We therefore agree with the County that this
aspect of Futurewise’s appeal is moot.
Geiger Spur
Futurewise and the County agree that disputes over the Geiger Spur are now moot.
We therefore need not consider this aspect of Futurewise’s challenge to the Plan.
9 Similarly, the flow chart set forth in Zoning Code 14.402.140 does not provide a
method for avoiding the public hearing requirements of Zoning Code 14.402.100(3). The
flow chart must be read in conjunction with Zoning Code 14.402.100(3), which specifies
public hearings must take place before any decisions are made regarding proposed plan
amendments.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38657-1-111
Futurewise
v.
Spokane County
Other conceded assignments
of
error
Futurewise and Spokane County agree that, as to the majority ofFuturewise's
assignments
of
error, the Board failed to recognize that the capital facilities plan element
must be performed county wide and cannot simply rely on prior assumptions or
assessments. We accept these concessions.
ORDER
ON REMAND
Pursuant to the foregoing analysis and the parties' agreement, we affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand to the Board with instructions that the following corrections
be made to the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan:
• 	Schools and other publicly owned capital facilities other than transportation
facilities must be included within the capital facilities plan element under
RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a) and (b).
• 	The capital facilities plan element must cover Spokane County's entire
planning area, not just UGAs, and cannot simply rely on prior capital facility
plans without reanalyzing present validity.
WECONCUR:
~tttio 	.
~~-
doway, C.J.
~	
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
24
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.