A. 
A completed environmental checklist shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not exempted by this chapter. The checklist shall be the form of WAC 197-11-960 with such additions that may be required by the responsible official in accordance with WAC 197-11-906(4).
B. 
A checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency or adoption of a previous document.
C. 
For private proposals, applicant is required to complete the environmental checklist. The city may provide assistance as necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal.
D. 
The city may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a private proposal, if any of the following occurs:
1. 
City has technical information on a question(s) unavailable to private applicant;
2. 
The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration.
E. 
The applicant shall pay to the city the actual costs of providing information under subsection (D)(2) of this section.
F. 
For projects submitted as planned actions under WAC 197-11-164, the city shall use its existing environmental checklist form or may modify the environmental checklist form as provided in WAC 197-11-315. The modified environmental checklist form may be prepared and adopted along with or as part of a planned action ordinance; or developed after the ordinance is adopted. In either case, a proposed modified environmental checklist form must be sent to the Department of Ecology to allow at least a 30-day review prior to use.
(Ord. 41-07 § 1, 2007; Ord. 30-19 § 1 (Att. B), 2019)
A. 
Environmental checklist is deemed complete when the following information is provided:
1. 
All information as requested in the checklist is provided, including complete responses to all questions in the checklist.
2. 
All plans and illustrations as required per the applicable city code are submitted with the environmental checklist.
3. 
The required number of copies of the checklist and associated plans and illustrations are submitted, as per the applicable city code.
4. 
Checklist is properly signed and dated.
5. 
All applicable fees as established in the city's fee schedule are paid.
B. 
Incomplete or inaccurate responses to questions within the checklist shall be grounds for reserving a threshold determination on a proposal including scheduling of any public hearings as may be required, until such time as the information is provided by the applicant. Any period during which an applicant has been requested by the city to correct plans, perform required studies or provide additional required information shall not be included in the project permit processing time.
C. 
In accordance with WAC 197-11-315(7), electronic submittals of the checklist, including electronic signature of Part C of the checklist, are accepted by the city.
(Ord. 41-07 § 1, 2007; Ord. 30-19 § 1 (Att. B), 2019)
A. 
The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant.
B. 
An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a determination of significance (DS) is likely under WAC 197-11-350. The request must:
1. 
Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the department is lead agency; and
2. 
Precede the city's actual threshold determination for the proposal.
C. 
The responsible official's response to the request for early notice shall:
1. 
Be written and provided within 15 working days;
2. 
State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the city to consider a DS; and
3. 
State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and/or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications.
D. 
As much as possible, the city should assist the applicant with identification of impacts to the extent necessary to formulate mitigation measures.
E. 
When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal.
1. 
If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a DNS under WAC 197-11-340(2).
2. 
If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold determination by issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate.
3. 
The applicant's proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific. For example, proposals to "control noise" or "prevent stormwater runoff" are inadequate, whereas proposals to "muffle machinery to X decibel" or "construct 200-foot stormwater retention pond at Y location" are adequate.
4. 
Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents.
F. 
The city shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued for 14 days after the date of issuance for a comment period; provided, that the requirements of this section shall not apply to a DNS issued pursuant to the optional DNS process described in WRMC 18.04.140.
G. 
Any nonexempt permit or proposal may be conditioned or denied under SEPA, subject to the limitations in WAC 197-11-660.
H. 
Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the permit decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any matter specifically prescribed by the city.
I. 
If the city's tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigated DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197-11-340(3)(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS.
J. 
The city's written response under subsection C of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarification or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination.
(Ord. 41-07 § 1, 2007; Ord. 30-19 § 1 (Att. B), 2019)
A. 
If responsible official has a reasonable basis for determining that significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely, or that mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce impacts to a nonsignificant level, the responsible official may elect to use the single integrated comment period set forth in this section. If this process is used, a second comment period will typically not be required when the DNS is issued.
B. 
If the optional process set forth in this section is used, the responsible official shall:
1. 
State on the first page of the notice of application that it expects to issue a DNS for the proposal, and that:
a. 
The optional DNS process is being used;
b. 
This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal;
c. 
The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared; and
d. 
A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the specific proposal may be obtained upon request (in addition, the city may maintain a general mailing list for threshold determination distribution);
2. 
List in the notice of application the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected;
3. 
Comply with the requirements for a notice of application and public notice in WRMC 14.03.010; and
4. 
Send the notice of application and environmental checklist to:
a. 
Agencies with jurisdiction, the Department of Ecology, affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal; and
b. 
Anyone requesting a copy of the environmental checklist for the specific proposal (in addition, the city may maintain a general mailing list for checklist distribution).
C. 
If the responsible official indicates on the notice of application that a DNS is likely, an agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status during the comment period on the notice of application in accordance with WRMC 18.04.050 and WAC 197-11-948.
D. 
The responsible official shall consider timely comments on the notice of application and either:
1. 
Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with no comment period using the procedures in subsection E of this section;
2. 
Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with a comment period using the procedures in subsection E of this section, if the responsible official determines a comment period is necessary;
3. 
Issue a DS; or
4. 
Require additional information or studies prior to making a threshold determination.
E. 
If a DNS or mitigated DNS is issued under subsection (D)(1) or (D)(2) of this section, the responsible official shall send a copy of the DNS or mitigated DNS to the Department of Ecology, agencies with jurisdiction, those who commented, and anyone requesting a copy. A copy of the environmental checklist need not be recirculated.
(Ord. 41-07 § 1, 2007; Ord. 30-19 § 1 (Att. B), 2019)
The city's environmental review shall include a determination of the proposal's consistency with existing development regulations and the comprehensive plan. The consistency review shall determine whether the impacts of the proposal have been addressed in development regulations or the comprehensive plan. The planning decisions made in these documents shall not be reanalyzed in the environmental review of individual project proposals, nor will additional studies or mitigation be required if existing regulations and documents have adequately addressed the proposal's probable adverse impacts. The consistency determination described herein shall take place in conjunction with the consistency determination described in Chapter 14.04 WRMC.
(Ord. 41-07 § 1, 2007; Ord. 30-19 § 1 (Att. B), 2019)