Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.
RCW 36.70A.100 requires that a city’s comprehensive plan be “coordinated with, and consistent with,” those of adjacent cities. Here, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (the Board) found that the Town of Woodway’s comprehensive plan was inconsistent with the City of Shoreline’s because each plan designated the same area of unincorporated land as a “potential annexation area.” However, we can discern no reason in law or logic to conclude that Woodway’s plan was inconsistent with Shoreline’s simply because it designated the same area. We therefore reverse the Board’s final…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Steven J. Harris v. County of RiversideCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Pierce v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1963
- King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTHWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Association v. CityCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Yakima Police Patrolmen's Ass'n v. City of YakimaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Chevron v. PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENTWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004