Division III. Mitigation and Fees
Chapter 19.90
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
Sections:
19.90.050 Capacity reserve certificate required.
19.90.070 Level of service standards.
19.90.080 Application for a capacity reserve certificate.
19.90.090 Amendments to capacity reserve certificates.
19.90.100 Use of reserved capacity.
19.90.110 Transfer of reserved capacity.
19.90.120 Capacity evaluation method.
19.90.130 Concurrency administration – Purpose and procedure.
19.90.140 Concurrency determination letter.
19.90.180 Interagency coordination.
19.90.190 Coordination with other requirements.
19.90.010 Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms not defined here are defined according to Chapter 19.05 FWRC or FWRC 1.05.020 in that order. The public works director shall have the authority to resolve questions of interpretation or conflicts within this chapter.
“Affected intersection” means any intersection within the city meeting the requirements of FWRC 19.90.070 and having a direct traffic impact as a result of development activity.
“Available capacity” means capacity which can be encumbered, reserved, or committed to future users, expressed in an appropriate unit of measure, such as p.m. peak hour trips.
“Background traffic” means existing traffic levels and the anticipated traffic from all proposals for which CRCs have been approved under the provisions of this chapter.
“Build-out year conditions” means the volume of traffic that is projected to occur on the roadway system as of the anticipated date of occupancy of a proposal. Traffic conditions include regional traffic and the anticipated traffic from all proposals for which CRCs have been approved under the provisions of this chapter.
“Capacity” means the availability of an affected intersection to accommodate increased traffic resulting from a development without causing the LOS to fall below the standards established in the comprehensive plan.
“Capacity reserve certificate (CRC)” means the certificate issued by the city pursuant to the terms and conditions of this chapter which constitutes the proof that adequate capacity for each affected intersection has been reserved to serve the densities and intensities of development within the time frame designated on the certificate.
“City of Federal Way development standards” means those standards adopted by the Federal Way public works director.
“Concurrency denial letter” means a letter issued by the director which summarizes the results of the concurrency evaluation and the reason for denying the request for a concurrency reserve certificate.
“Concurrency evaluation” means the evaluation by the director to ensure that necessary roadway improvements are made concurrent with proposed development activity, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070.
“Concurrency management” means the process local jurisdictions use to ensure that necessary roadway improvements are made concurrent with proposed development activity, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070.
“Direct traffic impact” means any net increase in vehicle traffic generated by a proposed development.
“Director” means the director of the department of public works or her/his designee.
“Level of service (LOS)” means a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, described with alphabetical representations of “A” through “F” as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual prepared by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council, to indicate the amount of congestion and delay at particular locations, and adopted by the city.
“Net new trips” means the trip generation of the development activity less any allowable credit for existing activity that will be replaced, demolished or abandoned as part of the development activity.
“Peak hour” means the highest volume of traffic for a continuous hour between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays.
“Reserved capacity” means capacity which has been allocated to a particular property through issuance of a capacity reserve certificate reserving capacity for a set period of time.
“Select zone analysis” means a travel demand model analysis that identifies trips generated within a selected transportation analysis zone.
“Six-year transportation improvement program (TIP)” means the annually adopted transportation improvement program which identifies all the city’s transportation needs over the next six years, including the total project costs.
“Standards” means the adopted city of Federal Way development standards.
“Total project cost” means the total cost for the transportation projects, as defined in the current TIP. This cost includes, but is not limited to, studies, design, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, grading, and construction.
“Transportation analysis zone” means the area defined within a travel demand model representing all the land uses contained within that area.
“Trip assignment” means the determination within a travel demand model of the number and type of trips using a defined roadway.
“Trip distribution” means the determination within a travel demand model of the number and type of trips traveling between any given pair of transportation analysis zones.
“Trip generation” means the number of peak hour trips estimated to be produced by the development activity using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), current edition, or other methodology approved by the director.
“Trip generation credit” means a reduction in the number of new peak hour trips attributed to an application as described in FWRC 19.90.080, equal to the number of peak hour trips generated on the site described on the application from uses that have had a SEPA analysis prior to the effective date of the ordinance adopting this chapter that have ceased or will cease if the development permit is granted.
(Ord. No. 09-628, § 3, 10-20-09; Ord. No. 09-593, § 20, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-151.)
19.90.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to implement the concurrency provisions of the transportation element of the city’s comprehensive plan, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070(6)(e), consistent with WAC 365-195-510 and 365-195-835 as currently exists or as hereafter amended. No development permit shall be issued except in accordance with this chapter.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-152.)
19.90.030 Authority.
The director of public works has the authority to adopt rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter and has the authority to administer and enforce this chapter and any such rules and regulations including making determinations regarding concurrency and issuing capacity reserve certificates (CRCs) according to the procedures in this chapter. It is unlawful to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this chapter or any such rule or regulation.
The director’s determination of concurrency and the issuance or nonissuance of a CRC shall be integrated, insofar as possible, with any applicable decision making processes on permits, applications, and proposals submitted to the city for review and decision. For each development activity subject to concurrency evaluation and the requirement for a CRC, the director shall determine how the review can be best integrated with the decision making process.
(Ord. No. 09-597, § 51, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-153.)
19.90.040 Applicability.
(1) This chapter shall apply to all applications for development permits, except for development exempt under FWRC 19.90.060, if the development activity will generate any net new trips in the peak hour.
(2) All construction or changes in use initiated pursuant to a development permit for which a SEPA decision was issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. However, if the city determines that a previously issued development permit for which the SEPA decision was issued has lapsed or expired, pursuant to the applicable development regulations, then no subsequent development permit shall be issued except in accordance with this chapter.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-154.)
19.90.050 Capacity reserve certificate required.
(1) Prior to the issuance of any permit for a nonexempt development activity, the director shall determine if the proposal is covered by an existing CRC or if capacity exists on the road facilities to permit the proposed development activity. Permits for the development activity shall be issued only if the director finds that the activity is covered by an existing CRC or capacity exists in accordance with level of service standards adopted in the comprehensive plan. Where such capacity exists, the director shall issue a CRC to the applicant for the development activity.
(2) A CRC shall be issued only after a capacity evaluation is performed indicating that capacity is available on all applicable road facilities.
(3) In no event shall the director determine concurrency for a greater amount of capacity than is needed for the development proposed.
(4) Residential subdivisions shall be evaluated for concurrency as a single development permit. Commercial subdivisions and other projects constructed in phases shall be evaluated for concurrency as each phase is submitted for applicable development permits, notwithstanding any requirement to analyze the commercial subdivision as a whole under SEPA.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-155.)
19.90.060 Exempt development.
(1) Any development activity or development permit may be exempted from this chapter if the development activity or development permit is deemed by the director to generate no net new trips in the peak hour.
(2) The following types of development permits are typically exempt from concurrency management review and the requirements of this chapter because they do not create additional long-term impacts on road facilities. However, if any development permit from the list below generates any net new trips in the peak period, it shall not be exempt from concurrency evaluation.
(a) Boundary line adjustment;
(b) Demolition permit;
(c) Electrical permit;
(d) Fire protection system permit;
(e) Tenant improvements with no change of use;
(f) Land surface modification;
(g) Lot line elimination;
(h) Mechanical permit;
(i) Plumbing permit;
(j) Right-of-way modification;
(k) Right-of-way use permit;
(l) Sign permit;
(m) Single-family remodeling with no change of use;
(n) Rezones;
(o) Comprehensive plan amendment;
(p) Shoreline permit;
(q) Commercial subdivisions;
(r) Accessory dwelling unit (ADU);
(s) Binding site plan (BSP);
(t) Business license;
(u) Use process I.
(3) Exemption from concurrency review fees. City-owned facilities shall be exempted from the concurrency review fees. City-owned facilities shall not be exempted from concurrency review and appropriate mitigation, if any.
(Ord. No. 09-628, § 4, 10-20-09; Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-156.)
19.90.070 Level of service standards.
The director shall use the LOS standards set forth in the comprehensive plan to make concurrency evaluations as part of the review of any application for a CRC issued pursuant to this chapter.
(1) The street system measured for concurrency purposes are all intersections of collectors and arterials as defined in the city’s comprehensive plan, except for the intersections of two or more minor collectors, as these intersections would exist upon completion of all projects listed in the currently adopted TIP and currently funded projects by other transportation agencies.
(2) The city’s adopted LOS standards shall be applied in the review of development activity pursuant to administrative procedures developed by the public works director.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-157.)
19.90.080 Application for a capacity reserve certificate.
(1) An application for a CRC shall be on a form provided by the director. The application shall be submitted and accompanied by the requisite fee, as determined by city council resolution.
(2) An applicant may request a concurrency feasibility analysis. However, a CRC shall not be issued for applications not associated with an active development permit, nor shall the trips generated by the development proposal be reserved. The director may adjust applicable fees for subsequent analyses on the same property associated with an active development permit to the extent that the director determines data from the feasibility analysis remains valid.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-158.)
19.90.090 Amendments to capacity reserve certificates.
(1) Any request to increase the number of trips from a development application for which capacity is reserved shall require an analysis that determines that:
(a) The analysis used for the development’s original CRC is still valid; and
(b) No level of service impact is reasonably anticipated.
In addition, the following conditions must be met in order to amend an existing CRC:
(c) The application to amend an existing CRC must be received within one year of the issue date of the CRC;
(d) The trips generated by the amendment may not exceed the greater of 10 trips or 10 percent of the trips approved in the existing CRC.
(2) The analysis will be used to develop:
(a) A finding that the additional capacity sought by the applicant through an amended CRC is available to be reserved by the project or can be made available through mitigation of the additional impact; or
(b) A finding that the amendment is denied.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-159.)
19.90.100 Use of reserved capacity.
When a valid development permit is issued for a project possessing a CRC, the CRC shall continue to reserve the capacity until the development permit expires, is withdrawn, or is cancelled, whichever occurs first.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-160.)
19.90.110 Transfer of reserved capacity.
Reserved capacity cannot be sold or transferred to property not included in the legal description provided by the applicant in the application for a CRC.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-161.)
19.90.120 Capacity evaluation method.
(1) Any development permit application that will generate any net new trips in the peak hour shall require a CRC.
(2) For the purposes of this chapter, application for a development permit shall include consideration of the cumulative impacts of all development permit applications for contiguous properties that are owned or under the control of the same owner, when one or more development permits would be issued within two years of the date of issuance of a development permit for such contiguous property.
(3) Increased impact on affected intersections. If a development activity would have a greater impact on affected intersections than the previous use, then a CRC shall be required for the net increase only to the extent that trips generated by the last previous use were analyzed and, if required, mitigated by a previous SEPA decision or CRC; otherwise, a CRC shall be required for all trips generated by the development activity.
(4) Demolition or termination of use. In the case of a demolition or termination of an existing structure or use, only to the extent that trips generated by the last previous use were analyzed and, if required, mitigated by a previous SEPA decision or CRC, shall a trip generation credit be applied to the trip generation for the use subsequent to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. The number of trips allowed in the credit shall be as estimated using ITE’s Trip Generation, or other methodology approved by the director.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-162.)
19.90.130 Concurrency administration – Purpose and procedure.
Where either the city or the applicant may perform any part of the concurrency transportation impact analysis, analysis prepared by the applicant is subject to the review and approval of the city at the applicant’s expense. The applicant may also review and comment on any analysis prepared by the city.
(1) The concurrency management transportation impact analysis may be prepared by the city or the applicant and shall follow the procedure outlined below. Each development permit subject to this chapter shall be analyzed in the order the concurrency application is deemed complete by the director, as described in subsection (2) of this section. Concurrency transportation impact analyses shall be completed sequentially in the order of receipt of the concurrency application. The most recent concurrency management transportation impact analysis shall be the beginning point for each succeeding concurrency management transportation impact analysis.
(2) In performing the concurrency evaluation, the city or the applicant subject to the city’s approval shall determine the impact of the traffic generated by the proposed development activity on the city’s road system. The evaluation shall be based on data generated by the city, by professional associations, by the applicant and, if needed, by independent analysis. The city shall examine the data to verify that existing and projected trip generation is consistent with the latest version of the ITE’s Trip Generation or documented generation for uses not typical of uses in Trip Generation. Upon successful evaluation, the concurrency application will be deemed complete by the director.
(3) The city or the applicant shall perform level of service calculations for all applicable intersections affected by the development based upon build-out year conditions with and without the proposed development. The city or the applicant shall determine if the capacity on the city’s road facilities, plus the capacity that is or shall be generated by all existing, reserved, and approved development, can be provided while meeting the LOS standards set forth in the comprehensive plan.
(4) Technical provisions for each concurrency evaluation shall be prepared in the following format:
(a) Project description shall be provided by the applicant in enough detail to accurately determine the scope of analysis required.
(b) Analysis scope shall be provided by city after consultation with affected departments.
(c) The city, based on the information supplied by the applicant, shall determine project trip generation. If the applicant provides a detailed trip generation study, that data shall be used for concurrency management traffic impact analysis at the discretion of the public works director. The applicant may also review and comment on a city-prepared calculation of trip generation.
(d) Project trip assignment to the street system shall be provided by the city, consistent with the most current and updated travel demand forecasting model. Three levels of analysis are defined based on the number of new trips generated:
(i) For applications generating less than 50 peak hour trips, a select zone analysis shall be conducted.
(ii) For applications generating 50 peak hour trips or more, but less than 500 peak hour trips, a new trip assignment shall be conducted.
(iii) For applications generating 500 or more peak hour trips, a new trip distribution and assignment shall be conducted.
(e) Traffic volumes at existing intersections that include background traffic shall be provided by the city.
(f) The city shall include appropriate through traffic to each affected intersection to obtain a revised traffic assignment for affected roadways and intersections.
(g) The applicant or the city, at the applicant’s request and expense, in compliance with the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual, shall complete the capacity analysis using the city’s chosen software. The applicant may review and comment on a city-prepared capacity analysis.
(h) After verification of the capacity analysis, the applicant or the city, at the applicant’s request and expense, shall prepare the final report.
(i) The applicant or the city, at the applicant’s request and expense, may propose suggested mitigation measures for any LOS failures identified in the capacity analysis.
(Ord. No. 09-628, § 5, 10-20-09; Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-163.)
19.90.140 Concurrency determination letter.
The director shall issue a concurrency determination letter to the applicant advising the applicant as to whether available capacity exists. If the applicant is not the property owner, the concurrency determination letter shall also be sent to the property owner. The concurrency determination letter shall identify the application and identify which status is determined to be applicable to the application: approval; approval with mitigation; or denial.
(1) Approval with mitigation shall include a recommendation that would provide adequate capacity and a description of the options available to the applicant. These may include:
(a) The applicant may agree to construct the recommended mitigation measures at the applicant’s cost;
(b) The applicant may agree to construct alternative mitigation measures that address the level of service deficiencies, subject to the approval of the director; or
(c) The applicant may modify the development proposal to reduce trip generation to within available capacity by any combination of capacity improvements and transportation demand management measures, subject to the approval of the director.
(2) Denial. If no appeal is transmitted to the director pursuant to FWRC 19.90.160 within 30 calendar days after issuance of the determination, the encumbrance shall be released and made available for subsequent applications.
(Ord. No. 09-628, § 6, 10-20-09; Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-164.)
19.90.150 Mitigation methods.
(1) If mitigation is required to meet the level-of-service standard, the applicant may choose to:
(a) Reduce the size of the development until the standard is met,
(b) Delay the development schedule until the city and/or others provide needed improvements, or
(c) Provide the mitigation per subsection (2) of this section.
(2) Payment for and timing of improvements. The director shall determine the method by which assurance is provided the city that the mitigation is provided in a manner that is concurrent with development consistent with state law. This determination shall address whether the improvements are to be constructed by the applicant or if the applicant would fund the cost of the improvement to be constructed by the city or another party. If the latter case, the determination shall also include the appropriate amount and timing of payment to the city.
(a) Construction improvements subject to the city’s direct operational control which are required of a developer under FWRC 19.90.140 must be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, final plat approval, or other such approval upon which new trips are generated.
(b) The developer may provide funding in an amount equal to the director’s cost estimate for improvements required under FWRC 19.90.140, if approved by the director. The director may require actual construction rather than provision of funding. Payment for transportation improvements must occur prior to issuance of building permit, final plat approval, or other such approval.
(c) All funds received by the city under subsection (2)(b) of this section shall be expended consistent with state law.
(d) A proposal for construction of transportation improvements to intersections partially or wholly outside the city’s direct operational control, or payment for those improvements in an amount equal to the director’s cost estimate, which improvements are required of a developer to meet the requirement of FWRC 19.90.140, must be submitted to the agencies which have control of the intersection prior to issuance of building permit, final plat approval, or other such approval.
(3) Transportation demand management.
(a) As a mitigation measure, the developer may propose to establish transportation demand management strategies to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips generated by the project. The director shall determine the corresponding trip volume reduction, considering adjacent land uses and trips generated, how well the site is served by transit, HOV facilities, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities, workforce composition, employer-provided incentives, and parking availability, among others.
(b) The director shall monitor and enforce the transportation demand management performance as directed under Chapter 8.10 FWRC. A performance assurance device may be required as determined by the director.
(4) Decision criteria – Acceptable mitigation. Acceptable mitigation requires a finding by the director that:
(a) The mitigation is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(b) The mitigation contributes to system performance.
(c) Improvements to an intersection or roadway may not shift traffic to other intersections for which there is no reasonable mitigation available.
(d) The improvement shall not violate accepted engineering standards and practices.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-165.)
19.90.160 Appeals.
The concurrency determination of the director may be appealed by the applicant or owner using the same process as the underlying development permit application or as provided for in process IV of this title if there is no underlying development permit. The appeal, in the form of a notice of appeal, must be delivered to the department of public works within 30 calendar days after issuance of the decision of the director. In those cases where the proposed development activity may require a public hearing, the hearings may be combined.
(Ord. No. 09-628, § 7, 10-20-09; Ord. No. 09-594, § 16, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-166.)
19.90.170 Annual report.
The city shall monitor LOS standards through an annual update of the six-year transportation impact program, which shall add data reflecting development permits issued and trip allocations reserved. The city’s traffic demand model shall be recalibrated at least biannually based on traffic count information, obtained from at a minimum the city’s public works department.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-167.)
19.90.180 Interagency coordination.
The city may enter into agreements with other agencies having authority over transportation facilities to identify impacts and provide mitigation for those impacts. In no case shall mitigation payments to the city be reduced to account for mitigation payments to other jurisdictions.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-168.)
19.90.190 Coordination with other requirements.
(1) Concurrency determinations are categorically exempt from SEPA.
(2) Concurrency determinations provide for mitigation only for vehicle capacity issues during the weekday evening peak hour. Mitigation of transportation impacts outside of vehicle capacity issues during the weekday evening peak hour shall be addressed through other review processes (in city code, land use permit conditions, or SEPA). This analysis may be prepared either by the applicant or the city at the applicant’s expense.
(Ord. No. 06-525, § 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 § 19-169.)