Chapter 12.95
INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

Sections:

12.95.010    Components of the integrated transportation program.

12.95.020    Relationships among three components of the integrated transportation program.

12.95.030    Administrative rules.

12.95.040    Filing appeals – Concurrency, MPS, IS.

12.95.050    Grounds for appeal – Concurrency, MPS, IS.

12.95.010 Components of the integrated transportation program.

There are three components of the integrated transportation program (ITP). These components are as follows:

(1) Transportation concurrency management (TCM), by which City of Covington will regulate new development based on adequate transportation improvements needed to maintain level of service standards, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070(6) and the City of Covington comprehensive plan.

(2) Mitigation payment system (MPS), by which City of Covington will apply transportation impact fees to new development for collecting a fair and equitable share of transportation improvement costs that are needed in accordance with Chapter 82.02 RCW and the City of Covington comprehensive plan.

(3) Intersection standards (IS) by which City of Covington will evaluate intersections affected by new development to assure safe and efficient operation and that improvements to mitigate the adverse impacts of such developments are completed, in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and the City of Covington comprehensive plan. (Ord. 38-02 § 2 (12.65.010))

12.95.020 Relationships among three components of the integrated transportation program.

(1) Permit Processes.

(a) Certificate of Concurrency. Prior to submission of a development application, a request for a certificate of concurrency shall be initiated by a submittal to the Community Development Department on a prescribed form containing information describing the location, uses, intensities, trip generation characteristics and pertinent information for the intended development. The certificate is a prerequisite for a complete development application. The Community Development Department shall use the submitted information to determine the net trips to be generated, taking into account commute trip reduction strategies, internal travel for mixed-use development, and pass-by trips from existing traffic flows, and shall determine whether the development passes the concurrency test prescribed in Chapter 12.100 CMC, Transportation Concurrency Management.

(b) Development Application. Following the submission of a development application, the Community Development Department shall determine the transportation impact fee to be paid under CMC Title 19, Impact Fees, and shall determine the traffic impacts of the proposed development on roadway intersections that will be adversely impacted and which must be mitigated using the Chapter 12.110 CMC, Intersection Standards.

(2) Calculation of Trips Generated by a Development.

(a) The vehicular trips expected to be generated by a proposed development shall be calculated as of the time of application for a certificate of concurrency, using standard generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, other standard references, or from other documented information and surveys approved by the Community Development Department.

(b) The Community Development Department may approve a reduction in generated vehicle trips calculated pursuant to the preceding subsection based on the types of land uses that are to be developed, on the expected amount of travel internal to the development, on the expected pass-by trips from existing traffic, or on the expected reduction of vehicle traffic volumes.

Such reduction shall be used when calculating TAM, MPS and IS, including any impact and mitigation fees and costs for which the development shall be liable.

The calculation of vehicular trip reductions as described in this section shall be based in all cases upon sound and recognized technical information and analytical process that represent current engineering practice. In all cases, the Public Works Department shall have final approval of all such data, information, and technical procedures used to calculate trip reductions.

(3) Calculations.

(a) TAM Calculations. The City of Covington shall determine the transportation adequacy measure (TAM) for any zone according to policies in the transportation element of the City of Covington comprehensive plan. The TAM is a two-part analysis, involving the average weighted volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of arterials and highways serving the zone (TAM value) and the existence of roadways critical to the zone’s access not funded for improvement in the committed network (unfunded critical links and arterial links of significance). If an unfunded critical link exists, then any proposed development which sends at least 50 percent of its peak direction (inbound or outbound) trips to that critical link shall be deemed to fail the concurrency test until the critical link is improved.

Administrative rules issued under the authority of this chapter shall contain a detailed technical description of the calculation of TAM and the list of potential unfunded critical links to be monitored.

(b) IS Calculations. Intersection level of service shall be calculated according to the “2000 Highway Capacity Manual” or an alternative method approved by the Community Development Department.

(4) Standards.

(a) The standard for the TAM value of a zone shall be those maximum average v/c zonal scores listed in City of Covington comprehensive plan policies for level of service (LOS) standards, and displayed in CMC 12.100.060. This allows a maximum area-wide average v/c of 0.89.

(b) The unfunded critical link standard shall apply to the links identified by administrative rule, which have a volume to capacity ratio of 1.1 or more, and which would carry at least 50 percent of the peak direction (inbound) zone traffic from a residential development or at least 50 percent of the peak direction (inbound or outbound) zone traffic from a commercial development. Unfunded critical links shall be applied only on those roadways in the City of Covington unless they are identified in an adjacent jurisdiction according to an interlocal agreement.

(c) The arterial links of significance test shall apply to all arterial segments designated by the Public Works Director. An arterial segment may be considered for addition to the list of arterial links of significance when the v/c ratio as indicated in the City’s current traffic model exceeds 0.80 and it is not already designated as an unfunded critical link. The Department of Public Works shall evaluate arterial segments in the current traffic model semiannually to determine which arterial segments are eligible for consideration to be added to the list. The traffic threshold for development activity triggering the analysis shall be five peak-hour trips in the peak direction passing through an arterial segment designated as an arterial link of significance. If the v/c ratio of an arterial segment listed as an arterial link of significance is determined to be 0.90 or greater (i.e., LOS E) when the project’s anticipated traffic is added to the model, then the project shall be deemed to have failed the arterial links of significance standard.

(d) The intersection standard for all intersections shall be “LOS D” as required by Chapter 12.110 CMC, Intersection Standards, and calculated according to the “2000 Highway Capacity Manual,” or approved alternative method. Level of service for traffic movements from unsignalized nonarterial side streets may be allowed to operate at LOS E or F, if the City Engineer determines that no significant operations or safety hazard will result. This exemption is needed since mitigation through installation of a traffic signal may not be warranted (per the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices”) or desirable due to the proximity of other existing or planned traffic control devices. Appropriate mitigation will be determined on a case-by-case basis for these situations.

(5) Application of Standards. The standards set forth above shall be used in the ITP as follows:

(a) In Chapter 12.100 CMC, Transportation Concurrency Management, zone evaluation of concurrency shall be calculated using the TAM value, the TAM standard for the zone, and unfunded critical links analysis.

(b) In the identification of improvement needs for the annual update of the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, the TAM and critical link standards will be used to determine needed improvements, together with safety, operational, multimodal, traffic congestion, and other criteria. These improvement needs shall be the source of projects included in the transportation element, six-year transportation improvement plan (six-year TIP), capital improvement program (CIP), and MPS list.

(c) For the determination of traffic impacts for the SEPA evaluation of a proposed development, the intersection standards will be used, as well as other criteria for bicycle/pedestrian, traffic congestion, safety, and road design.

(6) Relationship to SEPA. The need for the environmental assessment of a proposed development must be determined by the Community Development Department, following the filing of a completed permit application. Impacts on the street system will be mitigated through a combination of project specific SEPA based mitigation measures and MPS fees.

Impacts on intersections will be mitigated through the provisions of Chapter 12.110 CMC. Nothing in this chapter shall cause a developer to pay mitigation and impact fees more than once for the same impact. Improvements and mitigation measures shall be coordinated by the Director with other such improvements and measures attributable to other proposed developments, and with the City street improvement program so that the City street system is improved efficiently and effectively, with minimum costs to be incurred by public and private entities.

The provisions of this title do not supersede or replace the provisions of the City SEPA authority as enacted in Chapter 16.10 CMC. (Ord. 16-16 § 2; amended at request of department 2/08; Ord. 20-07 §§ 37, 38; Ord. 38-02 § 2 (12.65.020))

12.95.030 Administrative rules.

The Director is hereby instructed and authorized to adopt such administrative rules and procedures as are necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 38-02 § 2 (12.65.025))

12.95.040 Filing appeals – Concurrency, MPS, IS.

(1) Appeals of the Department’s final decisions relative to this chapter shall be filed with the Director or the Director’s designee.

(2) Such appeals shall be in written form, stating the grounds for the appeal, and shall be filed within 10 calendar days of the receipt of notification of the Department’s final appealable decision in the matter being appealed. (Ord. 38-02 § 2 (12.65.030))

12.95.050 Grounds for appeal – Concurrency, MPS, IS.

(1) For appeals of denial or conditional approval of a certificate of concurrency, the appellant must show that:

(a) The Department committed a technical error;

(b) Alternative data or a traffic mitigation plan, which may include transportation strategies such as demand management or vanpools, submitted to the Department was inadequately considered;

(c) The action of the Department would substantially deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property;

(d) Conditions required by the Department for concurrency are not related to the concurrency requirement; or

(e) The action of the Department was arbitrary and capricious.

(2) For appeals of the MPS fee, the appellant must show that the Department:

(a) Committed an error in:

(i) Calculating the development’s proportionate share, as determined by an individual fee calculation, or if relevant, as set forth in the fee schedule; or

(ii) Granting credit for benefit factors; or

(b) Based the final decision upon incorrect data; or

(c) Gave inadequate consideration to alternative data or mitigations submitted to the Department.

(3) For appeals of IS improvements, the appellant must show that:

(a) The Department committed a technical error;

(b) Alternative data or a traffic mitigation plan submitted to the Department was inadequately considered; or

(c) Conditions required by the Department are not related to improvements needed to serve the proposed development. (Ord. 38-02 § 2 (12.65.040))