Chapter 12.120
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
Sections:
12.120.050 Exempt development.
12.120.060 Level of service standards.
12.120.070 Effect of LOS standards.
12.120.080 Capacity evaluations required prior to development approval.
12.120.090 Capacity evaluation submittals.
12.120.100 Method of capacity evaluation.
12.120.110 Mitigation for deficient LOS.
12.120.120 Request for additional capacity.
12.120.130 Purpose of transportation capacity evaluation.
12.120.140 Procedures for capacity evaluation.
12.120.150 Encumbered capacity.
12.120.160 Transfer of encumbered capacity prohibited.
12.120.170 Denial of development permit based on lack of concurrency.
12.120.200 Integration with SEPA.
12.120.210 Annual reporting and monitoring.
12.120.010 Purpose.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the concurrency provisions of the transportation elements of the city’s comprehensive plan, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b), consistent with WAC 365-195-510 and 365-195-835. No development permit shall be issued except in accordance with this chapter, which shall be cited as the “concurrency management ordinance.”
B. To prohibit development if concurrency for road facilities does not exist.
C. To establish methods to maintain specified levels of service through capacity monitoring and allocation procedures. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.020 Authority.
The planning director shall be responsible for implementing and enforcing this chapter. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.030 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
“Available capacity” means a measurement expressed as the delay in seconds per vehicle still available to development at an identified intersection.
“Capacity” means a measurement expressed as the maximum number of peak hour vehicle trips that an identified intersection may accommodate at a specified level of service.
“City engineer” means the city of Battle Ground city engineer or his/her designee.
“Concurrent” means:
A. That the existing capacity of an affected intersection is sufficient to accommodate the projected transportation impacts of a proposed development; or
B. That transportation system improvements, strategies, or other mitigation measures which will achieve or maintain an operating level at or above the applicable level of service for the affected intersection:
1. Are planned, funded, and scheduled for completion no later than six years after development approval as reflected in the most recent version of the six-year transportation improvement plan; or
2. Will be available and complete no later than six years after development approval, as provided by a voluntary financial commitment (where appropriate) by the applicant that is in place at the time development is approved by the development review authority.
“Development” means any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, creation of impervious surfaces, or drilling operations.
“Development review authority” means the person charged with making a decision on a development permit as defined in Chapter 17.200 BGMC.
“Duplex” means a form of attached housing comprised of a single building located on one legal lot of record designed or arranged for a maximum of two dwelling units.
“Encumbered capacity” means a measurement expressed as the number of peak hour vehicle trips allocated to an approved development at an identified intersection.
“Existing capacity” means the maximum capacity which a particular intersection may accommodate without causing the operating level to decline below the acceptable level of service standards pursuant to BGMC 12.120.060.
“Mitigation” means the avoidance or minimization of a proposed development’s impact upon an intersection through such means as limiting or altering the proposed uses, intensities, or design of the development, or by compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing transportation system improvements, which provide additional capacity.
“Planning director” means that employee of the city of Battle Ground charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing land development regulations in the city or his/her designee.
“Public” means owned and operated by a governmental agency and accessible to and shared by the community at no fee.
“Single-family dwelling” means a building arranged or designed to be occupied by not more than one family. The term detached single-family dwellings includes modular homes but does not include mobile or manufactured homes as defined in this chapter.
“Six-year transportation improvement plan” means that portion of the city’s capital facilities plan which inventories planned street and road construction and improvement, and which designates such construction projects and improvements as funded or nonfunded.
“Townhouse” means a form of attached housing comprised of a single building where dwelling units are separated by vertical firewalls. Each unit is located on its own individual legal lot of record, has its own independent access and its own front and rear yards. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.040 Standards adopted.
The standards for this chapter shall consist of the current editions of the following: the “Trip Generation Manual” prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and all subsequent revisions thereto, the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)” prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration) and all subsequent revisions thereto, the “Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” prepared by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and all subsequent revisions thereto, and the “Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)” prepared by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and all subsequent revisions thereto. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.050 Exempt development.
The following development activities are exempt from compliance with this chapter:
A. Development Permit Issued Prior to Effective Date of This Chapter. All construction or change in use initiated pursuant to a development permit issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; provided, however, that no development permit shall be extended except in conformance with this chapter. If the city determines that a previously issued development permit has lapsed or expired, pursuant to the applicable development regulations, then no subsequent development permit shall be issued except in accordance with this chapter.
B. Exempt Uses. The portion of any project used for any of the following purposes is exempt from the requirements of this chapter:
1. Public transit facilities;
2. Public parks;
3. Public libraries;
4. Police/fire facilities;
5. Public work facilities;
6. Public schools (K-8); and
7. Single-family, duplex, or townhouse dwellings on existing lots of record.
C. De Minimis Development. Any development that will generate less than ten a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips, at all intersections that the city requires to be analyzed, shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter; provided, however, that any development of any size or nature which impacts an intersection which is determined to be failing under this code shall not be exempt and shall provide mitigation as provided in BGMC 12.120.110.
D. Notwithstanding the exemptions hereunder provided, the traffic resulting from an exempt development shall nonetheless be included in computing background traffic for any nonexempt development. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 16-12 § 3, 2016; Ord. 14-12 § 1, 2014: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.060 Level of service standards.
A. Level of service (LOS) is the established minimum capacity of public facilities or services that must be provided per unit of demand or other appropriate measure of need, as mandated by Chapter 36.70A RCW. LOS standards shall be used to determine if public facilities or services are adequate to support a development’s impact. The city’s established LOS for intersections shall be as follows:
1. Signalized Intersections. Are required to achieve a LOS D or better.
2. Unsignalized Intersections. Are required to achieve a LOS E or better provided signal warrants are not met. If warrants are met, then a LOS D is required. Signal warrants shall be determined per the MUTCD.
B. The HCM states how delay time is calculated for the respective types of intersections. The following delay times are to be used to determine the intersection LOS:
|
Level of Service |
Signalized Intersection (seconds per vehicle) |
Unsignalized Intersection (seconds per vehicle) |
|---|---|---|
|
A |
Less than or equal to 10.0 |
Less than or equal to 10.0 |
|
B |
10.1 to 20.0 |
10.1 to 15.0 |
|
C |
20.1 to 35.0 |
15.1 to 25.0 |
|
D |
35.1 to 55.0 |
25.1 to 35.0 |
|
E |
55.1 to 80.0 |
35.1 to 50.0 |
|
F |
Greater than or equal to 80.1 |
Greater than or equal to 50.1 |
(Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.070 Effect of LOS standards.
The LOS standards set forth in BGMC 12.120.060 shall be used to make concurrency evaluations as part of the review of any development application subject to this chapter. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.080 Capacity evaluations required prior to development approval.
A. When the Requirements of This Chapter Apply.
1. A transportation capacity evaluation shall be completed in conjunction with the city’s consideration of any development permit unless specifically exempted by this chapter.
2. The planning director in consultation with the city engineer shall utilize requirements set forth in this chapter to conduct a capacity evaluation. The planning director may also utilize state law or other rules regarding concurrency.
B. Development Approval. Development approval will not be issued except after a capacity evaluation performed pursuant to this chapter indicates that capacity is available in all applicable road facilities. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.090 Capacity evaluation submittals.
A. Requirements. A traffic report prepared by a licensed professional engineer in the state of Washington who is practicing as a traffic engineer pursuant to the requirements of BGMC 12.116.175 shall accompany the development application pursuant to BGMC 17.200.050.
B. Process. The transportation capacity evaluation shall be processed with the development permit application pursuant to Chapter 17.200 BGMC and this chapter.
C. Date of Acceptance of Application. A capacity evaluation shall not be officially accepted or processed until the development application is complete pursuant to BGMC 12.120.090 and 17.200.050. When an application is determined complete, the planning director shall accept it and note the date the complete application was submitted. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.100 Method of capacity evaluation.
A. In performing the concurrency evaluation for intersections, the planning director in consultation with the city engineer shall determine whether a proposed development can be accommodated within the existing or planned capacity of road facilities. This shall involve the following:
1. A determination of anticipated total capacity at the time the proposed impacts of development occur;
2. Calculation of how much of that capacity will be used by existing development and other planned developments at the time the impacts of the proposed development occur;
3. Calculation of the available capacity for the proposed development;
4. Calculation of the impact on the capacity of the proposed development, minus the effects of any mitigation. Mitigation shall be pursuant to BGMC 12.120.110, provided by the applicant; and
5. Comparison of available capacity with proposed development impacts.
B. The capacity evaluation shall determine if the capacity on the city’s road facilities, less the capacity which is encumbered by previously approved but not constructed or occupied developments, can be provided while meeting the level of service performance standards set forth in BGMC 12.120.060, and, if so, shall determine or recommend that the proposal is in compliance with this chapter.
C. The development may be deemed concurrent with the condition that the necessary facilities shall be available when the impacts of the development occur or shall be guaranteed to be available through a financial commitment in an enforceable development agreement.
D. If the capacity evaluation determines that the proposed development will cause the LOS of an intersection to decline below the standards adopted in BGMC 12.120.060, and improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are not planned to be made concurrent with development, the underlying development permit shall be denied, pursuant to BGMC 12.120.170 and any other provision of this title that may be applicable to denial of the underlying development permit.
E. Appeals of the denial of a development permit may be filed pursuant to BGMC 12.120.190. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.110 Mitigation of deficient LOS.
Where the available capacity is not present for the development, the applicant may choose to conduct mitigation to create additional capacity or eliminate the impact on the system.
A. For intersections which have improvements identified in the transportation system plan (TSP), the developer must install one or more of these improvements necessary to bring the intersection into compliance with BGMC 12.120.060. Should the improvements not correct the deficiency, then other mitigation measures may be proposed. The city engineer shall determine if the proposed mitigation is consistent with the TSP.
B. For intersections which do not have improvements identified in the TSP, the developer must install improvements which bring the intersection into compliance with BGMC 12.120.060. The mitigation to be installed shall be as recommended by the traffic engineer in the traffic study. The city engineer shall, however, determine if the proposed mitigation is consistent with the city’s adopted policies and procedures.
C. Transportation Demand Management. If reasonable and enforceable transportation demand management actions, such as alternative work hours or commute trip reduction programs, can be shown to eliminate impacts, the development review authority may accept such actions in lieu of capacity improvements. Such actions shall be subject to review and approval by the city and shall be recorded in a covenant to run with the land. Changes in use or in the terms of the measures shall be subject to additional review under this chapter.
D. Proportionate Share. For failing intersections which have improvements listed in the adopted six-year transportation improvement program (TIP), the developer may pay a proportionate share of the project listed in the TIP in an amount determined by the city engineer to mitigate further impacts. The funds paid in by the developer for these improvements shall be segregated into a separate reserve account. If the funds have not been expended within a period of ten years from the payment by the developer to the city for the improvements, or if the project is removed from TIP for any reason or if the mitigation program created by this chapter is modified to move the funds to expenditures other than the streets the monies were collected for, or if the ordinance codified in this chapter is repealed, then the remaining funds shall be returned to the developer together with any interest accrued thereon, less any costs of administration. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 14-12 § 2, 2014: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.120 Request for additional capacity.
If the traffic report is based on an estimation of impact, the applicant will still be bound by its estimation of impact, and any upward deviation from the estimated traffic impact shall require at least one of the following:
A. A finding that the additional concurrency sought by the developer through a revised application is available to be encumbered by the project;
B. Mitigation of the additional impact under SEPA; or
C. Revocation of development permit. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.130 Purpose of transportation capacity evaluation.
The purpose of a transportation capacity evaluation is to allow the development review authority: (A) to determine if the proposed development activity or development phase will be concurrent with the applicable road facilities at the time the development permit is issued; and (B) encumber road facility capacity for this application until the expiration of the underlying development permit. In no event shall concurrency be determined for a greater amount of capacity than is needed for the development proposed in the underlying permit application. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.140 Procedures for capacity evaluation.
Capacity evaluations shall be conducted and made part of the underlying land use permit decision. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.150 Encumbered capacity.
A. Capacity shall be encumbered and not granted to other development applications until the development permit authorizing a project lapses or expires.
B. If a development permit lapses or expires, the encumbered capacity shall be converted to available capacity for the use of other developments. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.160 Transfer of encumbered capacity prohibited.
Capacity encumbered by a development cannot be sold or transferred in any manner. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.170 Denial of development permit based on lack of concurrency.
If a determination is made that one or more road facilities are not concurrent, the underlying permit shall be denied by the development review authority. In issuing a denial the decision shall, at a minimum, include the following information with the denial: (A) an estimate of the level of the deficiency on the road facilities; and (B) the options available to the applicant such as the applicant’s agreement to construct the necessary facilities at the applicant’s cost that would result in an approval. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.190 Appeal procedure.
An appeal of the denial of concurrency shall be through an appeal of the denial of the underlying development permit application. The appeal shall follow the procedure for the underlying permit as set forth in BGMC 17.200.140. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.200 Integration with SEPA.
The provisions of this chapter are not intended to limit the application of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, to development approvals. Each development application subject to review under the provisions of this chapter and under the provisions of SEPA may be conditioned or denied pursuant to SEPA, with respect to transportation-related impacts and traffic safety impacts, independently from the provisions of this chapter; provided, that environmental review under SEPA may rely upon compliance with this chapter to adequately mitigate identified adverse environmental impacts. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)
12.120.210 Annual reporting and monitoring.
A. The city engineer is responsible for completion of an annual transportation capacity availability report. These reports shall evaluate encumbered capacity and permitted development activity for the previous twelve-month period and determine existing conditions with regard to available capacity for road facilities. The evaluations shall report on capacity used for the previous period and capacity available for the six-year capital facilities and utilities element of the city’s comprehensive plan. Forecasts shall be based on the most recently updated schedule of capital improvements, growth projections, and revenue projections and shall, at a minimum, include:
1. A summary of development activity;
2. The status of encumbered and available capacity;
3. The six-year transportation improvement plan;
4. Actual capacity of selected street segments and intersections, and current LOS; and
5. Recommendations on amendments to the capital facilities plan (CFP).
B. The findings of the annual capacity availability report shall be considered by the city council in preparing the annual update to the capital improvement element, any proposed amendments to CFP and six-year transportation improvement plan, and shall be used in the review of development permits and capacity evaluations during the next period. (Ord. 18-06 § 4 (part), 2018: Ord. 04-021 § 8 (part), 2004)