Ordinance 3774-20 - Laserfiche WebLink

should be completed at the earliest point in the planning and decision-making process,at which time, principal features of a proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably identified. 2. If the responsible official determines that the information initially supplied by an applicant is not reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposal subject to environmental review under SEPA,further information may be required of the applicant under WAC 197-11-100 and 197-11-335,and this chapter. a. The environmental checklist and necessary studies and analysis supporting the environmental checklist are part of the required permit application and are subject to the determination of completeness or incomplete application provisions of this title. b. Any additional information required by the responsible official must be submitted as required by this title.Applicants should be aware that the city will evaluate projects that have incomplete or unavailable information under WAC 197-11-080. 3. At a minimum,any DNS, MDNS,or final environmental document shall be completed prior to the city making any decision irreversibly committing itself to adopt,approve or otherwise undertake any proposed nonexempt action. Further,as specified in WAC 197-11-070,until the responsible official issues a final DNS or final EIS,the city shall take no action concerning the proposal that would: a. Have an adverse environmental impact;or b. Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. 4. For nonexempt proposals,the final DNS, MDNS,final EIS,or other final environmental document for the proposal shall accompany the city's final staff recommendation to any appropriate advisory body,such as the planning commission; provided,however,that preliminary discussions,public workshops or preliminary public hearings or meetings before the advisory body may occur prior to the final SEPA determinations. Exception:the SEPA threshold determination does not need to be final prior to a public hearing or meeting by the historic commission on a proposed project in the historic overlay zone since the historic commission's action is advisory to the responsible official. 5. When the city is the proponent for either a governmental action of a project nature or a governmental action of a nonproject nature,and the city is also the lead agency,then the maximum time limits contained in this chapter for the threshold determination and EIS process shall not apply to the proposal. B. Use of categorical exemptions 1. The responsible official shall determine if a permit or governmental proposal initiated by the city is categorically exempt.The determination of whether or not a proposal is exempt shall be made by: a. Ascertaining that the proposal is properly defined and by identifying the governmental permit required (WAC 197-11-060);and b. Determining whether the proposal is exempt as minor new construction as set forth in EMC 19.43.130 or new infill development as set forth in EMC 19.43.140. c. If a proposal includes a series of actions, physically or functionally related to each other,some of which are exempt and some of which are not,the proposal shall not be exempt. d. The responsible official's determination that a proposal is exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. 2. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions,exempt actions may be authorized with respect to the proposal prior to compliance with the procedural requirements of these guidelines subject to the following limitations: a. No nonexempt action shall be authorized; b. No action shall be authorized that would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives; c. The responsible official may withhold approval of an exempt action that would lead to modification of the physical environment,when such modifications would serve no purpose if later approval of a nonexempt action is not secured; Ch.15.02 Local Project Review 15 City Council Action(11/04/2020)