Chapter 17.88


17.88.010    Purpose.

17.88.020    Exemptions.

17.88.025    Level of service standards.

17.88.030    Review process.

17.88.040    Transportation concurrency mitigation methods.

17.88.010 Purpose.

This chapter sets forth specific standards providing for city compliance with the concurrency requirements of the State Growth Management Act (GMA) and for consistency between city- and county-wide planning policies under the GMA. The GMA requires that the city of Wapato “must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level-of-service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development.” (RCW 36.70A.070.)  (Ord. 1228 §1(part), 2010)

17.88.020 Exemptions.

The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter:

A. Development permits issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter provided the permit or permits have not expired;

B. De minimis development, herein defined as single-family dwellings and any proposed development generating less than ninety vehicular trips per day;

C. Public libraries, parks, and recreational facilities;

D. Publicly funded educational facilities;

E. Construction of public transportation facilities;

F. Highways of statewide significance, as designated by the Washington State Department of Transportation; and

G. Road or street projects undertaken by the city. (Ord. 1228 §1(part), 2010)

17.88.025 Level of service standards.1

For the purpose of this chapter, level of services (LOS) for transportation facilities shall be as set forth within the transportation element of the city of Wapato comprehensive plan and are hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 1228 §1(part), 2010)

17.88.030 Review process.

The city shall utilize the following procedures for evaluating all projects or development activities for concurrency, unless the applicant otherwise noted in writing:

A. Certificate of Concurrency.

1. The planning official shall complete a transportation concurrency evaluation at the time a development permit is applied for or during the course of permit review. The review shall conclude with a determination that the proposed project meets the level of service standards whereby a certificate of concurrency shall be issued and attached or incorporated to the development permit approval. When a project is determined to have not passed level of service standards, the certificate of concurrency shall be conditioned in a manner that satisfies the requirements of this chapter, or the project shall not be approved.

2. The applicant shall provide the city with all information necessary to complete the concurrency evaluation on the proposed development. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide studies, surveys, traffic counts, engineering review or any other items determined to be necessary for an accurate concurrency evaluation.

3. A certificate of concurrency shall be accorded the same terms and conditions as those for the underlying development permit. If a development permit timeline is extended the certificate shall also be extended for the same time duration. A certificate of concurrency shall be valid only for the development permit approved for the same parcel and may be transferable to any new owner(s) of the parcel to which it was issued.

B. Traffic Impact Calculations.

1. Trip Generation. Traffic calculations shall be based on the trip generation average described within the latest available edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual for the particular type and extent of the development being proposed.

2. Concurrency Test. The projected number of trips generated by a proposed development shall be subtracted from existing or new transportation capacity of the impacted transportation facility. If projected demand is less than available capacity, the project is not adverse to level of service standards and shall be issued a certificate of concurrency. (Ord. 1228 §1(part), 2010)

17.88.040 Transportation concurrency mitigation methods.

The city shall use the following procedures and criteria to review and approve the adequacy of mitigation methods unless the applicant is otherwise noted in writing:

A. If mitigation is determined necessary to maintain level of service standards for an impacted transportation facility, the applicant may choose among the following actions:

1. Reduce the size of the project until levels of service standards are met;

2. Enter into a legally binding development agreement with the city whereby all required improvements will be constructed and completed within one year of the development approval date which also ensures that the financing is available to pay for the improvements at time of building permit approval. Upon request, the director may extend the time period by no more than three years, if it is demonstrated that construction of facilities cannot occur within one year but can occur within three years;

3. Be subject to a development approval conditioned that the required improvements be completed prior to the issuance of building permits, final plat or site plan approvals associated with the development;

4. Propose transportation demand management strategies to reduce vehicle trips generated by the project development;

5. Await the city’s completion of mitigating improvements if such improvements are underway or planned as part of the city’s six-year transportation improvement plan; or

6. Any combination of the above.

B. Acceptable impact mitigation requires a finding of the following:

1. The mitigation contributes to transportation facility performance and established level of service standards;

2. The mitigation is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan;

3. Any improvements to an intersection or roadway do not shift traffic to residential areas or to other intersections where there is no mitigation being proposed;

4. Any adverse environmental impacts of the facility improvements may be reasonably minimized or eliminated; and

5. The improvements are consistent with the city’s engineering standards. (Ord. 1228 §1(part), 2010)


Code reviser’s note:  Ord. 1228 added these provisions to the code as Section 17.88.020. This section has been editorially renumbered to avoid duplication of numbering.