Chapter 15.44
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION POLICY
Sections:
15.44.010 Transportation impact mitigation policy.
15.44.020 Definitions.
15.44.030 Site development mitigation requirements.
15.44.040 Normal off-site transportation impact – Measurement and mitigation.
15.44.050 Special transportation impact identification and mitigation.
15.44.060 VMT impact reductions for demand management measures by developers.
15.44.070 Measurement standards.
15.44.080 Determination of VMT value for road improvements.
15.44.090 Determination of VMT fees.
15.44.100 Administrative determination of mitigation requirements.
15.44.110 Mitigation assessment.
15.44.120 Additional or alternative mitigation requirements.
15.44.130 Simplified option for small developments.
15.44.140 Concurrency.
15.44.150 Transportation Element.
15.44.160 Administration of cash payments to City.
15.44.170 Transportation impact evaluation fee.
15.44.180 Repealed.
15.44.190 Severability.
15.44.200 Penalty.
Appendix 1 VMT Impact Schedule for Residential, Retail and Nonretail Land Uses.
15.44.010 Transportation impact mitigation policy.
It shall be the policy of the City of Ferndale to require each and every developer who requests the City to approve any development to mitigate the impacts of said development on the City’s transportation system concurrently with the proposed development, in accordance with a transportation mitigation plan developed pursuant to this chapter. No development shall be approved after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter without an agreement by the developer to provide such mitigation. The transportation mitigation plan shall demonstrate the consistency of the proposed development with the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and provide adequate mitigation for each of the following types of transportation impacts as further described in this chapter:
A. Normal on-site development impacts, to be mitigated by compliance with the City’s site design standards, per FMC 15.44.030;
B. Normal off-site transportation impacts, mitigated by coordination of developer-provided improvements with the Transportation Element of the City’s Capital Facilities Plan in proportion to the development’s traffic impacts measured by vehicle-miles-of-travel on an area-wide basis, per FMC 15.44.040;
C. Special transportation impacts, related to special circumstances which may be found on or off the site, as provided for in FMC 15.44.050.
The City will take the transportation mitigation plan into account when determining the scope of issues for subsequent environmental impact analysis relating to the proposed development, and the developer shall not be obliged to further mitigate any impact that is fully mitigated in that transportation mitigation plan.
The City intends for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Element of the Capital Facilities Plan to be developed and maintained in accordance with the City’s level of service standards pursuant to the Growth Management Act. Therefore, the development will be deemed in compliance with the City’s level of service standards for purposes of growth management if the development is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the development’s transportation impacts are mitigated by implementation of projects found in the Transportation Element of the Capital Facilities Plan, concurrently with the development. (Ord. 1397 § 2, 2006)
15.44.020 Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, the terms described in this section shall have the following meanings:
A. “Administrative determination of mitigation requirements” means the written statement, pursuant to this chapter, of the City’s findings as to the impacts and mitigation requirements for the proposed development.
B. Beneficial to the Development. For purposes of this chapter, a transportation improvement project is “beneficial to the development” if the project is located on a route used by any amount of the development’s generated vehicular or nonvehicular travel, or creates or improves an alternative route or travel opportunity for vehicular or nonvehicular travel in parallel to such a route so as to divert other traffic away from the route used by the development’s generated travel.
C. Concurrent with Development. Mitigation actions completed within six years of the date of occupancy of the development shall be construed as meeting the intent of this chapter for improvements to occur concurrently with development, except that in compelling circumstances the City may declare either that additional time beyond six years is allowable and necessary as provided for in state law, or that the direct impacts of the development require specific mitigation to occur within fewer than six years.
D. “Developer” means an individual, group of individuals, partnership, corporation, association, governmental jurisdiction, or other person or entity proposing to undertake development, their successors and assigns.
E. “Development” means any application for a building permit or conditional use permit for any structure or activity which will create traffic impacts; and any application for approval of a mobile home park, mobile home subdivision, planned unit development, short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan. The terms “development,” “property development,” and “development action” shall be synonymous and interchangeable for purposes of this chapter.
F. “Direct result of the proposed development” means those quantifiable transportation impacts that are caused by vehicles or pedestrians whose trip origin or destination is the proposed development.
G. “Level of service standards” means the standards and criteria established by the City to measure adequacy of transportation facilities, pursuant to the Growth Management Act.
H. “Net VMT impact” means the portion of a development’s total VMT impact which the developer is obligated to mitigate, after discounting the total VMT impact for mitigation contributed by public sector resources, impacts beyond the jurisdiction of the City, and any other discount factor defined in this chapter.
I. “Normal off-site transportation impact” means the off-site transportation impact of a development which is experienced in the affected environment as an increase in travel activity of any kind and which is associated therefore with increased congestion, delay, or other effects upon existing travelers. A development’s normal transportation impact shall be derived from the description of proposed land use and an analysis of the generation and distribution of trips on the road network caused by that development, and measured in terms of vehicle-miles-of-travel for purposes of this chapter.
J. “Normal on-site transportation impact” means the transportation impact occurring within the boundaries of a site due to development of the site, in terms of vehicular and nonvehicular travel generated at the site, and requiring mitigation in the public interest in the form of local access and circulation improvements specified by adopted City regulations and design standards applicable uniformly to all developments of similar kind. Excluded from this definition of impacts are travel demands originating and ending outside the development site, which may add further requirements for improvement beyond the minimum standards applicable to the site on its own merits.
K. “Off-site” means any physical location which is outside the boundaries of the development site in question.
L. “On-site” means any physical location within the boundaries of the development site in question. “On-site” includes any public rights-of-way lying adjacent to a development site.
M. “Project improvements” means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the use, safety and convenience of the occupants or users of the development. “Project improvements” include those improvements that would be considered “on-site” including improvements to any public rights-of-way lying adjacent to a development site that are necessary for use, safety and convenience of the residents or users of the development but not including system improvements contained in the Capital Facilities Plan.
N. “Special transportation impact” means any transportation impact of a development, occurring within or outside the boundaries of the development site and affecting public safety or other unusual circumstances, for which the public interest requires special consideration as a condition of development approval, in addition to the normal on-site and off-site transportation impacts.
O. “Site” means a land area composed of one or more legal parcels of land for which the developer proposes a development plan.
P. “Site development requirements” means any requirements or conditions which the City imposes on a development plan within the boundaries of the affected land parcel(s), in accordance with City policies, regulations, and standards. Within this chapter, only transportation-related matters are discussed.
Q. “System improvements” means public facility projects that are included as part of the Transportation Element of the Capital Facilities Plan. “System improvements” means public facility projects as identified in the Capital Facilities Plan and does not include “project improvements” including “project improvements” required to be installed along public rights-of-way lying adjacent to a development site.
R. “Transportation Element of the Capital Facilities Plan” means the City’s adopted multiyear plan of scheduled and financed transportation facilities, implementing the highest-priority portion of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan in a manner which assures the gradual attainment and maintenance of the City’s level-of-service standards on a City-wide basis, as those terms are defined and required pursuant to the state Growth Management Act.
The costs of on-site project improvements required to be installed by the City as part of the site development requirements that are installed along the public rights-of-way lying adjacent to the development in compliance with the City’s minimum standards for local access and circulation as a condition of development shall not be included within the costs of the growth-related transportation improvement projects in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan or the Transportation Element of the Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of computing the average and VMT cost.
S. “Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan” means the City’s adopted long-range transportation plan, addressing all modes of travel and based on the City’s land use plan which in turn must be consistent with the 20-year growth forecast for the City mandated by the state Growth Management Act.
T. “Transportation mitigation plan” means the written description of actions proposed to mitigate the impacts of the development’s impacts, which shall constitute a binding agreement when agreed to in writing by the developer and adopted by the City Council.
The written description of actions to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development will include “project improvements” including any improvements to the public rights-of-way lying adjacent to the development site, system improvement mitigation fees, and/or a voluntary agreement that allows for payment in lieu of dedication of land or to mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a direct consequence of the development.
U. “Transportation improvement project” means any construction project to create or improve a transportation facility serving vehicular or nonvehicular travel, or both, including the acquisition of right-of-way or easements necessary thereto, and including all aspects of planning, environmental studies, engineering design, construction management, and any other activity necessary to complete the construction project. For purposes of this chapter, the term “transportation improvement project” shall also include other actions not requiring construction of transportation facilities, if such actions have the effect of improving transportation system performance by modifying human travel behavior to reduce the intensity or extent of travel on the existing transportation system and thereby expand the usefulness of that system.
V. “Vehicle-miles-of-travel (VMT)” means the product of vehicle trips times the applicable trip length in miles, or any portion of such a computation. As a unit of measure, VMT is used within this chapter to describe and compare in a consistent and unified manner each of the following: transportation impacts of development; transportation benefits of a mitigation action; aggregate usage of a road or road system; and service capacity of a road or road system. (Ord. 1397 § 2, 2006)
15.44.030 Site development mitigation requirements.
The site development plan shall include mitigation for the normal on-site transportation impacts of development. Such mitigation shall be based primarily on compliance with applicable City regulations and minimum standards, except as further provided in FMC 15.44.050, and determined as follows:
A. Identification of On-Site Requirements. The transportation mitigation plan shall identify and include all on-site requirements related to transportation impacts and mitigation, including at least the following:
1. On-site road design and other specifications to conform the development’s site plan to City standards for local access and circulation, and to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, including frontage improvements as well as improvements to the interior of the site. Designs shall be based on accepted engineering principles in cases where City standards are not definitive;
2. Site access design features where the site access road(s) connect to the public road system;
3. Right-of-way and easement dedications required, for frontage on existing roads as well as new roads within the site;
4. On-site frontage improvements required by this chapter include but are not limited to the following improvements: street lighting, storm drainage, sidewalks, turn lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes, and any other improvement deemed necessary by the City of Ferndale to mitigate the direct impacts of the development and to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the development.
B. Local Access and Circulation Requirements not Counted as Off-Site Mitigation. Transportation improvements including dedications of rights-of-way or easements physically located on the development site shall be recognized and credited to the developer as mitigation of transportation impacts; however, to the extent that on-site improvements are justified by compliance with the City’s adopted minimum standards for local access and site circulation purposes, such on-site contributions shall be regarded solely as mitigation of the normal on-site transportation impacts of development and shall have no value in terms of mitigating off-site transportation impacts. The City’s minimum standards for local access and circulation are intended for the safety and well-being of the future users of the development alone, and the City finds that such transportation facilities are substantially for the benefit of the site and not for other public users, nor are they part of the transportation system accounted for in the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, or the Traffic Element of the Capital Facilities Plan. Further, the cost of road frontage improvements that are in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan or the Capital Facilities Plan, that may be part of the required on-site development improvements, have been excluded in calculating the net unit VMT cost.
C. Connections to Collectors and Arterials. Site plans shall minimize new connections to collectors and arterials, and share the local access roads for adjacent parcels, present or future, when possible. When a new connection to a collector or arterial is necessary, the distance should be maximized between that connection and other existing driveways and/or the midpoints of adjacent unbuilt land parcels.
D. Vehicular Traffic Retained within the Site. On-site roads and other transportation facilities shall be designed to assure that vehicular operations internal to the site do not require the use of adjacent off-site public or private facilities.
E. Vehicular Parking On-Site. Permanent off-street parking space shall be provided which is adequate for the site’s maximum accumulation of parking demand without reliance upon street parking, except for the case of single-family residential subdivisions. The minimum street width without parking must be adequate for operation of fire trucks and other life-safety public services. In single-family residential subdivisions, the City’s standard street design includes on-street parking on both sides. Design alternatives may be considered which omit on-street parking on either side or both sides, if every individual residential lot includes at least two more permanent on-site parking spaces than is otherwise required, and/or the site plan shows adequate practical provisions for visitor parking within short walking distance of all residential lots. The dedication of public right-of-way will not be reduced below the City’s normal minimums, unless accompanied by road easements which provide the City with control over a width equal to the normally required right-of-way. The site design may show parking and/or landscape uses in the easement areas, but no permanent privately owned structures.
F. Provision for Alternative Modes. Site design must provide safe and adequate facilities for circulation within the site by pedestrian, bicycle, car pool, van pool, and transit modes as well as private motor vehicles. Site design shall not unreasonably impede or preclude movements through the site between or to and from adjacent land parcels by the same modes.
G. Credit for Traffic Reduction Features. Specific design features to support and encourage transit, car pools, van pools, pedestrian and bicycle usage in lieu of using automobiles are encouraged, and may entitle the developer to credits for reduction of off-site traffic impacts.
H. Credit for Excess Developer Contributions. To the extent that the City imposes upon the development any requirement that is in excess of the local access and circulation standards, such additional requirement will be credited by the City as a contribution toward mitigation of off-site transportation impacts, pursuant to FMC 15.44.040. Such contributions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. No Access Allowed. The developer is required to dedicate a right-of-way or transportation easement on a street abutting the development, but the site plan permanently excludes all access to said street from the development site;
2. Wide Street Right-of-Way. The developer is required to dedicate a right-of-way or easement within, through, or abutting the site and used for access to the site, which width is greater than the City’s standard for local streets, and which is not necessary for the access needs of the site solely for its own benefit;
3. Large Improvements. The developer constructs a transportation improvement on the site which is larger in size than the City’s minimum standards for site-related local access and circulation.
I. Right-of-Way Valuation Method for Credits. To facilitate standardized comparisons to other types of mitigation, the credit granted pursuant to this chapter for excess developer contributions of right-of-way or easements or improvements shall be calculated in terms of equivalent vehicle-miles-of-travel, taken as a proportion of the total VMT benefits attributable to the transportation improvement in question when fully developed according to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proportion of VMT benefit credited shall equal the proportion of the total cost of the ultimate improvement which is represented by the fair market value of the right-of-way or easement or the cost to construct the improvements donated. The City will provide the developer with its calculation of VMT credit, based on the right-of-way acquisition costs and improvement costs found in the Transportation Element of the Capital Facilities Plan. The developer may accept that assessment, or provide an alternative calculation of right-of-way value prepared at the developer’s own expense by a professional real estate appraiser who is approved in advance by the City. The City will take into consideration the independent appraiser’s valuation and adjust the Transportation Element of the Capital Facilities Plan accordingly, except that if the City finds the appraiser’s valuation to be unreasonable on specified grounds, then the City and the developer shall jointly negotiate the matter in good faith to a mutually satisfactory conclusion or employ other available remedies to resolve the dispute pursuant to the laws of the state of Washington. (Ord. 1397 § 2, 2006)
15.44.040 Normal off-site transportation impact – Measurement and mitigation.
The normal off-site impacts of a development on the existing transportation system shall be measured, reconciled with the City’s transportation plan, and mitigated, all on the basis of aggregate area-wide vehicle-miles-of-travel (VMT), without the necessity of detailed analysis of particular locations except in unusual circumstances as the Director of Public Works may find appropriate, as follows:
A. Total VMT Impact. The total VMT impact of development shall be calculated as the sum of all vehicle-miles-of-travel which will be generated by the proposed development, based on an analysis of the trips generated and the length in miles of such trips.
B. Net VMT Impact. The net VMT impact is that portion of the development’s total VMT impact which the developer shall be required to mitigate after discounting for the following factors:
1. Partial Mitigation by Public Sector. The developer’s obligation to mitigate VMT impacts occurring within the City shall be reduced to the extent that other public sector resources are known to exist or will exist, to improve the transportation system. The percentage of reduction shall be that portion of growth-related improvement needs as described in the City’s Capital Facilities Plan which can reliably be projected to be funded from known public sources based on the City’s recent past financial history and any other firm commitments of future public revenue sources, all as described in the Financial Element of that Plan.
2. Impacts Outside the City. The developer will not be obligated to mitigate VMT impacts occurring outside the City, unless the City has entered into an agreement with another jurisdiction for the imposition of mitigation requirements for the transportation system of that jurisdiction due to developments within the City.
3. The fees required to be paid to mitigate the net VMT impact may not be used to mitigate the same impact as any other requirement or condition of development approval. The City shall provide a credit to the developer to the extent that the net VMT impact mitigation fee mitigates the same impact identified under any other section or subsection of this chapter.
C. Mitigation. The net VMT impact of a development shall normally be mitigated by the developer through projects proposed by the City which:
1. Are beneficial to the development site;
2. Are consistent with the Transportation Element of the City’s Capital Facilities Plan;
3. Provide VMT benefits substantially equal to the net VMT impact of the development;
4. Can be implemented concurrently with the development.
The City reserves the right to determine priorities for selection and implementation of specific mitigation actions, for a reasonable balance between the City’s priorities for improvements on the affected transportation system and the practical opportunities available given the level of mitigation required of the developer based on net VMT impacts. Implementation of the projects shall be performed as agreed to by the developer or by the City. (Ord. 1397 § 2, 2006)
15.44.050 Special transportation impact identification and mitigation.
Special transportation impacts of a development shall be identified and mitigated in addition to normal impacts on or off the site. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Safety of vehicular and nonvehicular travel, on- and off-site;
B. School bus operations and school walking routes, on- and off-site;
C. Changes to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan made necessary by a development proposal which is inconsistent with the assumptions on which the existing Transportation Element rests;
D. On-site transportation improvements made necessary by unusual features of the site or the development proposal, in addition to normal site development standards.
Where possible, the City will select mitigation projects for normal transportation impacts which also mitigate the special issues identified pursuant to this section. Additional mitigation will be required for special issues only under compelling circumstances of need to protect the public interest, including the future occupants of the development, based clearly on the nature and timing of the development or on the nature of the environment affected by the development.
A special mitigation improvement project shall not be credited as a developer contribution toward the normal transportation impacts unless the City Council finds that the improvement provides a benefit to the general public, and the City Council amends the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Facilities Plan to include that improvement project, prior to or concurrently with the Council’s final approval of the development, but not after that event. (Ord. 1397 § 2, 2006)
15.44.060 VMT impact reductions for demand management measures by developers.
Developers who provide improvements, programs, or services on-site or off-site which reduce vehicular travel demand relative to the normal assumptions for off-site trip generation will be credited for those measures, in proportion to the volume of peak hour travel activity removed from the off-site road system. Developers requesting such consideration must provide the City with the following information and assurances:
A. Description of Demand Management Action. The developer must supply data, drawings, and other descriptions as needed to fully explain the concept and demonstrate its effectiveness in reducing vehicular travel off-site. Include supporting analyses as necessary by qualified professional experts acceptable to the City.
B. Assurance of Commitment. The developer must include in the development application a statement of what legal commitments the developer will make to assure the ongoing effectiveness of the proposed measures. Such commitments will later be included in the City’s conditions on development approval.
C. Evaluation of VMT Benefit. The City will determine the VMT benefit which the developer will be allowed for the proposed measures. This benefit will be used as a credit to reduce the developer’s responsibility to otherwise mitigate off-site impacts.
D. Examples of Demand Reduction Measures. The developer should consult with knowledgeable professionals to select demand management actions which will be effective for the proposed site, and to design the site plan with this objective in mind. Demand management actions may be appropriate in any of the following areas, depending on the site and the proposed land use:
1. Site Design. Encourage alternative modes by the design of the site. Retain trips within the site by mixed land uses.
2. Site Operations. Provide services after construction to support and maintain demand reduction levels.
3. Transit and Ridesharing Support. Provide services and incentives for residents and employees to use other modes.
4. Pedestrian and Bicycle Support. Provide for nonmotorized modes in site design. (Ord. 1397 § 2, 2006)
15.44.070 Measurement standards.
The following standard procedures, methods, and assumptions for the calculation of development impacts and mitigation measures will be used by the City or consultants selected by the City:
A. Site Trip Generation. Calculate vehicular trip generation at the site for afternoon peak hour conditions, based on the latest edition of “Trip Generation” published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, except where other information is available which is relevant to the Ferndale situation. For the initial baseline of reference, assume conventional (low) car occupancy, ridesharing, and transit usage. Account for demand management actions and other special conditions later as mitigation efforts. At retail sites, account separately for passer-by trips, as defined in “Trip Generation,” and subtract that amount from the initial total trip generation for the net trips to be distributed. Diverted linked trips, as defined in “Trip Generation,” remain part of the trips to be distributed.
B. Site Trip Distribution. Determine traffic distribution using the City’s traffic forecasting model. Prepare a plot of the site’s total trip distribution, using the traffic model, to show the streets used by the site’s trips, down to one trip. Simulate each site land use separately in the case of multi-use sites. Manual methods of accomplishing this result may be substituted when appropriate.
C. Gross VMT Calculation. Tabulate the site’s VMT impact from the traffic distribution, by functional class of road and by jurisdiction. If Ferndale is subdivided into two or more districts, also separate those parts.
D. Net VMT Calculation. From the VMT impact tabulation, identify the off-site VMT occurring in Ferndale which is to be mitigated. If there is an applicable interlocal agreement covering VMT in another jurisdiction, identify that VMT impact also.
E. Unit VMT Cost Assumption. The unit VMT cost assumption shall be the average cost per VMT of system improvements as calculated from the list of growth-related transportation improvement projects in the current Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Notwithstanding, the net unit VMT cost shall be calculated as outlined in this chapter. Further, in order to prevent future road frontage improvements from being included in the net unit VMT cost charged to any single development, the City shall calculate the net unit VMT cost by removing the cost of construction of road frontage improvements included or part of the road projects listed in the Capital Facilities Plan. (Ord. 1397 § 2, 2006)
15.44.080 Determination of VMT value for road improvements.
The VMT value of transportation improvements of all kinds shall be determined according to the methods herein, for systematic, fair and consistent treatment and comparisons within and between each of the following:
Development site plans, mitigation plans, Transportation Improvement Plan (six-year focus), Transportation Element of the Capital Facilities Plan (10-year focus), and Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (20-year focus).
A. Plan Capacity. Table 1 (Parts A and B), and the following guidelines contained within this section describe “plan capacity” values to be used for measurement of existing transportation systems and improvement projects alike. These values are derived from traffic operational capacity values for a broad range of conditions, with emphasis on pedestrian safety and local access as well as through traffic capacity.
The plan capacity value for major arterials with adequate sidewalks is equivalent to traffic engineering capacity values as determined by the intersection control features at intersections governing the upstream road segment. All other plan capacity values are reduced according to the degree of pedestrian safety afforded by sidewalks, paths, or shoulders, and the degree of local access priority represented by functional classification.
The effects of signalization, four-way stop control, and two-way stop control are based on Highway Capacity Manual procedures, averaged over a range of locally variable conditions. The effects of lane width and shoulder width are derived from Highway Capacity Manual (SR209) Table 8-5.
B. General Procedure. For any proposed transportation improvement, the VMT benefit of the improvement is determined by comparing the VMT capacity of the transportation system before and after the improvement is completed, as follows:
1. Controlling Intersections. For each road segment to be evaluated, determine the intersections which control the traffic on that segment, by stop signs or traffic signals. The plan capacity applicable to each road segment is based on the lesser of the two controlling intersections.
2. Uniform Sections. If the road’s physical condition is not uniform between two controlling intersections, treat each unique section separately (e.g., intermittent sections with sidewalks, and other sections without). The effective length of road benefitting from an improvement is the length of road between two controlling intersections.
3. Plan Capacity. Obtain starting values of plan capacity from Table 1, based on simple two-lane, two-way roads. Adjust for other conditions (number of lanes, etc.) as detailed in the following text. Note that Table 1 does not identify design standards or preferred designs; those must be determined separately. Many conditions given in Table 1 represent typical preexisting situations which are deficient by current standards and cannot be used for new facilities.
4. VMT Benefit. Multiply the net change in plan capacity times the effective length or road segment benefitted, for the VMT benefit value: VMT = (# of Lanes) x (Lane Capacity) x Miles.
5. Special Cases. Special cases may require unique analysis, to be approved by the City.
6. Table 1: Plan Capacity Values (see following page).
|
Road Section Governed by Signalization or Four-Way Stop at Controlling Intersection |
|||||||
|
Road Classification |
Assumed Lane Width |
No Sidewalks or Paths |
With Sidewalks or Paths |
||||
|
<2' |
4' |
6' |
8' |
10' |
|||
|
Local – Residential |
10 |
15 |
30 |
50 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
|
Local – Nonresidential |
10 |
50 |
150 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
|
Collector – Residential |
10 |
50 |
150 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
|
Collector – Nonresidential |
11 |
100 |
200 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
|
Arterial – Minor |
11 |
100 |
300 |
600 |
900 |
1,000* |
1,000* |
|
Arterial – Major |
11 |
100 |
300 |
600 |
900 |
1,000* |
1,200* |
* Maximum value for four-way stop = 800
|
Road Section Governed by Two-Way Stop at Controlling Intersection |
|||||||
|
Road Classification |
Assumed Lane Width |
No Sidewalks or Paths |
With Sidewalks or Paths |
||||
|
<2' |
4' |
6' |
8' |
10' |
|||
|
Local – Residential |
10 |
15 |
30 |
50 |
80 |
100 |
100 |
|
Local – Nonresidential |
10 |
50 |
150 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
|
Collector – Residential |
10 |
50 |
150 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
|
Collector – Nonresidential |
11 |
100 |
200 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
|
Arterial – Minor |
11 |
100 |
300 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
|
Arterial – Major |
11 |
100 |
300 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
Notes:
1. Table’s purpose is to determine before/after effects of changes in allowable vehicular capacity due to improvements added. Table does not specify acceptable standards for improvements, nor suggest preferred solutions to specific situations.
2. Values given represent maximum allowable hourly volumes, for planning purposes, of two-way, two-lane streets of good design in good condition, at stated lane width. Adjust for other conditions as required. See text.
3. Sidewalks and paths must provide at least a five-foot paved width for pedestrian travel, with a raised curb or other physical separation from the traffic lane.
4. Parking lanes are not counted as moving lanes.
5. Interpolate as required for shoulder widths not shown.
7. Adjustments to Table 1. For physical and operational conditions other than those accounted for in Table 1, make adjustments as follows:
a. Other Lane Widths. Adjust the plan capacity per lane by 10 percent of Table 1 values, for each foot of width above (+10 percent) the reference lane width in Table 1. Make no adjustment beyond eight feet (minimum width) or 12 feet (maximum width).
b. Multiple Through Lanes. For four through lanes, double the values in Table 1. For six through lanes, triple the values in Table 1, less 10 percent.
c. One-Way Streets. Add 20 percent to Table 1 values, for a two-lane one-way street. Also add 20 percent to the capacity of intersecting streets. Similarly scale other configurations (e.g., 120 percent times 1.5 for a three-lane one-way street).
d. Parking Lanes. Parking lanes do not count as moving lanes, and neither add nor subtract from the plan capacity of the roadway.
e. Bicycle Lanes Added. A standard improvement in equivalent vehicular capacity is derived from Table 1 as if the bicycle facility represented an increase in shoulder width of two feet, on both sides of the road. This applies to a widened pavement with or without striping, and also to a separated parallel facility. A bicycle lane on one side only has half the benefit.
f. Turn Pockets. For each turn pocket on the given road at the controlling intersection, add 20 percent of the two-lane plan capacity. A pair of opposed left-turn pockets counts as one pocket. A left-turn pocket and a right-turn pocket on the same approach count as two pockets. A double left-turn counts as two pockets. Do not apply the turn pocket factor to more than the basic two-lane capacity value, where multiple through lanes exist.
g. Continuous Left-Turn Medians. For two-way left-turn lanes, channelized or not, add 10 percent of the plan capacity for two-lane roads over the effective length of the median section. This is in addition to the effect of turn pockets at controlling intersections.
h. Intersection Signalization Added. Determine the benefit provided separately for each approach leg which is upgraded from stop control to signal control, and sum the VMT benefits for all legs. Assume no change in capacity for the “mainline” approaches.
i. Intersection Signalization Upgraded. Determine the percentage through put gain for each leg of the intersection by specialized intersection capacity analysis, and apply that percentage change to the plan capacity values of Table 1.
j. Heavy Truck Traffic. Reduce the plan capacity by the percentage of trucks (i.e., times 0.95 for five percent trucks; times 0.90 for 10 percent trucks, etc.).
k. Physical Deficiencies. Seriously deteriorated (broken pavement, etc.) or substandard roadways (sharp curves, etc.) may have less capacity in practice than the tables would allow. The City will determine the percentage reduction to apply on a case-by-case basis.
C. Right-of-Way Donated. The VMT equivalent of any right-of-way donated in excess of minimum design standards is determined as follows:
1. Ultimate Project VMT Value. Determine the VMT improvement value for the ultimate road facility in the location where right-of-way is donated, regardless of what portion of that ultimate design is currently proposed.
2. Cost Estimates. From the Transportation Element of the Capital Facilities Plan, or equivalent, obtain the City’s estimate of right-of-way cost, the right-of-way area represented by that cost estimate, and the total project cost through final construction.
3. Right-of-Way Cost Proportion. Calculate the estimated right-of-way cost as a percentage of the estimated total improvement cost.
4. Area Ratios. Compute the ratio between the right-of-way area to be donated and the right-of-way area considered in the cost estimate, if they are different.
5. Net Right-of-Way VMT Credit. Multiply the ultimate project VMT improvement value times the product of the two preceding ratios. The result is the VMT credit applicable to the right-of-way donation.
6. Revisions. If the developer provides an alternative right-of-way valuation that the City agrees to accept, incorporate that revised valuation into the City right-of-way cost estimate for the ultimate project and recalculate preceding steps. Consider making corresponding adjustments to all other right-of-way estimates in the Capital Facilities Plan, based on that information.
D. Travel Demand Reductions. Calculate the VMT benefit of a developer’s proposed demand management program as the number of trips removed from normal trip generation without demand management, times the average trip length of those trips. Account for the difference in average trip lengths between the trips removed and all trips for the site, as appropriate.
E. High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes. Determine the plan capacity of high occupancy vehicle lanes in consultation with the Washington State Department of Transportation and regional transit operating authorities. Multiply the design passenger-car-equivalent capacity of the high occupancy vehicle lane times the average occupancy factor per vehicle, accounting for buses, car pools, and van pools separately and combining the results. Add this plan capacity to the plan capacity of the adjacent arterial or highway automobile lanes, for a composite measure of corridor or area-wide system capacity.
F. Transit Only Facilities. Determine the plan capacity of an exclusive bus lane, busway, transit guideway, or rail transit line, in terms of passenger-car-equivalents from the operating frequency of the transit service and the seated capacity of transit vehicles. This plan capacity is added to the capacity of adjacent arterials and highways, for a composite measure of corridor or area-wide system capacity.
G. Demand Responsive Transit Service. Calculate the plan capacity of demand-responsive transit service as one-half the seated capacity of the vehicles operated times one-half the average revenue-miles driven per hour, in consultation with the transit operator. Add this plan-capacity VMT to the total VMT for the arterial system in the area served, in the aggregate, or distribute the benefit proportionally to individual arterial routes.
H. Criteria for Identification of Special Impacts and Mitigation Requirements. The Director of Public Works will supply assumptions as needed for special cases not otherwise covered. The City will identify any special impacts which the development must mitigate regardless of normal site design requirements and normal off-site VMT based mitigation, and report these findings to the developer. Special impacts are expected to be relatively rare in practice, and may be satisfactorily mitigated by the normal mitigation measures required for other reasons.
1. On-Site Special Impacts. If not otherwise addressed in site design requirements, at least the following potential issues should be checked:
a. Sight Distance. Safe sight distance at on-site intersections, or at entrance points to the site from the public road system;
b. Slopes. Slope requirements for site access roads;
c. Geometrics. Other geometric design issues based on safety;
d. Sensitive Lands. Adverse effects on steep or unstable slopes, wetlands, or other sensitive land impacts due to the site plan;
e. Conflict Between Modes. On-site conflicts between vehicular and nonvehicular travel;
f. School Walking Routes. School walking routes within the site;
g. School Bus Routes. School bus stop locations and school bus turnaround provisions;
h. Transit. Transit bus stop provisions.
2. Off-Site Special Impacts. If not otherwise addressed in VMT mitigation measures, at least the following potential issues should be checked pertaining to the adequacy of the transportation system after the development’s traffic is added:
a. Accidents. High accident locations and other potentially hazardous situations impacted by significant volumes of site-generated traffic;
b. Physical Deficiencies. Physically deteriorated or substandard public facilities which will be impacted by significant volumes of site-generated traffic, and which would become a significant public safety issue due to the additional traffic impact;
c. Pedestrian Safety. Safety of pedestrian movements on routes affected by significant volumes of site-generated traffic, especially school walking routes;
d. School Bus Operations. School bus stop locations and school bus turnaround provisions on public roads serving the site;
e. Transit. Transit bus stop provisions on public roads serving the site;
f. Congestion. Highly congested locations affected by significant volumes of site-generated traffic, requiring capacity improvements concurrently with the occupancy of the development;
g. Plan Revisions. Modification of the Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Facilities Program, to account for the increased traffic generated by the proposed development, especially if the development proposal involves a request for rezone, variance or other modification of the land use or other assumptions on which the Transportation Element is based.
I. Criteria for Special Mitigation Requirements. To the extent possible, special impacts should be anticipated and mitigated by the normal mitigation measures, on-site and off-site. Additional special mitigation is justified only when compelling circumstances of timeliness, conformity to adopted plans, and public safety demand it, such that the City would be justified to disapprove the development without such provisions, exercising the City’s authority under the State Environmental Policy Act. If the special mitigation requirement has broad public benefits, or would impose a severe financial hardship on the developer, the City may consider suitable compensatory arrangements. The intent is not to extract mitigation from the developer, but only to assure that the public interest is not harmed. (Ord. 1397 § 2, 2006)
15.44.090 Determination of VMT fees.
The calculation of the unit vehicle-miles-of-travel (VMT) costs are determined by the following factors:
A. Unit VMT Cost. The unit VMT cost is the average cost per VMT of system improvement and is calculated from the list of growth-related transportation improvement projects in the current Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Adjustment to VMT Cost. Based on recent experience, it is expected that public sector revenue sources in the form of taxes fees, etc., will be available to offset the cost of required growth-related transportation improvements in the amount of 10 percent of costs. Based on this assumption, the average unit cost per VMT that must be mitigated by new development shall be expressed as 90 percent of the actual cost.
Further, in order to prevent future road frontage improvements from being included in the net unit VMT cost charged to any single development, the City shall calculate the net unit VMT cost by removing the cost of construction of road frontage improvements included or part of the road projects listed in the Capital Facilities Plan.
C. Future Adjustments to VMT Cost. The unit cost per VMT shall be calculated annually, and the annual calculation shall be based on the most current publication of the Washington State Department of Transportation titled Construction Cost Index, or such other publication provided or accepted by the Washington State Department of Transportation. Such calculations shall be made on an annual basis each December and shall be put into effect the following January. The annual calculated amount shall become part of the transportation mitigation plan to which the developer shall agree.
D. Trip Rate. Trip generation rates shall be expressed in terms of afternoon peak hour conditions. Trip rates are as determined in the following documents which are included as Appendix 1 of this chapter:
Table 1: VMT Impact Schedule for Residential Land Uses.
Table 2: VMT Impact Schedule for Retail Land Uses.
Table 3: VMT Impact Schedule for Nonretail Land Uses.
For other conditions the City will use the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual data or other, well-documented comparable information.
E. Trip Distribution/Length. Trip distribution and lengths (vehicle-miles-of-travel per trip) will be calculated using the City traffic forecasting model and the methods and procedures. For developments qualifying under the simplified option (FMC 15.44.110), VMT shall be interpolated for each proposed development based on the most recent trip distribution/length trip map prepared by the City and as shown on Tables 1 through 3 in Appendix 1.
F. Fee Calculation. The fee shall be calculated as follows:
Adjusted Unit Cost/VMT x Trip Rate x Trip Distribution/Length
G. Payment Schedule. Cash payments of impact fees shall be due and payable in accordance with Table 2 as follows (see following page):
|
Development Type |
Amount of Per Unit Fee Payable At: |
||
|
Project Approval |
Building Permit Issuance |
Certificate of Occupancy Issuance |
|
|
1. Development requiring both project* and building permit approvals except for “a” below |
1/2 of fee for all units |
1/2 of fee for each unit |
N/A |
|
a) Creation of new, additional lots for future single-family residential use of property where one or more previously existing single-family units are located |
1/2 of fee for all new lots |
1/2 of fee for each new lot |
N/A |