Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.040 (2026)

Determination of consistency

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A proposed project's consistency with a local government's development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, or, in the absence of applicable development regulations, the appropriate elements of the comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW shall be decided by the local government during project review by consideration of:

(a) The type of land use;

(b) The level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density;

(d) The characteristics of the development, such as development standards.

(2) In deciding whether a project is consistent, the determinations made pursuant to RCW 36.70B.030(2) shall be controlling.

(3) For purposes of this section, the term "consistency" shall include all terms used in this chapter and chapter 36.70A RCW to refer to performance in accordance with this chapter and chapter 36.70A RCW, including but not limited to compliance, conformity, and consistency.

(4) Nothing in this section requires documentation, dictates an agency's procedures for considering consistency, or limits a city or county from asking more specific or related questions with respect to any of the four main categories listed in subsection (1)(a) through (d) of this section.

(5) The department of commerce is authorized to develop and adopt by rule criteria to assist local governments planning under RCW 36.70A.040 to analyze the consistency of project actions. These criteria shall be jointly developed with the department of ecology.

[ 2023 c 470 s 2020; 1997 c 429 s 46; 1995 c 347 s 405.]

Notes:

Explanatory statement—2023 c 470: See note following RCW 10.99.030.

Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.

Intent—Findings—1995 c 347 ss 404 and 405: See note following RCW 36.70B.030.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & Assocs., 115 Wash. App. 611 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & Assocs., 115 Wash. App. 611 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “” RCW 36.70B.040 Determination of consistency.”

Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. GLEN A. CLONINGER ASS'N, 62 P.3d 938 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “" [2] "RCW 36.70B.040. Determination of consistency.”

Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wash. 2d 861 (Wash. 1997). “The review of a proposed project’s consistency with applicable development regulations, or in the absence of applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan, under RCW 36.70B.040 shall incorporate the determinations under this section.”

Citizens for Mount Vernon v. Mount Vernon, 947 P.2d 1208 (Wash. 1997). “The review of a proposed project's consistency with applicable development regulations, or in the absence of applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan, under RCW 36.70B.040 shall incorporate the determinations under this section.”

Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wash. App. 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “” In addition, under RCW 36.70B.040, local governments must determine a proposed project’s consistency with its development regulations or comprehensive plan during project review by considering the type of land use, level of development, infrastructure, and development…”

Moss v. City of Bellingham, 31 P.3d 703 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “" In addition, under RCW 36.70B.040, local governments must determine a proposed project's consistency with its development *710 regulations or comprehensive plan during project review by considering the type of land use, level of development, infrastructure, and development…”

Spokane Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 173 Wash. App. 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “” RCW 36.70B.040(l)(c) provides that a proposed project’s “consistency” with a local government’s development regulations (or, in their absence, the elements of its comprehensive plan) “shall be decided by the local government during project review” by consideration of, among…”

Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Ass'n v. Moby Dick Corp., 115 Wash. App. 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “4 As Pacific County had not yet adopted development regulations, RCW 36.70B.040 required the BOCC to judge the amendment’s consistency with the applicable comprehensive plan.”

Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Ass'n v. Moby Dick Corp., 62 P.3d 912 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “[4] As Pacific County had not yet adopted development regulations, RCW 36.70B.040 required the BOCC to judge the amendment's consistency with the applicable comprehensive plan.”

Fall City Sustainable Growth, V. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “And under RCW 36.70B.040: (1) A proposed project’s consistency with a local government’s development regulations adopted under chapter 36.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.040(1) — 3 cases

Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & Assocs., 115 Wash. App. 611 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “” RCW 36.70B.040 Determination of consistency.”

Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. GLEN A. CLONINGER ASS'N, 62 P.3d 938 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “" [2] "RCW 36.70B.040. Determination of consistency.”

Fall City Sustainable Growth, V. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “And under RCW 36.70B.040: (1) A proposed project’s consistency with a local government’s development regulations adopted under chapter 36.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.040(l)(c) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.