Chapter 30.66B
CONCURRENCY AND ROAD IMPACT MITIGATION

Sections:

30.66B.005    Purpose and applicability.

30.66B.007    Authority.

30.66B.010    Relationship to chapter 30.61 SCC.

30.66B.015    Development mitigation requirements.

30.66B.020    Pre-submittal conference.

30.66B.025    Completeness determination.

30.66B.030    Identification of other agencies with jurisdiction.

30.66B.035    Traffic study- when required.

30.66B.040    Traffic study- author’s qualifications.

30.66B.045    Review of traffic study.

30.66B.050    County engineer’s recommendation on approval of development.

30.66B.055    Imposition of mitigation requirements.

30.66B.057    Review of duplex residential building permit applications.

30.66B.060    Authority to deny development-- excessive expenditure of public funds.

30.66B.065    Authority to withhold or condition administrative permits or approvals.

30.66B.070    Repealed.

30.66B.075    Repealed.

30.66B.080    Authorization for administrative rules.

30.66B.085    Transportation needs report.

30.66B.100    Level-of-service standards.

30.66B.101    Transportation Level of Service Standard: Average Daily Trip (ADT) Thresholds

30.66B.102    Transportation Level-of Service Standards: Average Travel Speed

30.66B.103    Reference Notes for SCC 30.66B.102

30.66B.110    Designation of ultimate capacity.

30.66B.120    Concurrency determination- required.

30.66B.125    Concurrency determination- process.

30.66B.130    Concurrency determination- methodology.

30.66B.135    Development deemed concurrent.

30.66B.145    Concurrency determination-forecasting level-of-service.

30.66B.150    Concurrency determination – revision required.

30.66B.155    Concurrency determination – expiration.

30.66B.160    Concurrency determination - arterial unit in arrears or at ultimate capacity.

30.66B.165    Arterial unit in arrears- special circumstances.

30.66B.166    Concurrency determination – public facilities necessary to support residential development.

30.66B.167    Repealed.

30.66B.170    Arterial unit in arrears or inadequate road conditions- developer constructed improvements.

30.66B.175    Optional pre-application concurrency evaluation.

30.66B.177    Interlocal agreement with state, cities, and counties.

30.66B.180    Concurrency determination review or appeal.

30.66B.185    Concurrency determination - standard of review.

30.66B.210    Inadequate road condition determination and requirements.

30.66B.220    Improvements to remove inadequate road conditions.

30.66B.310    Road system impact fee.

30.66B.315    Comprehensive plan amendment- analysis of change in capacity needs.

30.66B.320    Road system impact fee-cost basis.

30.66B.330    Fee schedule.

30.66B.340    Timing of road system impact fee payment.

30.66B.350    Administration of road system impact fee payments.

30.66B.360    Relationship between impact fees and special district fees.

30.66B.370    Review of impact fees.

30.66B.410    Frontage improvement requirements.

30.66B.420    Access and transportation circulation requirements.

30.66B.430    Extent of improvements.

30.66B.440    Timing of improvements.

30.66B.510    Right-of-way requirements.

30.66B.520    Right-of-way width.

30.66B.530    Compensation for right of way and improvements.

30.66B.540    Dedication, establishment, or deeding of right-of-way- timing.

30.66B.610    Transportation demand management- general.

30.66B.615    Transportation demand management- calculation of TDM obligations.

30.66B.620    Transportation demand management - construction of offsite TDM measures.

30.66B.625    Transportation demand management- voluntary payment.

30.66B.630    Transportation demand management - required.

30.66B.640    Transportation demand management- trip reduction credits for construction of onsite design features.

30.66B.650    Transportation demand management- eligibility for additional trip reduction credits.

30.66B.660    Transportation demand management- procedure for submitting proposal for trip reduction credits.

30.66B.670    Trip reduction credits- how used.

30.66B.680    Trip reduction program- discontinuance.

30.66B.710    Mitigation requirements for impacts to state highways.

30.66B.720    Mitigation requirements for impacts to city streets and roads in another county.

30.66B.740    Transportation benefit districts.

30.66B.750    Master road improvement program.

30.66B.810    Relief from mitigation or concurrency requirements of this chapter.

30.66B.820    Repealed.

*Code Reviser Note: The provisions of Amended Ord. 03-127, except all procedural provisions, shall not apply to any development permit application that is complete prior to the effective date of Amended Ord. 03-127 (November 17, 2003). An applicant for any pending application may choose to apply all applicable provisions of Amended Ord. 03-127 to such application upon written request to PDS.

30.66B.005 Purpose and applicability.

(1) The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that public health, safety and welfare will be preserved by having a safe and efficient road system serving new and existing developments.

(2) The requirements of this chapter apply to:

(a) Development as defined in SCC 30.91D.210;

(b) Road systems as defined in SCC 30.91R.240; and

(c) Development in other jurisdictions when subject to an interlocal agreement for traffic impact mitigation under SCC 30.66B.720.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.007 Authority.

The authority to implement the provisions of this chapter shall be vested in the department of public works. The director of the department of public works may, with the concurrence of the director, delegate any portion of the authority vested in the department of public works under this chapter relating to development permit processing to the department of planning and development services, if the director of public works determines that the delegation will improve delivery of services in the development permitting process or serve the public health, safety, and welfare. In delegating such authority, the director of the department of public works may reserve the right of final decision.

(Added Ord. 05-116, Nov. 21, 2005, Eff date Dec. 18, 2005; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.010 Relationship to chapter 30.61 SCC.

(1) The requirements of this chapter, together with the comprehensive plan, Title 13 SCC, and other development regulations and policies that may be adopted, constitute the basis for review of development and the imposition of mitigation requirements due to the impacts of development on the transportation system.

(2) Mitigation measures required by this chapter shall constitute adequate mitigation of adverse or significant adverse environmental impacts on the road system for the purposes of chapter 30.61 SCC to the extent that the director determines the specific impacts of the development are adequately addressed by this title in accordance with chapter 30.61 SCC.

(3) The provisions of this chapter do not limit the ability of the county to impose mitigation requirements for the direct impacts of development on state highways, city streets, or other another county’s roads pursuant to SCC 30.66B.710 and .720.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.015 Development mitigation requirements.

Any application for approval of or a permit for a development shall be reviewed by the department of public works to determine any mitigation requirements that may be applicable for the following:

(1) Impact on road system capacity;

(2) Impact on specific level-of-service deficiencies;

(3) Impact on specific inadequate road condition locations;

(4) Frontage improvements requirements;

(5) Access and transportation system circulation requirements;

(6) Dedication or deeding of right-of-way requirements;

(7) Impact on state highways, city streets, and other counties’ roads;

(8) Transportation demand management measures; and

(9) Impact on highways, roads and/or streets from large trucks generated by mineral operations permitted in accordance with chapter 30.31D SCC

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 05-083, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006)

30.66B.020 Pre-submittal conference.

(1) Any developer proposing a development that will generate three or more peak hour vehicle trips, is required to attend a pre-submittal conference with the department of public works before submitting the development application, except for those submitting applications for a duplex residential permit on a single lot.

(2) The purpose of the pre-submittal conference is to review the traffic related aspects of the development proposal, to determine if a traffic study is necessary, and to ensure that the application is submitted with adequate information for the review process.

(3) The department of public works shall determine at the pre-submittal conference the need for a study and the scope of analysis of any study required.

(4) The transportation service area (TSA) in which a development is located will be determined at the pre-submittal conference. The department of public works will determine the transportation service area of developments that straddle a boundary, are physically adjacent to another transportation service area, or which generate the greatest traffic impacts in an adjacent TSA. The department of public works may change such determination upon review of the initial application.

(5) The determinations made by the department of public works at the pre-submittal conference shall be shown on a scoping sheet that will be signed by the department of public works and the applicant or their representatives. The scoping sheet shall remain valid for 90 days after signature. A valid scoping sheet must accompany any application for a development generating three or more peak-hour trips.

(6) A developer may choose to provide only trip generation or trip distribution with the initial application and leave the full scope of traffic impact analysis to be determined by the department of public works during its preliminary review of the application. In such cases, the department of public works will recommend in its first written traffic-related comments to the department of planning and development services, a requirement for additional traffic analysis to be provided by a traffic consultant approved by the department of public works and paid for by the developer.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.025 Completeness determination.

A development application shall not be considered complete until all traffic studies or data required in accordance with SCC 30.66B.035 or required as a result of the pre-submittal conference of SCC 30.66B.020 are received.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.030 Identification of other agencies with jurisdiction.

The developer is responsible for identifying all agencies that may have jurisdiction and all permits and approvals required for the proposed development. To the extent known by the department of public works, agencies of local, state, or federal governments that may have jurisdiction over the development or permits necessary for development approval related to transportation will be identified at the pre-submittal conference or in the notification regarding application completeness. Where there are changes in the development that result in the need for review by other jurisdictions or require additional permits or approvals regarding transportation, the department of public works will, to the extent known, identify those agencies that have jurisdiction in a supplemental notification to the developer. The department will cooperate with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), cities, and other agencies concerning identification of necessary access permits, approvals, developer agreements, or other conditions related to transportation. Transportation-related permits and approvals may include, but are not limited to, WSDOT access permits, other city or county access permits, WSDOT public road/state route intersection approvals, railroad grade crossing or signalization approvals, or public utility easement crossing approvals.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.035 Traffic study- when required.

(1) A development adding more than fifty peak-hour trips shall be required to provide a traffic study to enable the department of public works to make a concurrency determination in accordance with SCC 30.66B.125, unless the department determines at the pre-submittal conference that a study is not required.

(2) Applicants for mineral operations submitted in accordance with chapter 30.31D SCC shall be required to provide a traffic study to enable the department of public works to analyze and assess appropriate mitigation for impacts to the road system resulting from the activity.

(3) A traffic study may be required of a developer to analyze a potential inadequate road condition pursuant to SCC 30.66B.210.

(4) A developer shall provide a traffic study for developments that add three or more peak-hour trips when the department of public works determines there is a need for additional information on:

(a) Impacts of the development on any arterial units in arrears and/or designated ultimate capacity arterial units;

(b) A development’s traffic distribution;

(c) A possible inadequate road condition;

(d) Adequacy of any road system impact fee required pursuant to this chapter, in representing reasonable and/or adequate mitigation for that particular development; or

(e) A suspected traffic impact that may warrant mitigation beyond that provided through the road system impact fee payment system.

(5) The traffic study will consist of at least a traffic generation and distribution analysis but may be as extensive as analyzing all arterial units on the road system wherever three or more peak-hour trips from the development are added.

(6) A traffic study or other additional information may be required as a result of changes in the development proposal.

(7) The director of public works may waive the requirement for a traffic study and so state the finding in the pre-submittal conference-scoping sheet, if the director finds there is sufficient information known about a development’s road system from previous traffic studies. In such cases, the existing information will be used to establish any necessary traffic mitigation requirements to be recommended in the review of the development.

(8) Developments impacting roads under the jurisdiction of the WSDOT, a city or another county, shall provide a traffic study to address impacts of the development, as may be required in an interlocal agreement pursuant to SCC 30.61.230(6) with the WSDOT, city or other county.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 05-083, December 31, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006; Amended by Amended Ord. 10-072, Sept. 8, 2010, Eff date Oct. 3, 2010)

30.66B.040 Traffic study- author’s qualifications.

Traffic studies shall be conducted under the direction of a responsible individual or firm acceptable to the director of public works. More complex studies requiring expert analysis and opinion beyond the compilation of available data shall be conducted by an engineer licensed to practice in the state of Washington with special training and experience in traffic engineering and, preferably, membership in the institute of transportation engineers (ITE). The developer shall provide to the director of public works the credentials of the individuals selected to perform traffic studies certifying compliance with the foregoing.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.045 Review of traffic study.

The director of public works shall review any required traffic study for accuracy and proper methodology and may use the study’s conclusions in arriving at the department’s recommendation under 30.66B.050. Additional information or actual traffic counts may be requested to verify traffic study conclusions or traffic analysis.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.050 County engineer’s recommendation on approval of development.

(1) The county engineer shall only recommend approval of a development if the county engineer determines that the development is concurrent in accordance with this chapter and adequate provisions for access and mitigation of the development’s transportation impacts on the road system are made as provided in this title and Title 13 SCC.

(2) In approving or permitting a development, the approving authority shall consider the county engineer’s recommendations and act in conformity with this chapter.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.055 Imposition of mitigation requirements.

(1) The county shall impose mitigation required under this chapter as a condition of approval of development.

(2) Mitigation imposed as a condition of approval shall expire on the expiration date of the concurrency determination for a development. Any building permit application submitted after the concurrency expiration date shall be subject to full reinvestigation of traffic impacts under this chapter before the building permit can be issued. Determination of new or additional impact mitigation measures shall take into consideration, and may allow credit for, mitigation measures fully accomplished in connection with the prior approval when those mitigation measures addressed impacts of the current building permit application.

(3) If a development proposes measures to mitigate impacts on roads under the jurisdiction of another agency, the developer must provide a written proposal to the department of public works describing those measures. The county engineer shall review the developer’s proposal and include a recommendation on the proposed mitigation measures in the county engineer’s recommendation on the development under SCC 30.66B.050.

(4) Required mitigation measures shall be binding on real property that is subject to the provisions of this chapter.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 03-127, Nov. 5, 2003, Eff date Nov. 17, 2003*see Code Reviser Note at beginning of Chapter; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.057 Review of duplex residential building permit applications.

(1) A duplex residential building permit for a lot for which necessary mitigation as required by this chapter was not provided at the time of lot creation, will be issued by the director only after appropriate mitigation is provided in conformance with this chapter.

(2) The director of public works is not required to review duplex residential building applications. Application forms for all duplex residential building permits shall be accompanied by a statement that development of every lot in the county with a new duplex residence will have an impact on the road system that must be mitigated. The statement shall outline the options available to the developer for providing necessary mitigation as required by this chapter. An applicant shall inform the department of the applicant’s mitigation choice at the time of permit issuance.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.060 Authority to deny development-- excessive expenditure of public funds.

If the location, nature, or timing of a proposed development necessitates the expenditure of public funds in excess of those currently available for the necessary road improvement or inconsistent with priorities established to serve the general public benefit, and provision has not otherwise been made to meet the mitigation requirements as provided in this chapter, the county may deny the permit for the development. As an alternative, the county may allow the developer to alter the proposal so that the need for road improvement is lessened or may provide the developer with the option of bearing all or more than the development’s proportionate share of the required road improvement costs.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.065 Authority to withhold or condition administrative permits or approvals.

The director shall have discretion under this chapter to refuse to issue an administrative permit or approval when applicable provisions of this chapter have not been met. The director may condition issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection approval of any administrative permit or approval upon compliance with this chapter.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.070 Record of development obligations.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 03-127, Nov. 5, 2003, Eff date Nov. 17, 2003*see Code Reviser Note at beginning of Chapter); Amended by Amended Ord. 10-086, Oct. 20, 2010, Eff date Nov. 4, 2010; Repealed by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.075 Revision of development following approval.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Repealed by Amended Ord. 13-050, Aug. 28, 2013, Eff date Sept. 19, 2013)

30.66B.080 Authorization for administrative rules.

The director of the department of public works is authorized to adopt administrative rules pursuant to chapter 30.82 SCC to administer this chapter. The administrative rules shall set forth any necessary procedural requirements to allow for the efficient processing of development applications. The director of public works shall adopt administrative rules that include, but are not limited to, the following topics:

(1) Traffic studies: scope, format, required elements, processing and review in accordance with sound transportation engineering and planning principles;

(2) Level-of-service determination: methodology, data collection, forecasting;

(3) Multimodal arterials: criteria for designating arterials as multimodal;

(4) Inadequate road conditions: criteria for identification;

(5) Frontage improvements: standards, variables;

(6) Mitigation measures: extent, timing, and agreements;

(7) Master road improvement programs: processing;

(8) Transportation demand management (TDM) for developments;

(9) Review of applications for mineral operations submitted in accordance with chapter 30.31D SCC generating significant numbers of large trucks including traffic study requirements, impact analysis, and mitigation requirements;

(10) Ultimate capacity designations consistent with SCC 30.66B.110; and

(11) Concurrency requirements for certain public facilities needed to support residential development.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 05-083, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006; Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.085 Transportation needs report.

The director of the department of public works is authorized to adopt and update a transportation needs report based on and consistent with the transportation element and capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the transportation needs report is to quantify the continuing need for road improvements on the road system anticipated by projected growth. The transportation needs report shall be used in evaluating the traffic impact of developments and determining the road system impact fee cost basis.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.100 Level-of-service standards.

(1) The county has adopted level of service standards for county arterials in the comprehensive plan. The department of public works will plan, program, and construct transportation system capacity improvements for the purpose of maintaining these adopted level-of-service standards in order to facilitate new development that is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

(2) The minimum level-of-service standards are established in the transportation element of the county comprehensive plan and are set forth in SCC 30.66B.101 and SCC 30.66B.102. The determination of whether or not an arterial unit meets the adopted level-of-service standards is as follows:

(a) First, using the level-of-service standard based on average daily trips (ADT) adopted in SCC 30.66B.101, weekday, two-way, 24-hour volumes are used to measure ADT, consistent with department of public works rules establishing details on the methodology, frequency and validity of traffic counts. ADT thresholds, set forth in SCC 30.66B.101, vary by urban/rural classification, number of lanes and whether or not arterial units have been designated as ultimate capacity pursuant to SCC 30.66B.110. If the ADT on an arterial does not exceed the threshold identified in SCC 30.66B.101, the arterial unit meets the county’s standard.

(b) If the ADT on an arterial unit exceeds the threshold identified in SCC 30.66B.101, the average travel speed is evaluated. If the average travel speed on the arterial unit falls below the appropriate threshold identified in SCC 30.66B.102, then the level of service on the arterial unit does not meet the county’s standard.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006)

30.66B.101 Transportation Level of Service Standard: Average Daily Trip (ADT) Thresholds

Thresholds Measured as Number of Average Daily Trips (ADT)
 

Arterial Unit NOT Designated As Ultimate Capacity

Arterial Unit Designated As Ultimate Capacity

Number of Lanes

Rural

Urban

Rural

Urban

2

4,000

7,000

18,000

22,000

3

5,000

9,000

27,000

33,000

4

7,000

12,000

36,000

44,000

5

n/a

15,000

45,000

55,000

6

n/a

16,000

54,000

66,000

7

n/a

21,000

63,000

77,000

(Added Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006; Amended by Amended Ord. 09-004, Mar. 4, 2009, Eff date March 27, 2009)

30.66B.102 Transportation Level-of Service Standards: Average Travel Speed

Rural/Urban Arterial Unit Classification

Multimodal
Arterial Units (1)

Qualifying Public
Facilities (2)

Average Travel Speed
Standard (3), (4)

Rural (6)

NA

No

C

Yes

D

Urban

No

No

E

Yes

Yes

5 miles per hour less than E (5)

Note: The reference notes in this table 1-6 are set forth in SCC 30.66B.103.

(Added Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.103 Reference Notes for SCC 30.66B.102

(1) The minimum criteria and process for designating an arterial unit as multimodal are established in the department of public works administrative rules and are to include such factors as frequency of bus service, employment and population densities within one-quarter mile of the arterial unit, and availability of non-motorized transportation facilities.

(2) The lower travel speed standard applies to certain public facilities needed to support residential development. Public developments which use the lower travel speed standard to achieve concurrency shall provide additional transportation demand management under SCC 30.66B.166. The determination of whether or not a proposed development qualifies for the lower travel speed standard shall be based upon all of the following criteria with additional specificity provided by department of public works rules:

(a) The development proposed by the public agency is needed to support residential development that is already constructed, approved or deemed concurrent;

(b) The public agency submitting the application for development is directed by a publicly elected official or board;

(c) The location of the agency’s facility is constrained by established legal or public districts; and

(d) Siting the development in the proposed location would provide a legitimate public benefit to the occupants of the residential areas.

(3) The letter grades for roads classified as rural correspond to varying travel speeds, depending on the length of the specific arterial unit and the number of controlled intersections. The method used to determine the thresholds is established by department of public works rules in accordance with SCC 30.66B.080 based on the principles of the Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board.

(4) The letter grades for roads classified as urban correspond to varying travel speeds as established in the Highway Capacity Manual and depend on characteristics of the arterial.

(5) For urban arterials that are designated multimodal, a five mph reduction to the average travel speed is applied.

(6) The level of service for rural arterials designated in the comprehensive plan as carrying urban traffic shall be evaluated utilizing the level of service standard for urban arterials.

(Added Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.110 Designation of ultimate capacity.

(1) When the county council determines that excessive expenditure of public funds is not warranted for the purpose of making further improvements on certain arterial units, the county council may designate, by motion, following a public hearing, such arterial unit as being at ultimate capacity.

(a) Designation of ultimate capacity shall include a commitment by the county to complete an access management and circulation plan for the arterial unit and a commitment by the county for specific, additional road improvements, transportation system management (TSM) actions, access management improvements, and/or transportation demand management (TDM) actions for the purpose of improving efficiency, preserving roadway capacity, and improving operations. In addition, any known improvements needed to address safety issues must be identified in conjunction with such ultimate capacity designation.

(b) The designation of an arterial unit at ultimate capacity by the county council will be initiated by an engineer’s report and written recommendation from the director of public works evaluating whether or not a given arterial unit is a candidate for ultimate capacity based on the criteria in SCC 30.66B.110(2) and related rules adopted by the Department.

(c) "Arterial Unit," under this section, shall mean the existing facility plus any improvements which are fully funded and programmed for construction within six years.

(d) The recommendation by public works and the designation by the county council must identify the specific growth management objective(s) that support(s) the designation of ultimate capacity for that particular arterial unit.

(2) A recommendation of ultimate capacity by public works and a designation by the county council of ultimate capacity may be appropriate if one or more of the following conditions are met for a particular arterial unit:

(a) The total number of vehicle lanes is consistent with the adopted transportation element of the county comprehensive plan and the facility meets the standards of the Engineering Design and Development Standards (EDDS); or

(b) The number of general-purpose travel lanes (excluding turn lanes) is consistent with the adopted transportation element, appropriate improvements are made at key intersections to provide for efficient traffic flow, adequate provisions are made to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle demand, and there are physical, environmental, existing structures or other constraints that preclude additional cost effective improvements; or

(c) The county arterial is experiencing a decrease in level of service, the source of which is attributable to another agency’s transportation facility, the conditions of subsection (2)(b) above are all met, and the county section of road approaching the other agency’s facility meets the standards of the EDDS, the number of lanes on the county approach is consistent with the adopted transportation element, additional left-turn or right-turn lanes are provided on the county approach to maximize efficiency on the county approach and where appropriate to match the ultimate lane configuration of the other agency’s transportation facility, and the length of turn lanes on the county approach is designed to accommodate forecast demand.

(3) Developments impacting arterial units designated as ultimate capacity will be required to provide additional mitigation pursuant to SCC 30.66B.160(2)(c) for the purpose of improving efficiency, preserving roadway capacity, and improving operations.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006)

30.66B.120 Concurrency determination- required.

(1) The department of public works shall make a concurrency determination for each development application to ensure that the development will not impact a county arterial unit in arrears. The approving authority shall not approve any development that is not determined concurrent under this chapter.

(2) A concurrency determination shall state

(a) When the concurrency determination was made (the concurrency determination date),

(b) Whether the concurrency determination is conditioned upon satisfaction of specific conditions, and

(c) The expiration date of the concurrency determination (the "concurrency expiration date").

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 03-127, Nov. 5, 2003, Eff date Nov. 17, 2003*see Code Reviser Note at beginning of Chapter)

30.66B.125 Concurrency determination- process.

(1) The department of public works shall make a concurrency determination following receipt of a development application and review of appropriate traffic data. Forecasts used in making concurrency determinations shall be in accordance with SCC 30.66B.145. The department of public works will include a concurrency determination in its first written traffic-related comments to the department following receipt of the application or receipt of other required information or analysis.

(2) In its concurrency determination, the department of public works shall find that, at the time of the determination, the development is concurrent, the development is not concurrent, or that additional information is needed to determine whether or not the development is concurrent. The department of public works will document in writing the methodology and information used in making the concurrency determination.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.130 Concurrency determination- methodology.

(1) In determining whether or not a proposed development is concurrent, the department of public works shall analyze likely road system impacts on arterial units based on the size and location of the development.

(2) A concurrency determination is based on an evaluation of road system impacts for a proposed development within the boundaries of the development’s transportation service area. The evaluation will identify the development’s impacts on any arterial unit in arrears as specified in SCC 30.66B.160, or any arterial unit designated at ultimate capacity.

(3) A development’s forecast trip generation at full occupancy shall be the basis for determining the impacts of the development on the road system. The department of public works will accept valid data from a traffic study prepared pursuant to this chapter or will use the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Adjustments will be made for trip reduction credits approved under SCC 30.66B.640 - .650.

(4) If a development is proposed within a transportation service area that contains no arterial units in arrears and/or designated ultimate capacity arterial units, then the development shall be determined to be concurrent, except that if the development generates more than fifty peak-hour trips, the requirements of SCC 30.66B.035 shall also apply.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.135 Development deemed concurrent.

The following development shall be deemed concurrent:

(1) Any development that has a valid pre-application concurrency approval pursuant to SCC 30.66B.175; and

(2) Building permit applications for development within an approved binding site plan, rezone accompanied by an official site plan, nonresidential subdivision or short subdivision for which a concurrency determination has already been made in accordance with this chapter if the following are met:

(a) The concurrency determination for the development approval has not expired;

(b) The building permit will not cause the approved traffic generation of the prior approval to be exceeded;

(c) There is no change in points of access; and

(d) Mitigation required pursuant to the previous development approval is performed as a condition of building permit issuance.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 03-127, Nov. 5, 2003, Eff date Nov. 17, 2003*see Code Reviser Note at beginning of Chapter; Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006)

30.66B.145 Concurrency determination-forecasting level-of-service.

(1) An inventory of developments that have been determined concurrent, also referred to as "developments in the pipeline," will be used to estimate future traffic volumes for forecasting future level-of-service conditions. This inventory will be established and maintained by the department of public works in accordance with the department’s administrative rules. Developments in the pipeline will also include developments given pre-application concurrency approval pursuant to SCC 30.66B.175.

(a) The department of public works shall use the inventory of developments in the pipeline when conducting analysis to determine whether an arterial unit is in arrears. Inventories or estimates shall be in accordance with the department of public works’ administrative rules.

(b) A developer may be required to provide a forecast of future level-of- service conditions to the department of public works for purposes of making a concurrency determination on a proposed development. When required to provide a forecast, the developer shall use the inventory of developments in the pipeline, as established and maintained by the department of public works, when providing a forecast of future level-of service conditions to the department. The inventory of developments in the pipeline used for making a concurrency determination on a proposed development shall not include any development that has been deemed concurrent subsequent to the proposed development.

(2) Estimates of future traffic volumes used for purposes of making level-of-service forecasts for concurrency determinations shall consist of the sum of the following: the current traffic volumes, the additional traffic volume that will be generated by the proposed development, and the additional traffic volume that will be generated by other developments in the pipeline.

(a) Estimates of current traffic volumes will be based on recent counts acceptable to the department of public works. The department of public works will provide them when available. When acceptable counts are not available, the applicant must provide them. The department of public works may specify by administrative rule the methodology for performing traffic counts of current traffic volumes.

(b) Additional traffic volume that will be generated by the proposed development will be based on the development’s forecast trip generation at full occupancy, in accordance with SCC 30.66B.130(3).

(c) The following shall apply to forecasting additional traffic volume that will be generated by the inventory of developments in the pipeline:

(i) the inventory of developments in the pipeline shall not include developments that have been deemed concurrent subsequent to the proposed development;

(ii) estimates of additional traffic volume that will be generated by the inventory of developments in the pipeline will include, at minimum, residential developments generating seven (7) or more peak-hour trips and commercial developments generating five (5) or more peak-hour trips that have been determined concurrent based on the department’s concurrency determination;

(iii) the department may, in its discretion, determine that certain developments in the pipeline should not be included in the inventory. The department may exclude a development, or part of a development, in the pipeline based on a factual demonstration by the applicant that one or more of the following is applicable:

(A) a development is not going to be constructed;

(B) a development is not going to be approved; or

(C) a development was already occupied at the time the current traffic volumes were counted; and

(iv) a threshold of three AM and/or PM peak-hour trips will be used for trip distributions.

(d) The department of public works will provide the applicant with the information in the department’s inventory of developments in the pipeline and the number of trips added to the individual traffic movements at the intersections on the identified arterial units.

(e) The department of public works will identify the arterial unit(s) for which an applicant must make estimates of future traffic volumes and specify the methodology for level-of-service forecasts used by the applicant in forecasting level of service from the estimates of future traffic volumes. Estimates of future traffic volumes may be required of the applicant for weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips for any traffic movements on any intersection located on the identified arterial unit(s) including termini.

(f) Forecasts will analyze traffic impacts for arterial units in the development’s road system for the "forecast year" (i.e., the year of the proposed expiration date of the development’s concurrency determination).

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 03-127, Nov. 5, 2003, Eff date Nov. 17, 2003*see Code Reviser Note at beginning of Chapter)

30.66B.150 Concurrency determination – revision required.

(1) A concurrency determination shall be revised if one or more of the following occurs:

(a) The developer proposes changes to the development proposal that would:

(i) Cause the approved traffic generation of the prior approval to be exceeded;

(ii) Change points of access or circulation and the county engineer determines the change will increase traffic volumes on any arterial unit;

(iii) Change mitigation measures relating to the transportation system; or

(iv) Increase traffic volumes on any arterial units;

(b) The concurrency determination was based on phasing and the developer proposes changes to the development proposal prior to the final approval that would move up the occupancy dates for all or part of the development to earlier phases;

(c) The concurrency determination was procured by misrepresentation, lack of material disclosure, or the data or analysis upon which the concurrency determination was made is found to have gross material errors;

(d) The property boundaries for which the concurrency determination was issued have changed; or

(e) A developer chooses either to not implement or discontinue a trip reduction program under SCC 30.66B.680.

(2) Any development requiring revision to an approved concurrency determination will be subject to an additional review fee at the rate identified as the base review fee in SCC 13.110.030.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.155 Concurrency determination – expiration.

(1) A pre-application concurrency determination made under SCC 30.66B.175 shall expire either six months from the date of approval of the pre-application concurrency determination or upon the resolution of any appeal of that determination, whichever is later. No extension of the six-month time period is allowed. However, if prior to expiration the developer makes a complete application for the development for which the determination was issued, the concurrency determination shall remain in effect and expire pursuant to subsection (2) of this section.

(2) A concurrency determination shall remain valid until the underlying development application or approval expires, is withdrawn, or is denied by the county. If the development approval does not have an expiration date the concurrency determination shall expire either three years from the date of development approval or the resolution of any appeals, whichever is later.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 03-127, Nov. 5, 2003, Eff date Nov. 17, 2003*see Code Reviser Note at beginning of Chapter; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.160 Concurrency determination - arterial unit in arrears or at ultimate capacity.

(1) If a development is proposed within a transportation service area which contains one or more arterial units in arrears or designated as ultimate capacity, then the development may only be determined concurrent based on a trip distribution to determine the impacts of the development on the arterial units. The department of public works shall not determine concurrent any development generating more than 50 peak-hour trips which would impact an arterial unit in arrears or likely cause any arterial unit to fall into arrears, except when the developer proposes to either modify the development so as to not impact the arterial unit in arrears or remedy any arterial unit in arrears in accordance with SCC 30.66B.170.

(2) If a development’s trip distribution indicates the development will place:

(a) Less than three directional peak-hour trips on any arterial unit determined in arrears or designated as ultimate capacity, then the development shall be deemed concurrent.

(b) Three or more directional peak-hour trips on any arterial unit determined in arrears, then the development shall not be determined concurrent except when the developer proposes to either modify the development so as to not impact the arterial unit in arrears or remedy any arterial unit in arrears in accordance with SCC 30.66B.170.

(c) Three or more directional peak-hour trips on any arterial unit designated as ultimate capacity, then the development shall be determined concurrent only if the developer proposes to mitigate its road system impact by:

(i) Making access management and circulation provisions for the arterial unit consistent with any access management and circulation plan adopted pursuant to SCC 30.66B.110(1)(a); and

(ii) Providing sufficient transportation demand management (TDM) measures under SCC 30.66B.610 - .650 to indicate the potential for removing a minimum of five percent of the development’s peak-hour trips from the road system.

(d) Three or more directional peak-hour trips on any arterial unit designated as ultimate capacity that directly connects a state highway with a city or town, and there is an interlocal agreement under SCC 30.61.230(6) between the county and the city or town addressing the arterial unit designated as ultimate capacity, then the development shall be determined concurrent only if proposed mitigation is consistent with the terms of the interlocal agreement and this chapter.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006; Amended by Amended Ord. 10-072, Sept. 8, 2010, Eff date Oct. 3, 2010; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.165 Arterial unit in arrears- special circumstances.

Where the only remedy to an arterial unit in arrears is the installation of a traffic signal, but signalization warrants contained in the current edition of the manual on uniform traffic control devices are not met at present, developments impacting the arterial unit will be allowed to proceed without the installation of the traffic signal; PROVIDED, That all other warranted level-of-service and transit related improvements are made on the arterial unit with the deficient level-of-service. Developments impacting such arterial units will not be issued building permits until the improvements (not including the traffic signal) to the level-of-service deficient arterial unit are under contract or being performed. Such developments will still be subject to all other obligations as specified in this chapter.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.166 Concurrency determination – public facilities necessary to support residential development.

If a public facility necessary to support residential development is deemed concurrent under SCC 30.66B.103(2), then the development shall be required to provide sufficient transportation demand management (TDM) measures under SCC 30.66B.610--.650 to indicate the potential for removing a minimum of 10 percent of the development’s peak-hour trips from the road system.

(Added Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.167 Concurrency determination- options when a development is not concurrent.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Amended Ord. 10-022, Sept. 8, 2010, Eff date Oct. 3, 2010; Repealed by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.170 Arterial unit in arrears or inadequate road conditions- developer constructed improvements.

(1) If a developer chooses to mitigate the development’s impact by constructing offsite road improvements to remedy the arterial unit in arrears or inadequate road condition, the developer must investigate the impact, identify improvements, and offer a construction plan to the director for construction of the offsite improvements. Construction of improvements shall be in accordance with the EDDS and the procedures of Title 13 SCC.

(2) In cases where two or more developers have agreed to fully fund a certain improvement, the developers must supply the department of public works with a written agreement, binding on each development as a condition of approval. The agreement shall address the proportionate share of the cost that each developer will bear and the timing of construction of the improvements.

(3) Any developer who volunteers to construct offsite improvements which are part of the cost basis of any impact fee imposed pursuant to this chapter will have the value of those improvements, as determined in the cost basis contained in the transportation needs report, credited against the impact fee. If the value of the offsite improvement is greater than the amount of the impact fee imposed, the developer may apply for a latecomer’s agreement under the provisions of chapter 13.95 SCC or propose the establishment of a road improvement district (RID) under the provisions of chapter 13.140 SCC.

(4) Any developer who volunteers to construct offsite improvements which are not part of the cost basis of any impact fee imposed pursuant to this chapter may apply for a latecomer’s agreement under the provisions of chapter 13.95 SCC or propose establishment of a road improvement district (RID) under the provisions of chapter 13.140 SCC.

(5) Any developer who chooses to mitigate a development’s impact by constructing offsite improvements may propose to the director of public works that a joint public/private partnership be established to jointly fund and/or construct the proposed improvements. The director of public works will determine whether or not such a partnership is to be established.

(6) Construction of capacity improvements under this section must be complete or under contract prior to the issuance of any building permits and must be complete prior to approval for occupancy or final inspection; PROVIDED, That where no building permit will be associated with a conditional or administrative conditional use permit, then construction of improvements is required as a precondition to approval.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.175 Optional pre-application concurrency evaluation.

(1) Prior to submitting an application, any developer may request a pre-application concurrency decision in accordance with the requirements of this section. All requirements of this chapter applicable to pre-submittal conferences shall apply to pre-application concurrency evaluations, unless expressly excepted in this section.

(2) A request for a pre-application concurrency evaluation must be made to the department of public works in accordance with the following and in the form and manner prescribed by the department. A pre-application concurrency evaluation is a Type 1 decision and shall be processed in accordance with chapter 30.71 SCC, except as otherwise provided in this chapter and SCC 30.66B.180.

(a) The developer must provide the department of public works with a detailed description of the proposed development’s maximum possible impact on the level-of-service of the road system. The information provided must include projected trip generation and trip distribution, as well as site plan information indicating access points for the development.

(b) The developer must propose a year of expiration date for the requested concurrency determination, which shall be used as the forecast year for the evaluation of future level-of-service conditions on the road system. The expiration date for any concurrency determination issued pursuant to this section for a subsequent development application shall be in accordance with SCC 30.66B.155 and the forecast year used for the pre-application concurrency evaluation.

(c) The developer shall provide a traffic study consistent with SCC 30.66B.035. The department of public works will meet with the developer to identify the scope of the traffic study required to make the pre-application concurrency decision.

(d) Application for a pre-application concurrency evaluation shall be accompanied by a fee payment in the amount specified in SCC 13.110.030. For purposes of SCC 13.110.030, a request for a pre-application concurrency evaluation shall be considered a development application.

(3) Following receipt of a traffic study that meets the requirements established in the pre-application concurrency scoping meeting, notice of the request for a pre-application concurrency evaluation shall be made in accordance with the procedures of SCC 30.70.050. The department of public works will have fourteen (14) days following the close of the public and agency comment period to make a pre-application concurrency decision.

(4) Pre-application concurrency evaluations shall be consistent with the requirements of SCC 30.66B.130, except that the threshold for requiring a traffic study shall be three peak-hour trips instead of fifty (50) peak-hour trips.

(5) A pre-application concurrency evaluation is an action subject to the requirements of chapter 30.61 SCC.

(6) If the department of public works’ pre-application concurrency decision is that the proposed development can be determined concurrent, the department will issue a pre-application concurrency approval. If the pre-application concurrency decision is that the proposed development cannot be determined concurrent, the department shall notify the developer in writing of the decision and the reasons therefore. The developer shall have 90 days from such notification to respond with revisions or alternative analyses or proposals. Responses may include revisions to the traffic study, alternative analysis of the conclusions drawn by the department, or utilization of options under SCC 30.66B.167. A response shall be treated like a new application for a pre-application concurrency decision.

(7) The department of planning and development services shall provide notice of the department of public works’ pre-application concurrency decision and the time period for filing an administrative appeal in accordance with SCC 30.71.050. The pre-application concurrency decision may be appealed pursuant to SCC 30.66B.180.

(8) A development with a pre-application concurrency approval that is valid at the time of application submittal will be deemed concurrent under SCC 30.66B.135 without further review, provided that the administrative appeal period for the concurrency approval has expired or the concurrency approval has been upheld on appeal and there is no further opportunity for administrative or judicial review.

(9) Concurrency determinations for developments that received a pre-application concurrency approval shall not be subject to further administrative review or appeal during project review, including review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

(10) A pre-application concurrency approval shall be valid only for subsequent development applications for the same parcel of property and where the maximum possible impact on the level-of-service of the road system established in the pre-application concurrency approval is not exceeded by the proposed development. A pre-application concurrency approval cannot be transferred to a different parcel of property.

(11) Pre-application concurrency approvals under this subsection shall be valid for six months following the notice of decision unless an appeal is pending, in which case the approval shall be valid for six months following resolution of all appeals.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 03-127, Nov. 5, 2003, Eff date Nov. 17, 2003*see Code Reviser Note at beginning of Chapter; Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006)

30.66B.177 Interlocal agreement with state, cities, and counties.

(1) Any level-of-service standards and concurrency requirements established in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 for state highways will be addressed by a letter of understanding or an interlocal agreement as specified in SCC 30.61.230(6), between the county and the Washington state department of transportation (WSDOT). A development will be required to mitigate impacts on roads under the jurisdiction of the WSDOT that are part of the road system, in accordance with SCC 30.66B.710. The mitigating measures recommended by WSDOT will be imposed as a condition of development approval to the extent that such requirements are reasonably related to the impact of the proposed development and consistent with the terms of an interlocal agreement as specified in SCC 30.61.230(6) between the county and the WSDOT.

(2) Any level-of-service standards and concurrency requirements established in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 for roads under the jurisdiction of a city or another county will be addressed by an interlocal agreement as specified in SCC 30.66B.230(6), between the county and the other city or county. A development will be required to mitigate impacts on roads under the jurisdiction of cities or other counties that are part of the road system, in accordance with SCC 30.66B.720. The mitigating measures recommended by the city or other county will be imposed as a condition of development approval to the extent that such requirements are reasonably related to the impact of the proposed development and consistent with the terms of an interlocal agreement as specified in SCC 30.61.230(6) between the county and the other agency.

*Code Reviser Note: Amended Ordinance No. 10-072 corrected several code references in SCC 30.66B.177 but failed to include the following text of SCC 30.66B.177(2): "30.66B.230(9), between the county and the other city or county. A development will be required to mitigate impacts on roads under the jurisdiction of cities or other". This material is retained pursuant to SCC 1.02.020(2)(g).

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Amended Ord. 10-072, Sept. 8, 2010, Eff date Oct. 3, 2010)

30.66B.180 Concurrency determination review or appeal.

(1) A person may seek review of or appeal a pre-application concurrency decision or a concurrency determination as provided in this section. No review or appeal is provided for a concurrency determination made pursuant to SCC 30.66B.135. The scope and standard for review of the pre-application concurrency decision or concurrency determination is as provided in SCC 30.66B.185.

(2) Any aggrieved person may request the hearing examiner to review a concurrency determination that is associated with an underlying Type 2 application at the open record hearing for the Type 2 application, except as provided in SCC 30.66B.175(9).

(a) The department of planning and development services shall provide notice of the concurrency determination. The notice shall be combined with the notice of public hearing for the underlying application provided pursuant to SCC 30.72.030 and shall reference the standard for review of a concurrency determination in SCC 30.66B.185.

(b) The aggrieved person must provide written documentation to the hearing examiner demonstrating why the concurrency determination fails to satisfy the requirements of this chapter.

(c) The decision of the hearing examiner is final and conclusive with an optional right of reconsideration as provided in SCC 30.72.065 and may then be appealed by an aggrieved party of record to the county council pursuant to SCC 30.72.070 together with an appeal of the underlying permit or approval decision.

(3) Any aggrieved party of record may appeal a concurrency determination associated with an underlying Type 1 decision, except as provided in SCC 30.66B.175(9). Any such appeal shall be processed as an appeal of a Type 1 decision in accordance with chapter 30.71 SCC.

(a) The department of planning and development services shall provide notice of the concurrency determination and the time period for filing an administrative appeal in accordance with SCC 30.71.040.

(b) An open record appeal hearing conducted pursuant to this subsection shall be consolidated with any other open record appeal hearing relating to the underlying permit or approval decision.

(4) Any person may appeal a concurrency determination associated with a project permit application that is not otherwise subject to administrative appeal, except as provided in SCC 30.66B.175(9). Any such appeal shall be processed as an appeal of a Type 1 decision in accordance with chapter 30.71 SCC. The department of planning and development services shall provide notice of the concurrency determination and the time period for filing an administrative appeal in accordance with SCC 30.71.050.

(5) Any aggrieved person may appeal a pre-application concurrency decision made pursuant to SCC 30.66B.175 by filing an appeal of a Type 1 decision in accordance with SCC 30.71.050. The appeal shall follow the procedure specified in SCC 30.66B.180(2), (3), or (4) depending on whether the development to be applied for will require a Type 2 decision, a Type 1 decision, or a project permit application that is not subject to administrative appeal, except that consolidation with the underlying application or appeal of the underlying permit or approval decision is not required or permitted.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Ord. 06-093, Nov. 8, 2006, Eff date Nov. 26, 2006)

30.66B.185 Concurrency determination - standard of review.

A concurrency determination by the department creates a rebuttable presumption of validity. The hearing examiner may vacate a concurrency determination upon a showing that the determination is clearly erroneous. The department of public works’ professional judgment and expertise shall be entitled to substantial weight. The party challenging the concurrency determination shall have the burden of proof.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.210 Inadequate road condition determination and requirements.

(1) Regardless of the existing level of service, development which adds three or more p.m. peak-hour trips to a location in the road system determined to have an existing inadequate road condition (IRC) at the time of imposition of mitigation requirements, or development whose traffic will cause an IRC at the time of full occupancy of the development, must eliminate the IRC. To eliminate an inadequate road condition means to make sufficient changes to the road system to allow the county engineer to determine that the location no longer constitutes an inadequate road condition.

(2) If a developer wishes to challenge the department’s determination that the development adds three or more p.m. peak-hour trips through any IRC location on the road system, the developer may submit a traffic distribution analysis in accordance with SCC 30.66B.035. If the traffic distribution analysis shows that the development does not add three or more p.m. peak-hour trips through the IRC location, the application for the development will be allowed to proceed with no obligation to eliminate an IRC.

(3) If a location uninvestigated by the department of public works is brought to the attention of the hearing body at public hearing as a potential IRC, the hearing body shall determine if investigation is warranted and if so, the hearing body shall not conclude the hearing until the location has been investigated and a determination of its status made by the county engineer. The county engineer’s investigation shall occur within 14 days of the identification of the potential IRC, or within 14-days of submission of a traffic study by the developer, if the county engineer determines one is required.

(4) The county engineer shall determine whether or not a location constitutes an IRC in accordance with department of public works administrative rule. The county engineer’s determination that a location constitutes an IRC is final and is not subject to review or appeal pursuant to SCC 30.66B.820, but the effect of an IRC location determination on a development may be appealed in accordance with SCC 30.66B.820.

(5) A development’s access onto a public road shall be designed so as not to create an IRC. Developments shall be designed so that IRCs are not created.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.220 Improvements to remove inadequate road conditions.

(1) Improvements to remove the inadequate road condition (IRC) must be complete or under contract before a building permit for the development will be issued and the road improvement must be complete before any certificate of occupancy or final inspection will be issued. When no building permit is associated with the development, such as development requiring a conditional use permit or administrative conditional use permit, improvements removing the IRC must be completed as a precondition to approval.

(2) A developer may opt to eliminate an IRC by constructing offsite road improvements in accordance with SCC 30.66B.170.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.310 Road system impact fee.

(1) A development shall mitigate its impact upon the future capacity of the road system by paying a road system impact fee reasonably related to the impacts of the development on arterial roads located in the same transportation service area as the development, at the rate identified in SCC 30.66B.330 for the type and location of the proposed development. A development’s road system impact fee will be equal to the development’s new average daily traffic (ADT), based on the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, times the per trip amount for the specific transportation service area identified in SCC 30.66B.330, except that the following adjustments may be made:

(a) In accordance with RCW 82.02.060(4), the director of public works shall have the authority to adjust the amount of the impact fee to consider unusual circumstances in specific cases to ensure that impact fees are fairly imposed;

(b) In accordance with RCW 82.02.060(5), the director of public works shall have the authority to adjust the amount of the impact fee to be imposed on a particular development to reflect local information when available, including studies and data submitted by the developer; and

(c) Adjustments will be made for trip reduction credits approved under SCC 30.66B.640 - .650.

(2) As required by RCW 82.02.060(3), credit against a development’s road system impact fee shall be provided for dedication of land for, improvement to, or construction of any capacity improvements that are identified in the transportation needs report as part of the road system impact fee cost basis and are imposed by the county as a condition of approval.

(3) As provided for by RCW 82.02.060(2), exemption from road system impact fees may be provided for low income housing and other development with a broad public purpose, provided that the road system impact fee for such development is paid from public funds other than impact fee accounts. The developer requesting the exemption shall be responsible for identifying the source of and securing the availability of such public funds.

(4) Developments which are determined to cause a greater reduction in ADT on the road system than the number of new ADT generated by the development, by promoting the use of transit or other means, will be determined to generate no new ADT for the purpose of determining the developments road system impact fee.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.315 Comprehensive plan amendment- analysis of change in capacity needs.

Any comprehensive plan amendment proposed in conjunction with a development proposal will include in its environmental impact analysis the change in capacity needs, as a result of the proposed plan amendment, of all arterial roads impacted by 25 or more p.m. peak hour trips generated by the development irrespective of the boundaries of the transportation service area wherein the plan amendment is located and not limited to the road system as defined in chapter 30.91R SCC. Any increases in the capacity needs of the roads analyzed will be considered an impact caused by the plan amendment and will be mitigated as a requirement of development approvals if the plan amendment is allowed.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.320 Road system impact fee-cost basis.

(1) The road system impact fees will be collected and spent for capacity improvements on facilities that are addressed by the county’s capital facilities plan. In accordance with RCW 82.02.050(3), the impact fees:

(a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development;

(b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of the system improvements reasonably related to the new development;

(c) Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development.

(2) The road system impact fee cost basis is established in the transportation needs report. The estimated cost of capacity improvements that are reasonably related to the impacts of new development, and that will reasonably benefit new development, will be identified in the transportation needs report for each transportation service area. Capacity improvements to facilities under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), a city or another county may be included when consistent with the terms of an interlocal agreement as specified in SCC 30.61.230(9). The road system impact fee cost basis is subject to the following adjustments:

(a) As required by RCW 82.02.060(1)(b), the impact fee cost basis will be adjusted to provide a credit for taxes (excluding impact fees imposed under this section) paid by new development which help pay for the identified capacity improvements.

(b) Consideration shall be given to other funds available to pay for the capacity improvements included in the impact fee cost basis.

(c) The impact fee cost basis may include costs previously incurred by the county for capacity improvements for which excess capacity exists.

(3) The amount of the impact fee will be determined for each transportation service area, based on and not to exceed, the impact fee cost basis divided by the number of new daily vehicle trip ends generated, as identified in the transportation needs report.

(4) Improvements needed to remedy any level-of-service deficiencies in facilities serving current uses will not be included in the impact fee cost basis.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.330 Fee schedule.

 

30.66B.330 Fee schedule.
 

LOCATION Transportation Service Area (TSA)

TYPE Residential/ Commercial

NEW TRIP AMOUNT

Developments Inside the Urban Growth Area (UGA)

Developments Outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA)

A

RESIDENTIAL

$242

$264

A

COMMERCIAL

$206

$227

B

RESIDENTIAL

$364

$397

B

COMMERCIAL

$309

$343

C

RESIDENTIAL

$152

$166

C

COMMERCIAL

$129

$142

D

RESIDENTIAL

$267

$291

D

COMMERCIAL

$227

$252

E

RESIDENTIAL

$230

$252

E

COMMERCIAL

$196

$216

F

RESIDENTIAL

$230

$252

F

COMMERCIAL

$196

$216

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 05-092, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006)

30.66B.340 Timing of road system impact fee payment.

(1) Payment of a road system impact fee is required prior to building permit issuance, except as provided in subsection (5) of this section.

(2) Where no building permit will be associated with an application for development or land use approval, such as a development requiring approval of a conditional or administrative conditional use permit, payment is required as a precondition to approval.

(3) For a binding site plan with record of survey, for which the concurrency expiration date is more than six years after the concurrency determination date, one-half of the payment is required prior to recording of the binding site plan with record of survey. Payment of the second half is due prior to the issuance of any building permits.

(4) The amount of the road system impact fee payment shall be based upon the rate in effect at the time of filing of a complete application for development.

(5) An applicant may request a deferral of the payment of road system impact fees. The deferral of road system impact fees shall be allowed only for single-family attached and detached residential construction by a property owner having a contractor registration number or other unique identification number. The amount of impact fees that may be deferred under this subsection shall be determined by the fees in effect at the time the applicant applies for a deferral.

(a) For this subsection:

(i) "Applicant" means property owner which includes an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the applicant.

(ii) "Common control" means two or more entities controlled by the same person or entity.

(iii) "Control" means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of an entity, whether through the ownership of voting shares, by contract, or otherwise.

(b) An applicant wishing to defer the payment of a road system impact fee shall:

(i) Submit a signed and notarized deferred impact fees application and completed lien form signed by all owners of the property subject to the lien concurrent with the building permit application for the building subject to the impact fees. Multiple deferrals can be included on one application as long as the building permit applications are located within the same development and the applicant pays a separate administrative fee as required below for each single-family dwelling unit whether detached or attached;

(ii) Submit a signed certification that the applicant has requested deferral of impact fees for no more than a total of 20 building permits in the calendar year within unincorporated Snohomish County; and

(iii) Pay a non-refundable $250.00 administration fee for each deferred impact fee application.

(c) The lien shall:

(i) Be in a form approved and provided by the county;

(ii) Include the legal description, property tax account number, and address for each lot or unit the lien will encumber and identify the type and amount of the deferred impact fees.

(iii) Be binding and subordinate on all successors in title after the recording.

(iv) Be junior and subordinate to a first mortgage for the purpose of construction upon the same real property granted by the person who applied for the deferral of impact fees, but in no case shall the lien be in less than second place.

(v) Be signed by all owners of the property, with all signatures acknowledged as required for a deed.

(d) The lien shall be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit for the building subject to the impact fees.

(e) Each applicant eligible to defer impact fees shall only be entitled to receive deferrals for no more than a total of 20 building permits in unincorporated Snohomish County during each calendar year.

(f) The applicant or property owner shall be responsible for the payment of recording fees.

(g) The deferred impact fees for each single-family dwelling unit whether detached or attached shall be paid in full prior to whichever of the following occurs first:

(i) Scheduling final inspection;

(ii) Issuance of a certificate of occupancy;

(iii) The closing of the first sale of the property occurring after the recording of the lien; or

(iv) Eighteen months from the date of building permit issuance.

(h) If the building for which the deferral of the impact fees is requested is located within a subdivision or short subdivision, the subdivision or short subdivision shall be recorded prior to recording the lien for impact fees and issuance of the building permit.

(i) Upon receipt of final payment of all deferred impact fees for a building permit, the county shall execute a release of the deferred impact fee lien. The applicant or property owner is responsible for submitting a lien release application to PDS. The applicant, at their own expense, will be responsible for recording the lien release after all deferred impact fees associated with a lot or unit subject to a lien have been paid.

(j) Compliance with the requirements of the deferral option shall constitute compliance with subdivision or short subdivision conditions pertaining to the timing of the impact fee payment.

(k) If deferred impact fees are not paid in accordance with terms authorized by state law and this section, the county may initiate foreclosure proceedings for the unpaid impact fees and all costs associated with the collection of the unpaid impact fees.

(l) A request to defer road system impact fees under this section may be combined in one application with a request to defer park and recreation impact fees under SCC 30.66A.020(4) and school impact fees under SCC 30.66C.200(2).

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 03-127, Nov. 5, 2003, Eff date Nov. 17, 2003*see Code Reviser Note at beginning of Chapter; Amended by Ord. 10-085, Oct. 20, 2010, Eff date Jan. 1, 2015; Amended by Amended Ord. 16-060, Aug. 24, 2016, Eff date Sept. 12, 2016)

30.66B.350 Administration of road system impact fee payments.

(1) Any road system impact fee payment made pursuant to this chapter shall be held in a reserve account and shall be expended to fund improvements on the road system in accordance with chapter 82.02 RCW.

(2) An appropriate and reasonable portion of payments collected may be used for administration of this chapter.

(3) Any refund of a road system impact fee due to a developer shall be administered in accordance with chapter 82.02 RCW and this section. Any refund approved under this section, or following an administrative appeal as provided in SCC 30.66B.370, shall be made to the current property owner at the time the refund is authorized, unless the current property owner releases the county from any obligation to refund the current property owner. A developer may request and shall receive a refund, including interest earned on the impact fees, when the developer does not proceed with the development activity and no impact has resulted. Recording of a subdivision or short subdivision, or a binding site plan with a record of survey constitutes proceeding with development activity for the purpose of refund applicability.

(4) A developer shall pay a road system impact fee under protest in order to obtain a permit or other approval for development while reserving the right to challenge the road system impact fee pursuant to SCC 30.66B.370. Any developer protest to payment of the impact fee must be submitted in writing concurrently with payment. Failure to provide such written protest at the time of fee payment shall be deemed a withdrawal of any appeal filed under SCC 30.66B.370.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.360 Relationship between impact fees and special district fees.

(1) This chapter does not preclude the establishment of road improvement districts, local improvement districts, transportation benefit districts, or similar governmental funding mechanisms for the construction of specific transportation improvements.

(2) If a special district is formed to provide for the construction of an improvement as identified in the impact fee cost basis of the transportation needs report, the assessment or fee required by the special district for the specific improvement will be compared to the impact fee payment that would otherwise be imposed. If the special district fee is the same or greater than the amount of the impact fee payment, the impact fee will be considered paid through the special district fee. If the special district fee is less than the amount of impact fee payment, the amount of the impact fee payment will be reduced by the value of the special district fee.

(3) If a special district is formed for improvements that are not identified as part of the transportation needs report, then a development will be required to pay the special district fee in addition to payment of any impact fee imposed under this chapter.

(4) If the improvement to be built by the special district is in the transportation needs report but completely or partially out of the development’s road system, the special district fee shall offset the impact fee only in proportion to the cost of the portion of the special district improvement that is located in the development’s road system.

(5) Impact fee payments for those properties affected by special districts, as described above, established prior to February 9, 1991, shall be administered in the same manner as described in this section. If properties are subdivided, impact fee payments shall be compared against the applicable, corresponding, proportionate special district fees.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.370 Review of impact fees.

(1) Any person aggrieved by a decision applying an impact fee under this chapter to a development application and who has filed a written protest in accordance with SCC 30.66B.350 may appeal the decision to the hearing examiner using the procedures established in SCC 30.71.050. Where there is an administrative review or appeal process before the hearing examiner for the underlying application, an appeal of an impact fee imposed pursuant to this chapter must be combined with administrative review or appeal of the underlying application. Where there is no administrative review or appeal process before the hearing examiner for the underlying application, the appeal shall be limited to application of the impact fee. The department of planning and development services shall provide notice of the decision to impose impact fees pursuant to this chapter for a Type 1 or 2 project application and the procedure for administrative review or appeal. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 30.71 or 30.72 SCC, as may be applicable.

(2) At the hearing, the appellant shall have the burden of proof, which burden shall be met by a preponderance of the evidence. The impact fee may be modified upon a determination that it is proper to do so based on the application of the criteria contained in SCC 30.66B.310. Appeals under this section shall be limited to application of the impact fee provisions to the specific development activity for which application is made, and the provisions of this chapter shall be presumed valid.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.410 Frontage improvement requirements.

(1) All developments will be required to make frontage improvements along the parcel’s frontage on any opened, constructed, and maintained public road. The required improvement shall be constructed in accordance with the EDDS, including correction of horizontal and vertical alignments, if applicable.

(2) The improvement standard will be established by the director of public works in accordance with SCC 30.66B.430 and as outlined in the department of public work’s administrative rules on frontage improvements.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.420 Access and transportation circulation requirements.

(1) All developments will be required to:

(a) Provide for access and transportation circulation in accordance with the comprehensive plan and this chapter applicable to the particular development,

(b) Design and construct such access in accordance with the EDDS, and

(c) Improve existing roads that provide access to the development in order to comply with adopted design standards, in accordance with SCC 30.66B.430.

(2) Access to state highways and city streets shall be in accordance with the applicable state or city standards and requirements.

(3) All developments that propose to take access via an existing public or private road which, for the vehicle trips projected to use the road after full occupancy of the development, is not designed and constructed in accordance with the EDDS, will be required to improve such road to bring it into compliance with the EDDS when the director of public works determines it necessary to provide for safety and the operational efficiency of the road. The extent of improvements will be established by the director of public works in accordance with SCC 30.66B.430.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.430 Extent of improvements.

(1) The extent of frontage improvements, offsite road improvements, or access and transportation circulation improvements necessary to meet the requirements of this chapter and Title 13 SCC will be established by the director of public works. The developer may be responsible for preparing any aspect of engineering design or investigation necessary to establish the extent of improvements if the director of public works does not have the design or investigation programmed or under way consistent with the development’s schedule. The traffic study shall contain analysis of the extent of any improvements determined to be necessary by the director of public works.

(2) Design of improvements shall be in accordance with the EDDS. Where an interim or partial improvement is implemented through SCC 30.66B.440, the improvement design shall be compatible with the adopted standard.

(3) In determining improvements required, the director of public works will consider, with other relevant factors, the following:

(a) Extent of the development proposed;

(b) Priority of improvements to involved county roads in the county’s six-year transportation improvement plan;

(c) Condition of existing transportation facilities in comparison to adopted standards;

(d) Existing and projected land uses and development densities;

(e) Current and projected levels of service on the affected road system;

(f) Availability of public transit;

(g) Any traffic study submitted;

(h) Availability of a specific improvement program;

(i) The number of dwelling units currently using the road system that must be improved and projected to use the road system after full occupancy of the development;

(j) The needs of low-income persons for decent, affordable, low-cost housing;

(k) Transportation system or demand management measures proposed by the developer;

(l) The need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities;

(m) Continuity with existing and proposed improvements;

(n) Development standards of adjacent cities;

(o) The need for safety improvements for school children; and

(p) The types, sizes and performance of vehicles generated by the development, including but not limited to large trucks.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended Ord. 05-083, December 21, 2005, Eff date Feb. 1, 2006)

30.66B.440 Timing of improvements.

Construction of frontage improvements, offsite road improvements, and access and transportation circulation improvements is required prior to approval for occupancy or final inspection, except that if the development is a subdivision or short subdivision, construction is required prior to the recording unless with the approval of the county engineer, construction is assured with a performance security in accordance with SCC 30.84.105. When no building permit will be associated with a conditional or administrative conditional use permit, construction of improvements is required as a precondition to approval, unless some later time of construction is recommended by the director of public works and imposed by the approving authority as a condition of approval.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Amended Ord. 10-086, Oct. 20, 2010, Eff date Nov. 4, 2010)

30.66B.510 Right-of-way requirements.

(1) A developer shall be required to dedicate, establish, or deed right-of-way to the county for road purposes as a condition of approval of a development, when to do so is reasonably necessary as a direct result of a proposed development, for improvement, use or maintenance of the road system serving the development.

(2) In cases where the dedication, establishment, or deeding of additional right-of-way cannot be reasonably required as a direct result of the proposed development but such right-of-way is necessary for future expansion of the public road system, the developer shall reserve the area needed for right-of-way for future conveyance to the county. Building setback and all other zoning code requirements will be established with respect to the reservation line rather than the deeded, established, or dedicated right-of-way line. The area reserved for right-of-way may be donated to the county or will be purchased by the county through a county road project.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.520 Right-of-way width.

(1) Right-of-way shall be dedicated, established, or deeded to provide sufficient right-of-way widths to accommodate road improvement needs. Based on road classification the standard right-of-way widths are:

NON-ARTERIAL ROADS

URBAN

Width

RURAL

Classification

Classification

Local Access

50 feet

 

Residential

 

Collector

60 feet

Local Access

Sub-collector

Collector

URBAN / RURAL ARTERIALS

Classification

Width

Minor Collector

70 feet

Major Collector

80 feet

Minor Arterial

80 feet

Principal Arterial

100 feet

(2) Wider or narrower right-of-way widths than the standard may be required as determined by the county engineer, based on one or more of the following criteria:

(a) Contents of the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, including but not limited to the provision of safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists with emphasis on transit facilities, schools, and parks and scenic areas;

(b) The likelihood of maintenance of sidewalks, walkways, trails, bikeways or planters outside of public right-of-way;

(c) An adopted design report, roadway design or right-of-way plan which calls for a different right-of-way width for the right-of-way;

(d) Nature of the right-of-way and road involved, and its impact on neighboring properties including width, slopes, cuts, fills, vertical and horizontal curvature, sight distance at intersections, and the nature of the development and the land upon which it is situated;

(e) EDDS requirements including but not limited to land alteration, site access, road types and geometrics, road elements and roadside features, drainage and utilities;

(f) Any other factors affecting the health, safety, property and general welfare of the public, including users of the roads, sidewalks, walkways, trails or bikeways and the development; and

(g) The provision of adequate public transit facilities.

(3) Right-of-way widths for arterials may not be reduced below the following minimums without a motion approved by the county council:

Classification

Minimum Width

Minor Collector

60 feet

Major Collector

70 feet

Minor Arterial

70 feet

Principal Arterial

80 feet

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.530 Compensation for right of way and improvements.

(1) A developer shall be compensated for right-of-way dedicated, established or deeded when the right-of-way

(a) Is not necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the development; or

(b) Is necessary for the construction of improvements identified in the transportation needs report and included as part of the cost basis of any road system impact fee imposed under this chapter.

(2) For purposes of SCC 30.66B.530(1)(a), the minimum right-of-way or improvements that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the development shall include

(a) A two-lane road for access;

(b) Frontage improvements in accordance with this chapter; and

(c) Property located within 30 feet of the centerline of the right-of-way, as determined by the department of public works.

(3) Compensation for right-of-way dedicated, established, or deeded shall be provided as a credit against any road system impact fee payment imposed under this chapter, except where the value of the right-of-way is greater than the impact fee payment, in which case compensation for the balance between the value of the right-of-way and the impact fee payment shall be by payment. Nonmonetary compensation such as development alternatives may be provided in lieu of credit and/or payment where agreed to by the director of public works and the developer.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.540 Dedication, establishment, or deeding of right-of-way- timing.

(1) Right-of-way shall be dedicated, established, or deeded prior to building permit issuance, except as follows:

(a) For rezone applications accompanied by an official site plan, as a precondition of approval;

(b) For binding site plans, subdivisions or short-subdivisions, prior to the time of recording; or

(c) For conditional use or administrative conditional use permits for which no building permit is associated, as a precondition to approval.

(2) If more than one of SCC 30.66B.540(1)(a)-(c) apply, the right-of-way shall be dedicated or deeded at the earliest stage of development.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.610 Transportation demand management- general.

(1) Transportation demand management (TDM) is a strategy for reducing vehicular travel demand, especially by single occupant vehicles during commuter peak hours. TDM offers a means of increasing the ability of transportation facilities and services to accommodate greater travel demand without making expensive capital improvements. This is a particularly important strategy in cases where road facilities have already reached the practical limit for physical expansion, congestion is severe, and projections for future traffic indicate continued growth.

(2) TDM employs a wide range of measures to increase the use of ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, transit and non-motorized transportation such as bicycling and walking. Transportation coordinators, ride match assistance, preferential parking, flextime, transit subsidies, increased parking fees, reduced parking supply, and provision of shuttle services in areas lacking transit service are examples of TDM measures. TDM measures can be characterized either as site-design features facilitating TDM compatibility which consist of fixed physical features in site design or capital facilities, and programmatic measures specific to users of the sites (e.g., employers, customers, clients).

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.615 Transportation demand management- calculation of TDM obligations.

In calculating the amount of a development’s TDM obligation under this chapter, the cost of removing one peak hour trip from the road system is approximately $6,500. For a development required to provide TDM pursuant to SCC 30.66B.160 or SCC 30.66B.630, the development’s TDM obligation will equal $6,500 times the required trip reduction percentage times the development’s peak-hour trip generation.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Amended Ord. 07-116, Dec. 18, 2007, Eff date Dec. 28, 2007)

30.66B.620 Transportation demand management - construction of offsite TDM measures.

(1) A development may satisfy a requirement under SCC 30.66B.160 or SCC 30.66B.630 to provide TDM by constructing a specific offsite TDM measure which has value equal to or greater than the development’s TDM obligation as calculated under SCC 30.66B.615.

(2) The offsite improvement must be selected from a list maintained by the department of public works. The list shall specify capital improvements for each TSA and shall be updated periodically in consultation with transit agencies. The developer’s choice of improvements is subject to review and approval by the county. The list of capital improvements may include, but are not limited to:

(a) Construction of new park and ride lots or expansion of existing park and ride lots;

(b) Construction of miscellaneous high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities such as HOV lanes, bus pullouts, bus-stop shelters, queue bypasses, etc;

(c) Purchase of HOVs such as vans or buses for transit companies; and

(d) Construction of pedestrian facilities connecting development with major activity centers and/or transit facilities.

(3) TDM measures constructed under this section must be constructed before any certificate of occupancy or final inspection will be issued.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.625 Transportation demand management- voluntary payment.

(1) A development may satisfy a requirement under SCC 30.34A.080, SCC 30.66B.160 or SCC 30.66B.630 to provide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) by making a voluntary payment equal to the development’s TDM obligation as required pursuant to SCC 30.66B.615.

(2) Funds received by the department for TDM measures will be placed in special accounts with the transportation mitigation fund to be used exclusively for identified TDM measures. The county may construct or purchase these measures or, upon establishment of appropriate interlocal agreements, may transfer the monies to transit agencies for construction or purchase of specific TDM measures. The collection and administration of any funds shall be consistent with SCC 30.66B.350.

(3) Any payment under this section must be made at the time specified in SCC 30.66B.340.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Amended Ord. 09-079, May 12, 2010, Eff date May 29, 2010)

30.66B.630 Transportation demand management - required.

(1) All new development in urban growth areas shall provide sufficient transportation demand management (TDM) measures to indicate the potential for removing a minimum of five percent of a development’s p.m. peak-hour trips from the road system in addition to any other TDM required under this chapter. This requirement may be met by utilizing a combination of:

(a) The construction of onsite design features under SCC 30.66B.640;

(b) The construction of offsite TDM measures under SCC 30.66B.620; or

(c) A voluntary payment under SCC 30.66B.625.

(2) All development subject to the requirements of chapter 30.34A SCC shall provide TDM to indicate the potential for removing 10 percent of the development’s peak-hour trips from the road system. This requirement may be met by providing one or a combination of the following:

(a) On-site TDM measures with an area wide impact under SCC 30.66B.650(3);

(b) Off-site TDM measures under SCC 30.66B.620;

(c) A voluntary payment under SCC 30.66B.625; or

(d) A voluntarily trip reduction program under SCC 30.66B.650(2), when subsection (1)(a) of this section is utilized.

(3) All developments impacting a multimodal designated arterial unit with three or more peak-hour trips shall provide TDM to indicate the potential for removing 10 percent of the development’s peak-hour trips from the road system.

(4) When a developer proposes utilizing a combination of TDM measures, the county engineer must determine that the combined measures will have the potential for removing the development’s peak-hour trips from the road system as required under this chapter.

(5) The use of trip reduction credits shall be determined under SCC 30.66B.670.

(6) Prior to either a final inspection or the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, all TDM measures shall be constructed and any voluntary trip reduction program or special access easements shall be recorded as restrictive covenants on the title of the properties making up the development.

(7) The maximum TDM measures a development shall be required to provide is a 20 percent reduction of the development’s peak-hour trips.

(8) A development impacting an arterial unit designated ultimate capacity and multimodal shall only be required to provide additional TDM measures at whichever designation requires the greater TDM amount.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.640 Transportation demand management- trip reduction credits for construction of onsite design features.

(1) A developer required to provide TDM in accordance with this chapter may fully or partially satisfy the requirement by earning trip reduction credits for onsite design features.

(2) The department of public works will allow a five percent trip reduction credit to any commercial development including multi-family residential deemed "TDM compatible" by incorporating all of the following on-site design features to the satisfaction of the department:

(a) A design for a basic circulation system that provides continuity of pedestrian systems related to the primary road network;

(b) A safe, convenient pedestrian facility that meets the EDDS that joins the front building entrance(s) directly with frontage improvements;

(c) A safe, convenient pedestrian facility that meets the EDDS that joins the front building entrance(s) with all other on-site front building(s) entrances;

(d) A safe, convenient pedestrian facility that meets the EDDS that joins building entrance(s) with any bus stop or pedestrian facility (e.g., commuter trail) located adjacent to the development;

(e) Where practicable and desirable for pedestrian access, provision of special easements to facilitate pedestrian circulation between the site and adjacent neighborhoods, schools, shopping areas, transit facilities, or other activity centers;

(f) Where practicable and desirable the use of minimum setbacks to reduce walking distances;

(g) Where practicable and desirable the placement of vehicle parking to the sides and the rear of the buildings;

(h) Where practicable and desirable lighting and weather protection for pedestrian facilities;

(i) For nonresidential developments, secure bicycle parking (preferably covered) spaces located near the front entrance(s) that number at least two percent of the development’s calculated p.m. peak-hour trips; and

(j) For employment sites, signed preferential parking spaces for carpools or vanpools that number at least six percent of any employee parking spaces.

(3) The department of public works will allow a five percent trip reduction credit to any subdivision or short subdivision for single-family and/or duplex residential units deemed "TDM compatible" by incorporating all of the following on-site design features to the satisfaction of the department:

(a) A design for a basic circulation system that provides continuity of pedestrian systems related to the primary road network;

(b) A safe, convenient pedestrian facility that meets the EDDS that joins building entrance(s) with any bus stop or pedestrian facility (e.g., commuter trail) located adjacent to the development;

(c) Where practicable and desirable for pedestrian access, provision of special easements to facilitate pedestrian circulation between the site and adjacent neighborhoods, schools, shopping areas, transit facilities, or other activity centers;

(d) Where practicable and desirable, lighting and weather protection for pedestrian facilities; and

(e) An overall density of at least four dwelling units per gross acre.

(4) On-site features accepted for TDM compatibility in a mitigation proposal and/or measures with area-wide impacts allowed credits pursuant to SCC 30.66B.650(3) must be constructed before any certificate of occupancy or final inspection will be issued.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.650 Transportation demand management- eligibility for additional trip reduction credits.

(1) The department of public works will allow up to two percent additional trip reduction credits to any commercial development, including multi-family residential, for which the developer agrees to implement a voluntary trip reduction program, has deemed "TDM compatible" for on-site design pursuant to SCC 30.66B.630, and which constructs or incorporates bicycle facilities and reduced automobile parking spaces to the satisfaction of the department of public works.

(2) The department of public works will allow an additional five percent trip reduction credit to a development which voluntarily agrees to implement a trip reduction program as per SCC 32.40 and department of public works rules to the satisfaction of the department.

(3) The department of public works may allow to a development on a case-by-case basis up to five percent additional trip reduction credits for on-site measures with an area-wide impact not used to satisfy requirements under SCC 30.66B.650(2).

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Amended Ord. 07-116, Dec. 18, 2007, Eff date Dec. 28, 2007)

30.66B.660 Transportation demand management- procedure for submitting proposal for trip reduction credits.

(1) A developer opting to earn trip reduction credits as provided in SCC 30.66B.640 or .650 shall provide a TDM plan upon submittal of a development application. The TDM plan will describe the TDM measures proposed for the development. A developer choosing to construct offsite TDM measures pursuant to SCC 30.66B.620 or making a voluntary payment pursuant to SCC 30.66B.625 is not required to submit a TDM plan but must submit a written proposal pursuant to SCC 30.66B.055.

(2) The department of public works will review the TDM plan and determine the amount of trip reduction credits allowed.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.670 Trip reduction credits- how used.

(1) Trip reduction credits allowed to developers will be used in determining the development’s traffic impacts. Approved trip reduction credits will be applied against a development’s calculated vehicle trip generation including p.m. peak-hour trips and ADT. The adjusted vehicle trip generation number reflecting approved trip reduction credits may be used to determine one or more of the following:

(a) Any road system impact fee payment made pursuant to this chapter;

(b) Impacts for concurrency determinations pursuant to this chapter;

(c) Peak-hour trips impacting inadequate road conditions pursuant to SCC 30.66B210(1); or

(2) Developers required to provide TDM in accordance with this chapter may use approved trip reduction credits as follows:

(a) Developers may use trip reduction credits equal to or greater than the minimum required trip reduction percentage to completely satisfy a requirement to provide TDM.

(b) Developers may use trip reduction credits in an amount less than the minimum required trip reduction percentage to partially satisfy a requirement to provide TDM. Under this option, the amount of the developer’s TDM obligation under SCC 30.66B.615 shall be reduced by a factor equal to the development’s approved percent trip reduction credits divided by the minimum required trip reduction percentage.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.680 Trip reduction program- discontinuance.

A developer or future owner may choose to not implement or to discontinue a trip reduction program, or may cease to maintain onsite design features, by making a payment to the department of public works. The payment shall be equal to the amount of the discount(s) resulting from the initial credit to any road system impact fee payment or any TDM payment made pursuant to this chapter, with adjustments for inflation.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.710 Mitigation requirements for impacts to state highways.

When a development’s road system includes a state highway:

(1) Mitigation requirements for impacts on state highways and at intersections of county roads with state highways will be established consistent with the terms of an inter-local agreement as authorized by SCC 30.61.230(6), between the county and the WSDOT, rather than by the provisions of this chapter;

(2) The director of public works will submit to the WSDOT the traffic study and/or any other information relating to the traffic impact of the development, and request a review under the WSDOT’s mitigation policy. The WSDOT may review the material and recommend mitigation to the director of public works.

(3) The director of public works will review the WSDOT determined mitigation requests and, to the extent that such requirements are reasonably related to the impact of the proposed development, the director shall, as part of the director’s recommendation under SCC 30.66B.050, recommend that the requirements be imposed. The approving authority will impose such mitigation measures as a condition of approval of the development in conformance with the terms of the interlocal agreement as specified in SCC 30.61.230(6), between the county and the WSDOT;

(4) A development which takes access from or has frontage on a state highway will be required to meet the WSDOT requirements for dedication or deeding of additional right-of-way, provision of access and construction of frontage improvements on the state highway as determined necessary by the WSDOT;

(5) Any payment to mitigate impacts on state highways must be made at the time specified in SCC 30.66B.340;

(6) Construction of improvements to mitigate impacts on state highways is required at the time specified by SCC 30.66B.440; and

(7) Right-of-way required for state highways shall be dedicated or deeded at the time specified by SCC 30.66B.540.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Amended Ord. 10-072, Sept. 8, 2010, Eff date Oct. 3, 2010)

30.66B.720 Mitigation requirements for impacts to city streets and roads in another county.

When a development’s road system includes city streets or another county’s roads:

(1) Mitigation requirements for impacts to city streets and roads in another county will be established consistent with the terms of an interlocal agreement as authorized by SCC 30.61.230(6), between the county and the appropriate jurisdiction.

(2) The director of public works shall forward to the representative of the appropriate jurisdiction the traffic study and any other information on traffic impact for any development whose road system includes that jurisdiction’s streets or roads. The jurisdiction may review the material and recommend mitigation to the director of public works;

(3) The director of public works will review the jurisdiction’s recommended mitigating measures and to the extent that such requirements are reasonably related to the impact of the proposed development and consistent with the terms of the interlocal agreement, the director of public works shall, as part of the director’s recommendation under SCC 30.66B.050, recommend that those requirements be imposed. The approving authority will impose such measures as a condition of approval of the development in conformance with the terms of the interlocal agreement;

(4) A development which takes access from or has frontage on a city street or another county’s road will be required to meet the city’s or county’s requirements for dedication or deeding of additional right-of-way, provision of access and construction of frontage improvements on the city’s street or county’s road as determined necessary by the city or county;

(5) Any payment to mitigate impacts on city streets or another county’s roads must be made at the time specified in SCC 30.66B.340;

(6) Construction of improvements to mitigate impacts on city streets or another county’s roads is required at the time specified by SCC 30.66B.440; and

(7) Right-of-way required for cities’ streets or other counties’ roads shall be dedicated or deeded at the time specified by SCC 30.66B.540.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Amended Ord. 10-072, Sept. 8, 2010, Eff date Oct. 3, 2010)

30.66B.740 Transportation benefit districts.

Transportation benefit districts formed under chapter 36.73 RCW will supercede the requirements of chapter 30.66B SCC where the ordinance forming the district specifically determines and states that the improvements made by the district mitigate the traffic impact of new development on the portion of the road system to be improved by the transportation benefit district. Transportation impacts on the remainder of the development’s road system beyond the roads covered by any special district will be mitigated under the requirements of this chapter.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.750 Master road improvement program.

(1) In areas of high potential for residential, commercial, or industrial development and when the cumulative impact of several new developments could necessitate extensive and costly road improvements, the purposes of this chapter may be facilitated by establishment of a master road improvement program (MRIP).

(2) The director of public works may propose a MRIP designed to resolve problems related to level of service, inadequate road conditions, or public safety. The MRIP, in full or in part, may be considered in determining the requirements of this chapter.

(3) A MRIP shall include:

(a) A description of the road or roads, or portion thereof included;

(b) A description of the proposed improvements;

(c) A financial system, including a plan for calculating the proportionate share of road costs to be contributed by owners, developers, the county, and other jurisdictions;

(d) A traffic study analyzing existing and future conditions anticipated on the road or roads involved;

(e) Level-of-service thresholds and concurrency management systems which shall not fall below the standards established in the comprehensive plan;

(f) Options for the county council to pursue if the level-of-service thresholds are not maintained or achieved; and

(g) Other factors as determined appropriate.

(4) If the county council concludes that a MRIP adequately addresses the issues of public safety and amelioration of present and future level-of-service problems and/or inadequate road conditions, as required by this chapter, it may adopt all or parts of such program in lieu of satisfaction of one or more of the requirements of this chapter. Once a MRIP has been adopted by the council, the provisions of the above-referenced chapters notwithstanding, the county shall issue a permit or approval for development provided the applicant complies with the provisions of other applicable local ordinances and agrees to comply with the developer obligations in the MRIP. The agreement shall be in written form acceptable to the prosecuting attorney, and filed for record with the county auditor prior to subdivision or short subdivision, or the effective date of any other development approval or permit.

(5) Any developer who chooses not to mitigate the development’s traffic impact on roads covered by an MRIP by means of the MRIP, shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003)

30.66B.810 Relief from mitigation or concurrency requirements of this chapter.

(1) Prior to the issuance of any decision applying requirements of this chapter, a developer may submit a written request to the county engineer requesting relief from mitigation or concurrency requirements of this chapter that the developer reasonably believes to be disproportionate, or not reasonably related to either the impacts or timing of the proposed development. The written request shall include factual statements supporting the developer’s assertion.

(2) The county engineer’s recommendation to the approving authority under SCC 30.66B.050 shall include a recommendation on the developer’s requested relief. If the county engineer recommends approval of the request, the recommendation may include other mitigation measures the county engineer determines necessary.

(3) The approving authority, upon consideration of the request for relief and the county engineer’s recommendation, shall determine whether the purposes of this chapter would be best served by relief from the requirements of this chapter, and shall either deny or approve the request and impose as a condition of approval any alternative mitigation measures that are determined to be necessary and are recommended by the county engineer.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow a violation of the Growth Management Act.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)

30.66B.820 Variations--public agencies.

(Added Amended Ord. 02-064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Amended by Amended Ord. 10-086, Oct. 20, 2010, Eff date Nov. 4, 2010; Repealed by Ord. 16-010, June 1, 2016, Eff date June 15, 2016)