Chapter 18.15
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT*
Sections:
Division I. Transportation Impact Fees
(Recodified as Chapter 3.71 IMC by Ord. 2461)
Division II. Transportation Concurrency Management
18.15.210 Purpose.
18.15.220 Definitions.
18.15.230 Applicability.
18.15.240 Exemptions.
18.15.250 Level of service.
18.15.260 Concurrency review.
18.15.270 Certificate of concurrency.
18.15.280 Monitoring concurrency.
18.15.290 Fees.
18.15.300 Other authority.
18.15.310 Appeals.
*Code reviser’s note: At the direction of the City, the provisions of Ord. No. 2184, adding Chapter 18.16 IMC, Transportation Concurrency Management, have been added as Division II of Chapter 18.15.
Division I. Transportation Impact Fees
(Recodified as Chapter 3.71 IMC by Ord. 2461)
Division II. Transportation Concurrency Management
18.15.210 Purpose.
A. This chapter implements the requirements in RCW 36.70A.070 that cities (1) establish level of service standards for arterial and transit routes and (2) ensure that such standards are met or that funding of adequate improvements is assured before new development is approved.
B. It is also the purpose of this chapter to balance the City’s transportation concurrency goals with other important goals adopted in the Comprehensive Plan by exempting certain development from the requirements of this chapter. Specific comprehensive planning goals to be achieved through the concurrency exemptions include, but are not limited to:
1. Housing Goal: Encourage the availability of housing for all economic segments of the population, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
2. Policy H-2.9: Prior to adopting new regulations the City will consider the effect any new regulations will have on the supply of housing and the true land capacity for housing.
3. Policy HS-3.1: Support quality education. (Ord. 2321 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2184 § 1, 1998).
18.15.220 Definitions.
1. “A” list: A project in the adopted Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that meets the definition of “reasonably funded” and the capacity of which was included in the latest concurrency model update.
2. Adjusted base capacity: The maximum saturation flow rate measured in vehicles per hour per lane, by functional classification adjusted for roadway design and assuming no traffic control.
3. Approved traffic study: A study to estimate and assess traffic demand patterns and quantities, and to identify mitigation measures needed to meet LOS standards, based on the type and size of a proposed development. An approved traffic study may be required by the City as part of a complete application.
4. “B” list: A project in the currently adopted Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); or other project in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which does not meet the definition of “reasonably funded,” as set forth in Exhibit B* of this chapter. The capacity of “B” list projects shall not be used in making a concurrency determination. The City will endeavor to include on the “B” list, a range of projects with respect to cost, complexity and capacity.
5. Baseline screen point: The acceptable volume to planned capacity (V/PC) at all screen points as shown in Column 8 of Exhibit A* of this chapter. The screen point baseline is established by policy and is the level of service standard for each screen point.
6. Capacity statement: The statement issued by the City at least every three (3) years indicating the level of service of the City’s transportation system based on the number of screen point failures.
7. Capital Facilities Element: That Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan which evaluates the need for public facilities as identified in the other Comprehensive Plan elements and as defined in the applicable definition of each type of public facility, which estimates the cost of improvements for which the local government has fiscal responsibility, which analyzes the fiscal capability of the local government to finance and construct improvements, which adopts financial policies to guide the funding or improvement, and which schedules the funding and construction of improvements in a manner necessary to ensure that capital improvements are provided when required based on needs identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
8. Certificate of concurrency: The official written statement issued by the City that documents concurrency approval for a specific development application.
9. Change in use: A change from one permitted use in the City’s Land Use Code to another permitted use in the City’s Land Use Code.
10. Complete application: The application form and all accompanying documents, fees and exhibits required of an applicant by the City for development review purposes, and determined in writing by the City to be sufficient.
11. Comprehensive Plan: The City of Issaquah Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 2061 on April 17, 1995, including any adopted amendments.
12. Concurrency: The provision for assuring that improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are in place at the time of development or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within a maximum of six (6) years, depending on the roadway functional class as defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, so that levels of service for transportation facilities do not fall below adopted standards due to the impacts of new development.
13. Concurrency approval: The official determination by the City that a proposed development will not result in the reduction of the level of service below the standards as set forth in this chapter for transportation facilities and services. Concurrency approval will be documented in writing by a “certificate of concurrency.”
14. Concurrency determination: A technical study of the impacts on the road system, including forecasted level of service, of a proposed land use development using current data and analytical techniques that may include a comprehensive Approve Traffic Impact Study based on the requirements of this chapter.
15. Concurrency management system: The procedures, forms and processes used by the City to evaluate proposed development for compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
16. Conditions of approval: As they apply to concurrency evaluations, those conditions necessary to ensure that the proposed development will not cause the transportation level of service to fall below the adopted standards. The conditions of approval shall be binding upon the approval of any permit application for which this chapter is applicable as described in IMC 18.15.230, Applicability.
17. Development: Any construction, reconstruction or any use of real property that requires review and approval of a Development Permit.
18. Development Permit: Building Permit, Administrative Site Development Permit, Site Development Permit, short plat application, preliminary plat application, project rezone application, Master Site Plan, urban village development agreement or amendments to any of the above.
19. Director: The Director of the Planning Department or his/her designee.
20. Failing screen point: Any screen point where the screen point V/PC exceeds the screen point baseline.
21. Financial commitment: Any form of binding and enforceable financial obligation from the applicant that is acceptable to the City, and provided to the City at the time of development approval.
22. Functional classification: One (1) of the four (4) roadway categories – regional arterial, principal arterial, minor arterial or collector – that define roadway function and design.
23. Impact fee: The payment of money for a proportional share of the cost of transportation facilities needed to serve new growth and development, imposed by the City upon development as a condition of issuance of a Development Permit to mitigate the impacts of the development on the transportation facilities of the City, but not including any permit or application fee. Payment of impact fees does not ensure that concurrency has been met.
24. Level of service (LOS): The relationship between vehicular traffic volumes and roadway capacity, as specified in this chapter.
25. Maximum saturation flow rate: The maximum number of vehicles that can pass an imaginary point on a roadway in one (1) hour and in one (1) lane under ideal traffic and road conditions with no traffic control.
26. Modeling: The computer model used by the City to forecast traffic flow. Modeling includes existing peak hour trips, trips from development that has been approved but not yet built, and trips from proposed new development.
27. Peak hour: The one (1) hour time period with the highest number of trips on the City’s street system.
28. Peak hour trips: The number of motor vehicle trips by land use type and land use size which are generated in the peak hour as determined by the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, or other authorized source. For the purpose of this chapter, p.m. peak hour trips also include those acquired by a receiving site through IMC 18.10.2005 through 18.10.2090.
29. Planned capacity: The calculated capacity of a roadway based on a formula that includes the functional classification of the roadway and the availability of pedestrian trails and sidewalks, bicycle lanes and transit service.
30. Reasonably funded: A transportation project for which: (a) funds are in hand; or: (b) the City is expected to have sufficient funds secured for construction within the six (6) year time frame of the TIP. In determining whether any project meets this definition, the following criteria shall be used:
a. A notice of initial grant award has been received, or based on grant application standards, the project has a high probability of being funded;
b. The City has confidence that it will comply with all terms and conditions necessary to keep an awarded grant in force;
c. The City has secured or has knowledge that it will secure any required local matching funds required or recommended by the granting agency;
d. For projects which depend on funding sources other than grants, the City has secured or has knowledge that it will secure all required funds.
31. Regional links: Roadways within the City’s corporate limits that are significantly impacted by non-City generated traffic. Regional links are:
a. Front Street between the I-90 ramps.
b. SR 900.
c. S.E. 56th Street, west of East Lake Sammamish Parkway.
d. East Lake Sammamish Parkway.
e. Issaquah/Fall City Road.
f. Issaquah/Pine Lake Road.
g. North SPAR (Sammamish Plateau Access Road).
h. South SPAR.
32. Reservation of capacity: The portion of the unused capacity of a transportation facility that is set aside to accommodate approved but unbuilt developments.
33. Screen point check: One (1) direction of travel at a screen point. At any single screen point, the peak hour volume to planned capacity will be measured in two (2) directions and count as two (2) separate tests for purposes of meeting the requirements of IMC 18.15.260.
34. Screen points: Locations on the City’s roadways where peak hour volume to planned capacity ratios will be measured for purposes of quantifying level of service and concurrency.
35. Transportation demand management (TDM): Strategies designed to decrease single occupancy motor vehicle trips and increase the efficiency of existing capital transportation facilities, including but not limited to transit and ridesharing incentives, flexible working hours, parking management, and pedestrian and bicycle enhancements.
36. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) reflected in the latest transportation concurrency model update.
37. VMT: Vehicle-miles-traveled. A measure of transportation usage, using either actual or predicted quantities of travel and used to describe either demand (use) or supply (capacity).
38. Volume to planned capacity ratio (V/PC): The volume of actual or projected peak hour trips divided by the planned capacity of a roadway. For roads that are built to the City’s street standards (City of Issaquah Street Standards, 1991), the policy V/PC is set by road class and direction, as follows:
|
Road Type |
Peak Direction |
Nonpeak Direction |
|
Regional Arterial |
1.00 |
0.85 |
|
Principal Arterial |
1.00 |
0.85 |
|
Minor Arterial |
0.85 |
0.65 |
|
All Others |
0.75 |
0.50 |
For roads not built to City standards, the provisional V/PC will be set at the existing modeled volume rounded up to the nearest 0.05 (see Exhibit A* of this chapter). On these road segments, it will be the City’s policy to modify the V/PC ratio and increase the planned capacity on an annual basis in connection with annual review of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as these roads are improved toward City Street Standards. The City’s goal is to have all road segments built to City Street Standards and thus meet the policy V/PC. This provision shall also apply to roads not built to City Standards in newly annexed areas.
39. V/PC screen point: The calculated ratio of traffic volume with the planned capacity at each screen point as shown Column 7 in Exhibit A* of this chapter. (Ord. 2542 §§ 1, 2, 2008; Ord. 2439 § 1, 2005; Ord. 2434 § 5, 2005; Ord. 2336 §§ 1, 2, 3, 2002; Ord. 2241 § 2, 1999; Ord. 2184 § 2, 1998).
*Exhibits A and B are on file with the Planning Department.
18.15.230 Applicability.
This chapter applies to applications for Development Permits. (Ord. 2184 § 3, 1998).
18.15.240 Exemptions.
The following developments are exempt from the requirements of this chapter; provided, that the traffic resulting from an exempt development shall nonetheless be included in computing background traffic for any nonexempt development:
A. Development that is vested prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter is exempt for the development approval for which vested status was achieved. For the purposes of this chapter, vested development will be those developments that have submitted a complete application for a development permit, or have an approved prior agreement with the City that vests the development with respect to transportation concurrency, or publicly funded development that has at least a complete application for a community conference.
B. Any public elementary or middle or junior high school facilities, including new facilities and any renovation, expansion, modernization or reconstruction of existing facilities and the addition of relocatable facilities.
C. Any renovation, expansion, modernization or reconstruction of an existing public high school facility and the addition of relocatable facilities; provided, that any expansion of an existing public high school that would generate new trips during the peak hour shall be required to prepare and implement a transportation demand management plan. The high school transportation demand management plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. The high school transportation demand management plan shall pertain to the entire school and shall specify measures to be implemented to reduce single-occupant vehicle travel by students, faculty and staff. The plan shall further specify how the school district and City will cooperate in monitoring the implementation of such measures and make adjustments as needed to achieve reduction goals. A high school may voluntarily choose to prepare and implement a transportation demand management plan for any expansion of an existing public high school facility that would not generate new trips during the peak hour. (Ord. 2439 § 2, 2005; Ord. 2412 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2370 § 2, 2003; Ord. 2350 § 1, 2002; Ord. 2321 §§ 3, 4, 2001; Ord. 2285 § 1, 2000; Ord. 2242 § 1, 1999; Ord. 2193 § 1, 1998; Ord. 2184 § 4, 1998).
18.15.250 Level of service.
A. System performance (level of service) and concurrency are determined by comparing the screen point baseline with the screen point V/PC.
B. Planned capacity measures may vary by screen point and are determined administratively by the Director and subject to annual Comprehensive Plan amendment review and approval by the City Council. The City Council may, consistent with subsection (D) of this section, authorize the use of adjusted base capacity, rather than planned capacity, to calculate the screen point baseline for a failing screen point.
C. In determining the planned capacity of each screen point, the City will use the following decision criteria:
1. Support the following Comprehensive Plan level of service values:
a. Reservation of some system capacity for safe, efficient local access and circulation.
b. Compatibility of vehicular travel with pedestrian, bicycle and transit mobility.
c. Compatibility of vehicular travel with adjacent land uses, especially residential.
2. Planned capacities will be twenty (20) percent higher (allowing higher levels of congestion) on regional links, as compared with nonregional links.
D. Adjusted base capacity may be used to calculate the screen point baseline at a failing screen point when the City Council determines, on a case-by-case basis, that:
1. The screen point is not at a roadway segment with accident rates above the Issaquah average as shown in the Existing Conditions Report, on file with the Planning Department; and
2. The transportation improvement necessary to achieve the required screen point V/PC is not practically feasible or cost effective at this time because:
a. Of significant adverse environmental impacts to streams, wetlands, steep slopes or other critical areas; or
b. Of significant adverse impacts on neighboring land uses, including impacts from right-of-way acquisition; or
c. The concurrency failure is triggered by traffic model volumes that are twenty (20) percent or less of the adjusted base capacity for the functional classification of the failing screen point; or
d. Lower cost alternatives exist that will adequately mitigate the deferral of the required transportation improvement.
E. The City Council shall consider the use of adjusted base capacity for a failing screen point only in conjunction with the preparation of the capacity statement required by IMC 18.15.280(A). Any approved use of adjusted base capacity shall be reflected in the screen point baseline for the appropriate screen point(s) in Exhibit A.*
F. The City Council shall evaluate the continued use of adjusted base capacity for a failing screen point in conjunction with the preparation of each subsequent capacity statement. The City Council shall reapply planned capacity to any failing screen point to which adjusted base capacity was applied when the criteria in subsection (D) of this section are no longer met. (Ord. 2542 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2439 § 3, 2005; Ord. 2336 § 4, 2002; Ord. 2243 § 1, 1999; Ord. 2241 § 1, 1999; Ord. 2184 § 5, 1998).
*Exhibit A is on file with the planning department.
18.15.260 Concurrency review.
A. A concurrency review and determination, including computer modeling if necessary, shall be completed prior to the application for any Development Permit, except as provided in IMC 18.15.240, Exemptions; provided, that for Urban Village (UV) or Master Site Plan (MSP) Permits, applications for concurrency review and determination shall be completed prior to a public hearing by the City Council on the UV or MSP Permit. The Departments of Planning and Public Works will jointly establish and administer the concurrency management system. All final decisions regarding the administration of this chapter shall be the responsibility of the Director.
B. If a development requires more than one (1) Development Permit, the concurrency determination shall occur prior to the application of the first Development Permit.
C. A concurrency determination shall be required for a change in use or modification to an existing building or site. For purposes of this chapter, a change in use or modification to an existing building or site to accommodate a more intensive use will be subject to a concurrency determination for the new increase in transportation demand only. A concurrency determination for a new increase in transportation demand will be performed at the time a complete application for a concurrency determination for the new demand is received by the City. No reservation of capacity will be approved for a change in use that is otherwise not permitted pursuant to the City’s Land Use Code or official Zoning Map.
D. Any development subject to concurrency review that will produce ten (10) or more peak hour trips will require modeling with the City’s transportation computer forecasting model. Development that will produce fewer than ten (10) peak hour trips may require modeling based on a finding by the Director that modeling is necessary for a concurrency determination due the development’s size, type, location, existing traffic conditions or other factors.
E. If modeling is required, peak hour trips generated by the proposed development shall be added to the sum of:
1. Existing or future traffic volumes at the time of the development’s occupancy; and
2. The cumulative impacts of all other developments in the City for which the development approval or concurrency approval has been granted but which have not been built or occupied; and
3. The cumulative traffic growth on City arterials due to developments outside of the City’s boundaries.
F. The impacts of new development will be measured in terms of volume-to-planned capacity (V/PC) ratios at all screen points throughout the City; except, that a volume/base capacity ratio shall be used to measure the impacts of new development at those screen points where the City Council has approved the substitution of adjusted base capacity for planned capacity in accordance with IMC 18.15.250.
G. Concurrency Review. Any development subject to concurrency review shall be granted concurrency approval if, pursuant to this chapter, the screen point V/PC exceeds the screen point baseline at fifteen (15) or fewer screen points shown on Exhibit A* of this chapter; and at four (4) or fewer screen points the V/PC exceeds the screen point baseline shown on Exhibit A* by more than 0.30.
H. If concurrency approval is granted, the City shall grant a reservation of capacity required for the development at the time of said approval. This capacity shall not be returned to the system unless and until the application is, for whatever reason, denied, rejected, invalidated or abandoned; or the City determines that the reservation of capacity is to be rescinded under provisions of IMC 18.15.270. Reservation of capacity will only be granted if the development is determined by the City to have met all conditions of approval; provided, that the Director may allow reservation of capacity for development within an Urban Village Zone (UV), or Master Site Plan (MSP) upon good faith negotiations toward a development agreement.
I. The concurrency certificate application shall be denied if the project is not exempt under IMC 18.15.240, and the concurrency determination results in a finding that the traffic impacts of the proposed development will cause the V/PC to exceed the screen point standards specified in subsection (G) of this section. If the application for a concurrency certificate is denied, the applicant may:
1. Abandon the proposed project;
2. Appeal the concurrency determination to the Hearing Examiner in accordance with IMC 18.15.310;
3. Submit a Development Permit application for the project even though such application must be denied if the project has failed to receive a concurrency certificate; or
4. Request within ten (10) days of the issuance of the decision, a single ninety (90) day reservation of available capacity, and within the same ninety (90) day period amend the application so that one (1) or more of the following conditions are met and made conditions of approval:
a. Mitigating measures needed to meet the screen point standards are identified from the City’s currently adopted six-year TIP “B” list and the project developer provides a financial commitment to guarantee full funding of the approved mitigating measures;
b. Reduce the traffic impacts to achieve an acceptable level of service by phasing of the development to match future transportation facility construction; or
c. Reduce the traffic impact to achieve an acceptable level of service by scaling down the project or implementing demand-management strategies or other measures to reduce the number of peak hour trips generated by the project and meet the transportation concurrency requirements.
J. The anticipated completion date of the construction of mitigating measures shall be not more than six (6) years from the date of Development Permit approval, according to functional class as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The City may enter into an agreement with the developer for latecomer payments to owners of record of the development agreement from payments subsequently received by the City for impacts on the same facility; provided, that Development Permit approval may be phased when authorized by the City in a written agreement with the project developer.
K. Transportation Demand Management (TDM): The project developer may establish TDM strategies to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips generated by the project as a mitigation measure. The Director will determine, consistent with accepted engineering and planning practice, the appropriate single occupancy vehicle mode split trip reduction to be applied to the proposed development, and shall review and approve or reject the developer’s proposed TDM strategies. These strategies shall be pre-negotiated and approved prior to approval of any TDM strategy, and shall:
1. Include proposed methods to monitor and enforce TDM performance, and a fallback plan which would be implemented if the development fails to achieve TDM goals within two (2) years after initial occupancy; and
2. Become a legal project approval condition of the development, and become a condition tied to all future owners of the development and property.
The City shall provide a written statement of the reason for denying an application under this section. (Ord. 2542 §§ 1, 3, 2008; Ord. 2439 § 4, 2005; Ord. 2434 § 6, 2005; Ord. 2372 § 1, 2003; Ord. 2336 § 5, 2002; Ord. 2242 § 3, 1999; Ord. 2184 § 6, 1998).
*Exhibit A is on file with the planning department.
18.15.270 Certificate of concurrency.
A. A certificate of concurrency shall be issued by the Director for each application that is granted concurrency approval under IMC 18.15.260.
B. The Director shall issue certificates of concurrency first for the earliest application reviewed and approved. Subsequent certificates will be issued in the order of completion of review and approval. The purpose of this section is to enable applicants who are ready for approval to receive a certificate of concurrency, even if their application was submitted after an earlier applicant. It is the City’s intent to treat applications on a “first-come, first-served” basis, but to use this section to avoid the delays in approval of development caused by applicants who are unable to complete the review process as a result of their own action (or inaction).
C. Upon issuance of a certificate of concurrency, the Director shall reserve capacity on behalf of the applicant and indicate the reservation on the certificate of concurrency.
D. A transportation concurrency certificate shall expire if a complete application for the development for which concurrency is reserved is not made within:
1. One hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of the concurrency certificate for a project that does not include transferred development rights; or
2. One year from the issuance of the concurrency certificate for a project that includes transferred development rights;
E. A certificate of concurrency shall be valid for the Development Permit application period and subsequently for the same period of time as the development approval granted by the City. If the development approval does not have an expiration date, or an approved phasing schedule that allows a longer build-out, the certificate of concurrency shall be valid for one (1) year from the date of development approval, or until the development receives a Building Permit, whichever comes first.
F. The expiration date of a transportation concurrency certificate may be extended one time for up to an additional one hundred eighty (180) days upon approval of the Director.
G. No development shall be required to obtain more than one certificate of concurrency, unless the applicant or subsequent owner proposes changes or modifications to the property location, density, intensity, or land use that creates additional impacts on transportation facilities or the original certificate of concurrency has expired.
H. A certificate of concurrency is valid only for the specified parcel on which the development will be built, and is valid only for subsequent Development Permits for the same parcel, and new owners of the original parcel for which it was issued. A certificate of concurrency cannot be transferred to a different parcel, and shall be limited to the uses, densities and intensities for which it was originally issued.
I. Upon subdivision of a parcel that has obtained a certificate of concurrency, the Director shall replace the certificate of concurrency by issuing a separate certificate of concurrency to each subdivided parcel, assigning to each a pro rata portion of the concurrency capacity rights of the original certificate. The Director may modify such assignment upon petition of the owner, or it may reject such petition. Any change of use of such subdivided parcels shall require a new determination of concurrency.
J. A certificate of concurrency shall expire if the underlying Development Permit is revoked by the Director.
K. All Development Permits that require one or more transportation facilities to be provided by the development shall condition the issuance of the permit, and any subsequent permit for the same development on a financial commitment by the applicant, binding on subsequent owners, for the completion of such transportation facilities. (Ord. 2434 § 7, 2005; Ord. 2184 § 7, 1998).
18.15.280 Monitoring concurrency.
The City shall monitor the cumulative impacts of new development on transportation level of service. Monitoring will be documented through the capacity statement. (Ord. 2439 § 5, 2005; Ord. 2362 § 1, 2003; Ord. 2350 § 2, 2002; Ord. 2242 § 2, 1999; Ord. 2184 § 8, 1998).
18.15.290 Fees.
The City shall charge a processing fee to any individual or entity that requests a concurrency determination, except governmental entities. The processing fee shall be nonrefundable and nonassignable to any other fees. An additional fee will be required if, in the sole judgement of the Director, use of City’s transportation computer forecasting model is necessary for making a concurrency determination. Such fees shall be determined by resolution of the City Council. All such concurrency processing fees are to be paid in full upon application for concurrency determination. (Ord. 2184 § 9, 1998).
18.15.300 Other authority.
Nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the City’s authority under the State Environmental Policy Act or any other source. (Ord. 2184 § 10, 1998).
18.15.310 Appeals.
Refer to IMC 18.04.250 to 18.04.260 regarding appeals. (Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2242 § 4, 1999; Ord. 2184 § 11, 1998).