Chapter 17.15
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Sections:
17.15.020 Application of chapter—Exemptions.
17.15.030 Concurrency required.
17.15.040 Review of development proposals—Concurrency testing.
17.15.050 Grant or denial of concurrency certificate.
17.15.060 Time limit on concurrency certificate.
17.15.070 Methods of providing mitigation.
17.15.075 Relationship to SEPA.
17.15.080 Existing deficiencies.
17.15.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of this chapter to:
A. Provide adequate levels of service on transportation facilities for existing uses as well as for new development in the city of Mukilteo;
B. Provide adequate transportation facilities that achieve and maintain the levels of service adopted by the Mukilteo comprehensive plan, as amended; and
C. Ensure that the city’s level of service standards are achieved concurrently with development as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6) and the Growth Management Act. (Ord. 1131 § 2 (part), 2005)
17.15.020 Application of chapter—Exemptions.
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development applications filed after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter except those that are exempt under this section. Exemption of a development from the concurrency provisions of this chapter does not exempt the development from any other city code or requirement, including, but not limited to, the payment of transportation impact fees.
B. The uses listed below are exempt from the concurrency requirements of this chapter:
1. Renewals of previously issued, unexpired development permits.
2. Phases of projects that were disclosed by the applicant and subject to a concurrency test as part of the original development application (i.e., phased development); provided, that a certificate of concurrency was issued for the expansion or subsequent phase.
3. Development that creates no additional impact on any transportation facility by not adding any p.m. peak- hour traffic. Such development includes, but is not limited to:
a. Any addition or accessory structure to a single- family residence with no change in use or increase in number of dwelling units;
b. Interior renovations with no change in use or increase in the number of dwelling units;
c. Interior completion of a structure for use(s) with the same or less intensity as the existing use;
d. Replacement structures with no change in use or increase in the number of dwelling units;
e. Temporary construction trailers;
f. Reroofing structures;
g. Demolitions.
4. Development that will generate ten or less new p.m. peak-hour trips as determined by the public works director.
5. Development subject to a master plan or development agreement that was approved by the city prior to the original enactment of this chapter, that includes a traffic impact analysis, and agreed upon mitigation for the identified impacts. If a rezone for lands within the boundaries of the approved master plan or development agreement is proposed, this exception no longer applies. (Ord. 1131 § 2 (part), 2005)
17.15.030 Concurrency required.
A. In order to be approved, all development that is subject to this chapter shall be required to meet concurrency. No development shall be approved that causes the average level of service on any roadway, on any critical roadway segment, or at any intersection during the p.m. peak hour to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the Mukilteo comprehensive plan. Where existing conditions already fail to meet that standard, no development shall be approved that causes the level of service during the p.m. peak hour to decline further below the adopted standard, i.e., no development shall be approved that causes the average delay per vehicle at signalized or unsignalized intersections to increase in any amount, or the average travel speed to decrease in any amount for roadway segments, whether or not that increase or decrease causes a decline to a lower alphabetical category.
B. Notwithstanding the above, a development may be approved if transportation mitigation that preserves the level of service during the p.m. peak hour at all affected intersections and roadways is provided and approved. (Ord. 1131 § 2 (part), 2005)
17.15.040 Review of development proposals—Concurrency testing.
A. All proposed developments that are subject to the provisions of this chapter shall be reviewed for concurrency as part of the development review process.
B. Concurrency testing shall be performed only for the specific property, uses, densities, and intensities based on information provided by the applicant. When an applicant changes the uses, densities, or intensities associated with an application in such a way as to create additional impacts on the city’s transportation facilities, a new concurrency test will be required.
C. Concurrency tests will be conducted on a first-come, first-served basis. The city will conduct, or will provide for the conduct of, the concurrency test for the earliest completed application received by the city. Subsequent applications will be tested in the order that the city receives completed applications.
D. In lieu of the city conducting the concurrency test, the public works director may require that the development applicant provide a traffic analysis and concurrency test for review and approval. The analysis and test shall be conducted by a civil engineer licensed to work in the state of Washington and approved in advance by the public works director. The development applicant shall submit a curriculum vitae or other evidence of the proposed engineer’s qualifications and experience to the public works director for review and approval in advance of the analysis and test results being submitted. In order to be approved, the engineer must have significant special training and expertise in traffic engineering and traffic impact analysis. It is preferred, but not required, that the engineer be a member of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). After approval of the engineer, the analysis and test results shall be submitted to the public works director for review and approval. The public works director shall approve the analysis and test results if the same follow generally accepted traffic analysis and concurrency methodologies, use accepted data sources, comply with the concurrency requirements of state law, and establish the basis for any conclusions drawn.
E. Concurrency testing may rely on capacity provided by fully funded projects, including projects in the city’s current six-year transportation capital improvement program, projects funded for construction within six years by other agencies or jurisdictions, and on transportation improvements under contract as part of other approved development proposals.
F. In the event that the city uses an outside consultant to conduct the concurrency test, the applicant shall be required to pay all consultant fees and costs incurred in connection with such testing. The applicant shall sign an agreement in a form approved by the city and shall deposit an amount estimated by the public works director to be sufficient to defray the consultant fees and costs prior to the conduct of any concurrency test. Failure to sign the required agreement and to make the required deposit within the time required by the public works director shall result in the application losing its priority in the first-come, first-served system of concurrency testing and the application shall be placed back in line as of the date of receipt of the signed agreement and fees.
G. In conducting the concurrency test, standard trip generation rates, such as those reported by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, latest edition, shall be used. (Ord. 1131 § 2 (part), 2005)
17.15.050 Grant or denial of concurrency certificate.
A. If the results of the concurrency test show that the volume of traffic resulting from the development proposal, when added to the background traffic volumes on affected roadways:
1. Would not cause the level of service on any roadway to degrade below the LOS standard described in the comprehensive plan during the p.m. peak hour; or
2. Where existing facilities already fail to meet the LOS standards during the p.m. peak hour, would not cause the average delay per vehicle to increase at intersections or the average travel speed to reduce on urban street segments; then the development proposal shall be deemed to meet concurrency and a concurrency certificate will be issued for the proposal.
B. If the results of the concurrency test show that the volume of traffic resulting from the development proposal, when added to the background traffic volumes on affected roadways:
1. Would cause the level of service on any affected roadway to degrade below the adopted LOS standard during the p.m. peak hour; or
2. Where existing facilities already fail to meet the LOS standards during the p.m. peak hour, would cause an increase in the average delay per vehicle at intersections or decrease the average travel speed on urban street segments; then the development proposal shall be deemed not to meet concurrency and a concurrency certificate will not be issued for the proposal unless the applicant proposes and agrees to additional mitigation measures that will preserve the LOS standard during the p.m. peak hour (or prevent the same from being further degraded in the case of an existing deficiency), and that are acceptable to the city.
C. Where an applicant proposes mitigation measures as a means of meeting concurrency, such measures must meet the requirements of Section 17.15.070 and must be proposed no later than thirty calendar days after the applicant receives notice that its proposal does not meet concurrency. Where such measures are proposed, additional concurrency testing will be required in order to ensure that the mitigation measures will allow the development proposal to meet concurrency and the applicant shall be required to pay any fees and costs associated with such additional testing. If the development proposal meets concurrency with such mitigation, a concurrency certificate will be issued, subject to such conditions as may be deemed necessary by the public works director to ensure that such mitigation measures are in fact carried out and concurrency achieved. Such conditions shall be incorporated into and made a condition of subsequent approvals for the development as appropriate.
D. If no acceptable mitigation is proposed or agreed to as required by this section, or if the LOS cannot be preserved or protected from further degradation, the concurrency certificate shall not be issued and the development proposal shall be denied.
E. Certificates of concurrency may not be transferred from one development proposal to another. (Ord. 1131 § 2 (part), 2005)
17.15.060 Time limit on concurrency certificate.
A. A concurrency certificate shall be valid upon issuance and until the underlying development application is acted upon by the city. If the underlying development application is denied, the concurrency certificate shall expire upon the denial or the completion of all appeals relating to such denial. If the underlying development application is approved, the concurrency certificate shall remain valid for the same period of time as the development approval granted by the city. If the development approval does not have an expiration date, then the certificate of concurrency shall be valid for one year from the date of development approval or the resolution of any appeals related to such approval, whichever is later. An applicant may be granted a single one-year extension by the public works director if an applicant can demonstrate that the development for which the concurrency certificate was issued was delayed for reasons beyond the control of the applicant. The public works director’s decision shall be final and no appeal of this decision is allowed.
B. A concurrency certificate shall also expire automatically if a development application for which a certificate has been issued expires or is withdrawn, or if a development permit to which a certificate pertains is revoked. (Ord. 1131 § 2 (part), 2005)
17.15.070 Methods of providing mitigation.
A. Where an applicant proposes mitigation measures as a means of meeting concurrency, such measures may take one or more of the following forms:
1. Reduction of the size, density, or intensity of the proposal to a level at which concurrency is met; and/or
2. Delay of the development proposal until a time at which concurrency is met; and/or
3. Design and construction of transportation facilities that enable the development proposal to meet concurrency; and/or
4. Contribution of funds toward the design and construction of transportation facilities that are or must be constructed by the city or others and that might not otherwise be constructed within the time frame necessary for the development proposal to meet concurrency; and/or
5. Implementation of transportation demand management strategies that will enable the development to meet concurrency.
B. Any transportation facilities that are to be designed and constructed by an applicant in order to meet concurrency must be completed as follows:
1. For short plats, subdivisions, and binding site plans, all such facilities shall be completed prior to final plat or binding site plan approval; provided, if approved by the public works director, an applicant may submit a bond, cash deposit, or other suitable surety ensuring completion of the facilities within the time frames provided in Chapters 16.12, 16.14 and 16.16; and
2. For single-family residences, all facilities shall be completed prior to the residence being occupied by the owners or sold to a party that will occupy the residence;
3. For all other developments, no later than issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or other occupancy approval for any portion of the development for which the concurrency certificate is issued.
The concurrency certificate shall contain a condition requiring the construction of the improvements and such condition shall become part of the development approval for the proposal. The public works director may, as a condition of the underlying development approval, require the applicant to provide adequate assurance, in the form of a cash deposit, a bond or other surety device acceptable to the city, that such transportation facilities will be constructed within the required time frame.
C. If an applicant proposes to contribute funds toward the construction of transportation facilities by the city or others as a means of meeting concurrency, the concurrency certificate shall contain a condition to this effect. The entire amount of such funds shall be paid:
1. In the case of a short plat, subdivision or binding site plan, at the time of final plat or binding site plan approval; and
2. In the case of all other development approvals, at the time the first building permit is issued for the development to which the concurrency certificate pertains.
All funds received by the city for transportation facilities under this section must be expended on such facilities within six years of receipt.
D. If an applicant proposes to use transportation demand strategies as a mitigation measure in order to meet concurrency, such strategies must:
1. Be clearly demonstrated to reduce vehicle trips; and
2. Include proposed methods to monitor and enforce performance and a fallback plan to be implemented if the development fails to achieve transportation demand management goals within one year of occupancy; and
3. Become a project approval condition of development; and
4. Be binding upon all subsequent owners of the development and the property on which it is located.
E. In order for any mitigation proposed under this section to be acceptable to the city, the public works director must find that:
1. The mitigation is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan, i.e., in the case of improvements to a transportation facility, the improvements are identified in the comprehensive plan, and in the case of transportation demand strategies, the strategies are identified in the comprehensive plan; and
2. The mitigation makes the proposed development concurrent; and
3. Any adverse environmental impacts of the proposed mitigation measure will be mitigated; and
4. The mitigation measures are consistent with accepted engineering and planning standards and practices; and
5. The mitigation measures will not simply shift traffic impacts to other areas or jurisdictions whose LOS standards would be violated by such traffic.
If the public works director determines that the proposed mitigation does not meet the requirements of this section, the public works director may deem the mitigation unacceptable and may deny the issuance of a certificate of concurrency.
F. Approval of a specific transportation facility improvement as a means of achieving concurrency for a development proposal shall not give the applicant control over the capacity provided by that improvement for purposes of determining which other development or developments within the city may use that capacity to achieve concurrency. The allocation of capacity provided by a transportation facility improvement shall be solely within the city’s control. In the event that two or more developments may achieve concurrency through the design and construction of a specific transportation facility improvement, capacity shall be allocated in the order in which the applicants proposed the improvement as mitigation for their proposals. Where two or more developers desire to design and construct the same transportation improvement facility and the developers are unable to agree on which of them will actually design and construct the facility, the city shall determine the same, in its sole and reasonable discretion, subject to the capacity allocation priority provided for in this subsection.
G. In the event that a developer constructs a transportation facility improvement that provides capacity that will allow other developments to achieve concurrency, the developer may apply for a street reimbursement agreement as provided in Chapter 35.72 RCW, as the same now exists or may be hereafter amended. (Ord. 1131 § 2 (part), 2005)
17.15.075 Relationship to SEPA.*
This chapter establishes minimum requirements for all proposals to meet the concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act. Nothing in this chapter is intended to exempt any development proposal from the application of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Every development that is subject to SEPA review shall be reviewed and may be conditioned or denied under the authority of that Act notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1131 § 2 (part), 2005)
* Code reviser’s note: Ord. 1131 adds this section as 17.15.070. It has been renumbered to 17.15.075 to prevent duplication in numbering.
17.15.080 Existing deficiencies.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the city from conditioning the approval of a development upon the correction of any existing deficiency in any transportation facility where such deficiency is safety-related. (Ord. 1131 § 2 (part), 2005)
17.15.090 Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by the public works director’s issuance or denial of a certificate of concurrency under this chapter may appeal the same as provided in Section 17.13.090. (Ord. 1131 § 2 (part), 2005)