Motley Blog

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD
STATE OF WASHINGTON

Douglas L. Tooley,
Petitioner, Case No. 11-3-0008

v.

Christine Gregoire, Governor of Washington State
Richard Conlin, Seattle Council President
Mike McGinn, Seattle Mayor, PETITION FOR REVIEW
Respondents.

I. PETITIONER
Douglas L. Tooley
P.O. Box 3135
Durango, CO 81302

doug@motleytools.com (preferred contact)

253 666 8792

II. THE CHALLENGED ACTION
Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement SEIS-Final

III. DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Does the Mega-Project Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel require an amendment of, the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Seattle or any sub-area?
2. Does the Tunnel Project Action itself amount to a de-facto amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Seattle or any sub-area absent proper GMA procedure in addition to SEPA violations.
3. Do those SEPA violations re: standard project procedure rise to the level of Growth Management Act significance and/or jurisdiction of the State Growth Management Hearings Board?
4. Is the coordination requirement of RCW 36.70a.100 violated by the project itself or illegal SEIS procedures?
5. Are project actions that are clearly financially imprudent in the context of local and regional comprehensive plan documents under the jurisdiction of any agency or authority, including the GMHB?
6. Is the State of Washington bound by the Growth Management Act and any conclusions that can be inferred from plans created under that authority?
7. Do Growth Management Act requirements including public process require a consistent application throughout any subsidiary actions and/or projects?
8. Does the State requirement of compliance with local comprehensive plans and development regulations under RCW 36.70a.103 provide jurisdiction?
9. If GMHB jurisdiction extends to the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel and/or the Final State Environmental Impact Statement, as per either issue 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, or 8 then:
a. Should Comprehensive Plan amendment process be required before any further Tunnel construction? Should the project be cancelled in its entirety?
b. Given these violations, including SEPA procedure, should all proponents be held financially responsible for this fraudulent action in to be determined proportions?
c. Does the obstruction of citizen participation via court interference, harassment, and bullying infer a lack of compliance with Comprehensive Planning goals as stated in RCW 36.70a.020 or are these management practices considered “innovative” tools as per RCW 36.70a.090?
d. Does improper regional coordination required by RCW 36.70a.100, or other related project activities amount to civil or criminal conspiracy?
e. Has the State of Washington violated the comprehensive plan and/or development regulations of any local governments through this project and associated actions?
f. Do these legal practices invalidate the Comprehensive planning efforts of the City of Seattle, as per RCW 36.70a.140 and elsewhere?
10. Else if GMHB jurisdiction does not extend to the Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel mega-project is the GMHB and GMA a fraudulent legal framework for institutionalized barratry consistent with those illegal practices of the Alaskan Way Viaduct proponents?

IV. STANDING

Participation Standing based on comments published 2/15/2011 at Motleytools.com/Blog and sent via certified mail on 2/19/2011, #7008 1830 0002 7822 5496

V. ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED FOR HEARING ON THE MERITS

Unknown, Given the complexity of Standing/Jurisdiction Issues at least 2 hearings are expected.

VI. RELIEF SOUGHT

Petitioner requests that the Board rule the challenged action to be noncompliant
with the GMA and remand the challenged action to the jurisdiction to take the necessary legislative actions for it to be compliant with the GMA and other relief as appropriate.

The Petitioner has read the Petition for Review and believe the contents to be true.

Dated this 28th day of July, 2011.

___________________________________
Douglas L. Tooley