Montlake Community Club v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtBecker, C.J.
— To satisfy the transportation and concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act, the City of Seattle employs a screenline methodology that was incorporated into the comprehensive plan the city adopted in 1994. A subarea plan adopted in 1998 for the University community incorporates the same methodology. Montlake Community Club’s (Club) petition for review of the 1998 subarea ordinance seeks to have level of service standards established for individual arterial segments within the subarea, such as the Montlake Bridge. Because the subarea plan does not amend the screenline methodology…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- King County v. Central Puget SoundWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Northwest Steelhead & Salmon Council of Trout Unlimited v. Department of FisheriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995
- Bellevue Farm Owners Association v. Shorelines Hearings Bd.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hardee v. Department of Social & Health ServicesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
- Montlake Community v. Central Pugent SoundCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- Thurston County v. WESTERN WASH. BD.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.