Legal Opinion
Honesty in Environmental Analysis & Legislation (HEAL) v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided June 21, 1999No. 40939-5-IPublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAppelwick, J.
— In developing critical areas policies and regulations, a city or county must include in the record the best available science, as a factor to be considered along with all other factors mandated to be considered by the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW. Growth management hearings boards have jurisdiction to review a city or county’s critical areas policies, but only for the limited purpose of reviewing whether the policies are in compliance with the requirement to include the best available science in the process of developing the policy.
FACTS
In 1995 the City of Seattle (City)…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bennett v. SpearSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Tapper v. Employment Security DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 1993
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- 1000 Friends of Washington v. McFarlandWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- Ferry County v. Concerned FriendsWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Ferry County v. Concerned FriendsWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Isla Verde International Holdings, Inc. v. City of CamasCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
- Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.