SEPA standards or policies are not "elevated" above specific zoning ordinances, but rather they provide general guidance for determining whether the environmental impacts of an otherwise acceptable project require the denial of, or the imposition of conditions on, the project. In this regard, our courts have repeatedly stated that SEPA is not a substitute for local zoning ordinances, but "overlays local ordinances and must be enforced even where a particular use is allowed by local law or policy." Cook v. Clallam Cy., 27 Wn. App. 410, 415, 618 P.2d 1030 (1980), review denied, 96 Wn.2d 1008 (1981); West Main Assocs. v. Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47, 53, 720 P.2d 782 (1986); Polygon, at 65; RCW 43.21C.060. Nevertheless, project denial or the imposition of conditions should be based on policies identified by the city and incorporated into its zoning regulations and/or comprehensive plan and formally designated by the city as possible bases for the exercise of its SEPA authority. Victoria Partnership v. Seattle, 59 Wn. App. 592, 597 (1990).

Since the purpose of an EIS is to identify and discuss significant impacts and reasonable alternatives to a project, including mitigation measures, it would be unlikely that the city could allow any construction before that information is presented to the city in the form of a final EIS (and the project is approved). This conclusion is consistent with the general policy of SEPA to insure the full disclosure of environmental information so that environmental matters can be given proper consideration during decision making. Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Ass'n v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 273 (1976).