City approved plans for a subdivision. Neighbors and an association opposed the subdivision and petitioned for judicial review. District Court found City's decisions to be arbitrary and capricious. City and developer appealed. Court held that Plaintiffs had standing and that the City was required to substantially comply with its growth policy, but did not do so when it approved the subdivision plan. Court also found that the agreement between City and the developer did not supersede the growth policy.
City approved plans for a 37-lot subdivision. Nearby residents and a neighborhood association opposed the subdivision due to incompatibility with the City's growth policy, ecological concerns, traffic, and light pollution; they then petitioned for judicial review. District Court found City's decisions to be arbitrary and capricious. City and developer appealed.