Planning Comm PKT 07-01-2009
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 1, 2009
7:00 p.rn.
City Hall
COlUlCil Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 20, 2009
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
. PUBLIC HEARJNG
Traffic Impact Fee
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. AUDIENCE COMMENT
9. ADJOURN
Commissioners
Merle Pftiftr, Chair
Lawson Bronson
Tom Medhurst
Tim 0 'Neil
Hope Elder, Vice-Chair
Wayne Carlson
Sarady Long
(Alternate)
City Staff
Greg Fewins, CDS Director
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-835-2601
1/...,.w)v. (:i!~'ojr~d;:;...{!!v..!av- c(lm
K:\Platming Conunission\2009\Agenda 07-01-09.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 20, 2009
7:00 p.rn.
City Hall
COlUlcil Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, and
Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: Tim 0 'Neil (excused). Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark,
Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller, SWM Manager William Appleton, ESA & NPDES Coordinator
Don Robinett, SWM Project Engineer Fei Tang, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative
Assistant Tina Piety.
Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn.
ApPROVAL OF MINuTEs
The minutes of May 6,2009, were approyed as written.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REpOl,n
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - FWRC Amendments Related to Adoption of the Current Surface Water Design Manual
Commissioner Carlson disclosed that he is an employee of AHBL and AHBL contracted with the Puget Sound
Partnership who worked with jurisdictions developing Low Impact Development (LID) amendments. He asked
if any Commissioner or anyone in the audience had any objection to his participation in this hearing. There
was no objection.
Mr. Robinett delivered the staff report. The city is required by the federal government to meet the requirements
of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The goal of the NPDES is to reduce point
source and non-point source pollution carried by stormwater. The Washington State Department of Ecology
(DOE) regulates this federal permit. The NPDES Phase II went into effect on February 15,2007. The permit
requires that all affected cities create and implement a series of programmatic and! or regulatory changes. The
permit phases implementation requirements through 2012. The proposed amendments will bring the city into
compliance with the NPDES Permit requirements that take effect August 16, 2009. These permit requirements
include: 1) adopt a stormwater ordinance consistent with the NPDES Permit that effectively prohibits non-
stormwater and illegal discharges to the municipal storm system; 2) adopt a surface water design manual
(2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual [KCSWDM]) as protective as (a.k.a. equivalent to)
identified sections of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE Manual); 3)
removing barriers to allow for Low Impact Development (LID) Projects; and 4) adopt subsequent manuals,
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 05-20-09.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
May 20, 2009
including the 2005 Low Impact Technical Guidance Manual, the 2008 King County Pollution Prevention
Manual, and the City of Federal Way Addendmn to the KCSWDM.. In addition, the proposed amendments
will create a clear link between clearing and grading requirements and stormwater review requirements.
As a result of the study session, staff is proposing three changes. The first is to modifY FWRC
l6.l5.0l0(2)(i) to include the dollar value adjustment based on the CPI. The Commission was concerned that
the original language did not allow for inflation. The second change is a reference to the Public Works
Standards in 18.60.050 as opposed to specific street cross sections. Commissioner Long had stated that there
are additional cross sections that could be added to this amendment and changing the reference to the
Standards ensures that theses additional street cross sections and any changes to the street cross sections are
addressed The third change is that staff proposes to remove the proposed amendment to establish a
maximmn nmnber of parking stalls. This is an optional amendment that is not subject to the August 16th
deadline and staff wants to give the development community more time to review and respond to the
proposed amendment. Staffwill include this amendment in the second phase of proposed amendments for
Low Impact Development (LID). During discussion of these proposed changes, it was discovered that the
Exhibit A given to the Commission is an older version and does not include the proposed changes.
The meeting was opened for public comment.
Peter Townsend, Federal Way Resident - He hasn't had the time to read the entire proposal, but
sent it to GeoResources for their comments, which he provided the Commission. He is concerned
that the proposed amendments do not address the homeowners who will be bearing the cost of the
proposed amendments. What will the implications be for a homeowner who demolishes a house
and rebuilds?
Paul Lymberis, Quadrant - He stated that adopting LID techniques makes sense as long as they
are voluntary. Parcels are all different and they mayor may not work for a particular parcel. He
encouraged staff to be sure that the code and LID techniques are compatible. LID techniques can
be expensive and he asked staff to consider what types of incentives would be available for
developers and homeowners. Since the economy is down and Federal Way is largely built-out, the
greater opportunity to use LID techniques is with redevelopment of existing development. He
encouraged staff to wait to approve an LID ordinance until further research is done on how LID
techniques will work.
Mr. Robinett commented that staff is considering many of Mr. L ymberis' suggestions as part qf the second
phase of LID amendments.
Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Association - He commented that every jurisdiction in King
County are required to adopt the current surface water manual and his association has been
working with them on this issue. He noted that staff had a nmnber of examples of LID techniques.
He is concerned that it be made clear which of these examples will and will not be allowed in the
City of Federal Way. In order to obtain funding, a developer needs to be able to show that a
particular technique they want the funding for will be allowed by the city. He commented that if a
parcel is less than one acre in size, the NPDES Permit states they may by allowed to use the old
(1998) manual rather than the new (2009) manual. He suggested the city consider allowing this. He
stated the Master Builders Association is willing to help the city develop the second phase of LID
amendments.
Mr. Appleton responded to Mr. Townsend's concerns. He stated that the impact to single-family residences is
minimal. Currently there are no requirements for single- family for water quality or flow control. Under the
new manual there will be no requirement for water quality and for flow control if the impervious surface is
KIPlanning Commissionl2009IMeeting Summary 05-20-09.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
May 20, 2009
less than 5,000 square feet. If the impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more, then additional review
would be needed. There may be circumstances, including being located next to a critical area, which would
require additional review regardless of the impervious square footage.
Mr. Appleton responded to Mr. Huffman's comments. The NPDES Permit does allow a jurisdiction to use
the 1998 manual for parcels one acres or less. However, staff considered this and concluded there are two
reasons the city will not use the 1998 manual. The first is that the city code mandates the city use the most
current manual (namely the 2009) and the second is that due to budget and staffing, it would not be feasible
for the city to use two different manuals.
Commissioner Carlson commented that the NPDES Permit states that a jurisdiction cannot backslide;
meaning a jurisdiction cannot adopt regulations that would be less strict than their current regulations.
Currently the city does not distinguish between parcels of one acre or less and larger parcels. All parcels in
the city are subject to the same regulations. This means that if the city were to allow the use of the 1998
manual for parcels one acre or less, the city would be backsliding.
Ms. Piety read a letter into the record from Tim Osborne of the Lakehaven Utility District that asked for the
following edit/revision:
"FWRC 16.45. 030(4) - Water that leave... by this title. Lakehaven UtiUtv District Resolution.
Midwav Sewer District Resolution. and/or Code of the King County...in these situations."
They requested this edit/revision because it would identify the two agencies that have sanitary sewer systems
jurisdiction. King County only has onsite sewerage system (or septic) jurisdiction in Federal Way.
Commissioner Bronson commented that there are places in US law where an old manual may be used in place
of a newer one. For example, renovation of a building may be regulated using the manual it was built under
until such time it is demolished and any new building would be regulated by a new manual. Mr. Appleton
replied that the new manual does allow for renovation and redevelopment within limits.
Commissioners Bronson and Elder expressed their concern about how adoption ofthe 2009 manual may
affect homeowners with parcels of one acre or less. Chair Pfeifer asked if the 2009 manual could be updated
for parcels of one acre or less. Mr. Appleton replied that the state Department of Ecology (DOE) would have
to accept any amendments to the manual.
Commissioner Long asked how come some other jurisdictions can use both manuals. Commissioner Carlson
responded that it is his understanding that those jurisdictions already distinguish between parcels of one acre
or less and larger parcels, which means they can use both manuals without backsliding.
Some Commissioners expressed their confusion over the difference between the NPDES Permit and the
surface water manual. They requested that in the future, staffbe clearer on such distinctions at the beginning
of the meeting. They also expressed dismay that the city is basically being mandated by the state to approve
the new manual with very little room to make changes.
Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Association - He asked why not change the code? Also, the
comment was made that it might be confusing for developers to work with two different manuals,
but they should have no problem.
Peter Townsend, Federal Way Resident - He commented that he believes there are ways aroundethe requirement to use only the most current manual and staff is not willing to consider them.
K:IPlanning Commissionl2009IMeeting Summary 05-20-09.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
May 20,2009
Commissioner Long asked what would be the consequences if the city were to backslide and use both
manuals. Mr. Appleton replied that there could be 3rd party lawsuits, there are grants the city would be
ineligible for, and DOE could asses a daily fine.
Mr. Robinett commented that the proposed amendments are the minimum requirements the city must do in
order to comply with the NPDES Permit.
Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to accept the staff recommendation with the three
modifications outlined in this meeting and the Lakehaven Utility District's edit/revision. The motion carried
with five in favor and one opposed
Hearing no objections, the public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Ms. Clark stated there will be no Planning Commission meeting on June 3,2009. Staff is working on an item
for June 17th, but is not sure it will be ready in time, so there may be no meeting in June.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.rn.
K:IPlanning Commissionl2009IMeeting Summary 05-20-09.doc
my". A
Federal Way
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Public Hearing - July 1,2009
Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC)
Title 19, Zoning and Development Code
Division III. Mitigation and Fees
(File No. 09-102146-00-UP)
I. BACKGROUND
The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995 with Policy (TP85) which calls
for the implementation of a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) system to better assure consistency with
concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA).
TP 85 Develop a transportation impact fee by 2002 to simplify development review,
assess mitigation fees consistently andfairly, improve the City's ability to leverage grant
funding for transportation funding, and provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate new
growth.
The impact fees are mitigation payments authorized under GMA (RCW 82.02.050). The
Traffic Impact Fee would replace the existing code-based pro-rata fees, and create a more
systematic way for applying the fees and fulfill the Comprehensive Plan Policy TP85.
II. EXISTING MITIGATION PROGRAM
Currently, the City utilizes two methods to collect traffic mitigation fees; the concurrency
system and the City Center Planned Action. Under the concurrency system which was
adopted in June 2006, all development outside the Planned Action SEP A area that generates
new trips is required to contribute pro-rata share mitigation to Transportation Improvement
Plan (TIP) projects impacted by the development consistent with RCW 82.02.020. The
mitigation fees assessed are calculated on a case-by-case basis and vary from no mitigation to
over $5,900 per trip depending on the location of the development and projects on the TIP.
Under the concurrency system, the average pro-rata mitigation fee collected over the last two
year is approximately $2,729 per PM Peak Hour trip. For development within the City
Center Planned Action SEPA area, a set fee of $2,827 per trip has been established. All
development must pay the identified traffic mitigation fees prior to the issuance of a building
permit for commercial and multi-family projects and prior to plat recording for subdivision
projects. The funds from the traffic mitigation fees are used to support transportation
improvement projects listed in the City's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
III. PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
The proposed amendments would be a new code section, FWRC Title 19 "Zoning and
Development Code," Division III "Mitigation and Fees" requiring developers to mitigate
traffic impacts generated by new development to the city.
As mentioned above, under the current pro-rata share mitigation program, adopted in June
2006, fees for new development have varied from zero to $5,900 per trip depending on project
location. The proposed TIF would replace the existing pro-rata mitigation fee in the
concurrency code, create a more systematic way for applying the fees, and provide
predictability for the developers. The work involved with development of a TIP includes the
following important factors:
1. Forecast growth on the City's transportation network attributed to new traffic growth using
the Travel Demand model.
2. Identify transportation improvements, costs and existing deficiencies using adopted level of
service (LOS) thresholds.
3. Determine portion of costs attributed to future traffic growth in Federal Way.
4. Identify other revenues needed.
5. Established a maximum impact fee rate based on the trips generated by traffic growth and
the costs associated with the transportation improvement projects needed to support that
growth. The City Council may refine this fee taking into consideration fees charged by the
surrounding cities and the city's ability to fund the transportation improvement projects.
On October 21,2009, staff presented to the Council an overview of the City's current
mitigation program and the proposed impact fee program. On February 17,2009, staffreturned
to a Council study session to present the result of the study with a maximum allowable impact
fee rate of $9,800 per PM Peak Hour Trip and discuss policy direction. The result of the initial
study is presented in Table I below.
Table 1. FW TIF Program
Total CIP eligible Project Costs $320 Million
Number of eligible projects 35 Projects
Traffic Growth - New Peak Hour Trip Ends 13,974
Number of Years (Assumed) 23 Years
Estimate Fee Revenues - (with Maximum Rate of $9,800) $137 Million
Portion of Project paid by new development in Federal Way 43%
Maximum allowable Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip (Citywide)* $9,800
*The City Council may refine this fee taking into consideration fees charged by the surrounding cities
and the city's ability to fund the transportation improvement projects.
Council provided direction to continue refining the fee rate with consideration of the current
mitigation fee collected and impact fees from adjacent jurisdictions.
Following the Council study session, staff met with the development community (Permit
Stakeholders) in early March of 2009 to discuss approaches and the proposed impact fee rate as
presented to Council. The Stakeholders list is attached as Exhibit "A". As a result of these
2
processes, staff surveyed surrounding cities in Snohomish, King and Pierce County and produced a
comprehensive overview of all city impact fees.
Local Cities Experience with the TIF Collection Timin!! and Fee Rate
In South King County and North Pierce County, the City of Auburn, City of Puyallup, City of
Tukwila and City of Maple Valley all have imposed traffic impact fees on new development. Their
traffic impact fee ranges from $1,244 per trip up to $6,272. The chart below depicts the city's
current average pro-rata share mitigation fee along with adjacent cities impact fee. Of the cities
surveyed, majority or all collect impact fee at the building permit stage. A more detailed
comparison of impact fee rates and collection timing is attached as Exhibit "B" - Transportation
Impact Fee Rates for Cities in Snohomish, Pierce and King County.
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1 ,500
$1,000
$500
$-
$3,737
$3,769
Avg. Citywide
Concurrency
Mitigation
Avg.3
Counties
Avg. Cities in
KC
Avg. of larger
Cities with
25,000+ Pop.
Avg. of
Comparable
Cities
On May 6, 2009, staff retumed to the development community to present the staff recommended
impact fee rate between $2,729 to $3,578 per PM Peak Hour Trip and the following key issues:
· Citywide one zone system
. Adjustments/reduction up to 40 percent for qualified development within City Center
due to lower trip generation
· Collection of impact fee at building permit for all developments
The stakeholders recommended moving the TIP forward with an impact fee rate of $2,729 per PM
Peak Hour trip, modifying the collection timing to the Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) and defer
implementation to July 2010. Staff concurred with the recommended fee of $2,729 per PM trip as
this is the average pro-rata mitigation fee current collected. Based on the recommended rate of
$2,729 per PM trip, a rate schedule was developed and attached as Exhibit "C". The following are
examples of typical developments and their potential traffic mitigation under the TIP program.
3
T ffi F
ra Ie impact ee Example
Example Land Use Size PM Peak Trip Transportation Total Project
Generated Impact Fee Traffic
Rate Mitigation
Single Family I Unit 1.01 / Unit $3,112/ Unit $3,112
Multi-Family (Townhouse) 10 Units 0.62/ Unit $2,019/ Unit $2,019
Restaurant 4,000 sf GLA 0.00449/ sf $13.45/ sf $53,800
Restaurant (City Center) 4,000 sf GLA 0.00449/ sf $9.42/ sf $37,680
IV. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
The proposed amendments are as follows:
Exhibit "D" - Chapter 19.91 - Transportation Impact Fee. This is all new code language and is
not underlined.
Exhibit "E" - Chapter 19.90 - Transportation Concurrency Management. The following
sections would be amended:
Section 19.90.010 - "Trip Generation" definition is amended to read as follows:
"Trip Generation" means the number of peak hour trips estimated to be produced by the
development activity using Institute of =Haffie Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Section 19.90.130 Concurrency administration - Purpose and procedure.
Section (4) (j) is deleted entirely as it's not longer applicable with the TIF.
Section 19.90.140 (2) is amended to read as follows:
(2) Denial. If no appeal is transmitted to the director pursuant to FWRC 19.90.160 within +4
30 calendar days after issuance of the determination, the encumbrance shall be released and
made available for subsequent applications.
Section 19.90.160 is amended to read as follows:
The concurrency determination of the director may be appealed by the applicant or owner using
the same process as the underlying development permit application or as provided for in
process IV of this title if there is no underlying development permit. The appeal, in the form of
a notice of appeal, must be delivered to the department of public works within +4 JQ. calendar
days after issuance of the decision of the director. In those cases where the proposed
development activity may require a public hearing, the hearings may be combined.
Section 19.90.060 (2) is amended to read as follows:
(2) The following types of development permits are typically exempt from concurrency
management review and the requirements of this chapter because they do not create additional
long-term impacts on road facilities. However, if any development permit from the list below
generates any net new trips in the peak period, it shall not be exempt from concurrency
evaluation.
(a) Boundary line adjustment;
(b) Demolition permit;
(c) Electrical permit;
(d) Fire protection system permit;
(e) Tenant improvements with no change of use;
(f) Land surface modification;
4
(g) Lot line elimination;
(h) Mechanical permit;
(i) Plumbing permit;
(j) Right-of-way modification;
(k) Right-of-way use permit;
(1) Sign permit;
(m) Single-family remodeling with no change of use;
(n) Rezones;
(0) Comprehensi ve plan amendment;
(p) Shoreline permit;
(q) Commercial subdivisions;
(r) Accessorv Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(s) Binding Site Plan (BSP)
(t) Business License
(u) Use Process I
V. ANALYSIS OF KEY ISSUES
The proposed traffic impact fee if adopted would help to mitigate impacts created by new
development. This policy complies with the state's Growth Management Act (GMA) intent
that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities
needed to serve the new growth and development.
As referenced above, staff met with Permit Stakeholders twice and as a result of this process
recommendations/suggestion raised by the group were addressed and incorporated into the
proposed code with the exception of collection timing. The following are keys issues from the
group with staff responses:
How would the TIF affect existing applications (vested for TIF)?
Staff Response: Any development permits application with a concurrency application in
conjunction with a complete land use application would be vested to the current pro-rata
mitigation system.
Are there any land uses that are exempt from paying impact fee?
Staff Response: Yes, only structures constructed by a regional transit authority as define in
RCW 82.02.09. No other uses are exempt, which is consistent with current pro-rata mitigation
system.
How will change of use be handled?
Staff Response: The impact fee for change of use would be assessed based on the difference of
the fees between the uses.
Can the mixed use development reduction/adjustment proposed in City Center be used
elsewhere in the City?
Staff Response: Yes, with supporting documentation to be provided by the applicant.
In developing the impact fee rate, would the City provide average impact fee from other
jurisdictions for comparison?
Staff Response: In this area, the City of Auburn, City of Puyallup, City of Tukwila and City of
Maple Valley all have imposed traffic impact fees on new development. Their traffic impact
5
fee ranges from $1,244 per trip up to $6,272. Staff also considered other cities within the three
counties (King, Pierce and Snohomish County) that have a transportation impact fee rates. The
impact fee rate from all the cities in the three counties is attached (Exhibit B).
Would the City consider using the 6- Year TIP project list and not the CIP project list as a
based for the TIF calculation?
Staff Response: Yes. The consultant evaluated both options and provided staff with a cost per
trip with pros and cons for each. The maximum allowable cost per trip for the 6-Year TIP
project is $12,587 and $9,800 for the CIP. The 6-Year TIP project would be approximately
$2,787 per trip over the CIP (2030) project. Please see table below for calculations.
2015 TIP Z030 CIP
IProject Costs $161.6 M $320.3 M
Iv ears {) 23
~raffic Growth Trips 5,221 13,974
~ost Per PM Trip $12,587 $9,800
When would Impact Fee payment required?
Staff Response: Currently, mitigation fees are collected prior to building permit issuance for
commercial and multi-family projects and prior to plat recording for subdivision projects.
Under the proposed impact fee system, staff is proposing to have impact fee payable at
building permits issuance for all developments which is consistent with adjacent cities
collection method and as recommended by the consultant. Please see attachment of
Transportation Impact Fee Rates for Cities in Snohomish, King and Pierce County.
On May 6, 2009 meeting with the development community, the consensus among the
Stakeholders group was to have the impact fee payable at the issuance of a Certificates of
Occupancy (C/O) for all developments with the flexibility for director to modify on a case-by-
case basis. It is assumed that pushing the payment to the Certificates of Occupancy would
reduce the amount financed by the applicant to complete the project, thereby reducing finance
charges; and savings gained by the developer are then passed on to the end user.
Only two jurisdictions (Kitsap and Pierce Counties) within Washington have implemented
payment of impact fees after building permits issuance. Since then, these jurisdictions have
changed their collection timing due to default of impact fee payments. Pierce County repealed
their ordinance due to a 27 percent delinquency rate. Kitsap County changed their collection
point to final inspection instead of Certificate of Occupancy due to high delinquency rates.
The Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorneys Office is currently exploring ways of collecting
unpaid impact fees.
The following are list of potential pros and cons for each of collection timing method:
Building Permits Issuance
Pros:
6
I. Consistent with most or all of cities with impact fee program
2. Minimal staff time to administer with high collection rate without institutional
enforcement
3. Predictability as impact fee would be assessed and payable at the same time
Cons:
I. May add financing cost for development due to financing charges
Certificate of Occupancy (C/O)
Pros:
1. May lower financing cost for development
2. Timing of payment of fee coincides with timing of actual impacts
Cons:
I. Staff may be pressured to grant Certificate of Occupancy to projects that are
completed with the exception of fee payment.
2. Projects often change hands during the construction process and the end user may
not realize that fees are tied to Certificate of Occupancy.
3. Increase staff time devoted to tracking deferred fees and delinquent collection
acti vi ty
4. High delinquency rate as demonstrated in Pierce and Kitsap County
5. Impact fee may be higher at time of collection than at building permit issuance
VI. Environmental Review
Pursuant to WAC 197 -11-800( 19), the proposed amendments are categorically exempt from
review under the State Environmental Policy Act as it relates to governmental procedures and
contains no substantive standards respecting use or modification of the environment.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the code amendment attached as Exhibit "D" and fee schedule as
Exhibit "C" be recommended for approval to the City Council. Due to current economic
climate and the potential perception that the TIF would be a new fee in addition to, rather than
a replacement for the current pro-rata mitigation system, staff proposes to defer
implementation to July 1,2010.
VIII. BASIS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
FWRC Title 19 "Zoning and Development" Chapter 19.80 "Process VI Review" establishes a
process and criteria for development regulation amendments. Consistent with Process VI review,
the role of the Planning Commission is as follows:
1. To review and evaluate the proposed development regulation amendments.
2. To determine whether the proposed development regulation amendment meets the criteria
provided by FWRC 19.80.130
3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed
development regulation amendment.
7
IX. DECISIONAL CRITERIA
FWRC 19.80.130 provides criteria for development regulation amendments. The following
section analyzes the compliance of the proposed amendments with the criteria provided by
FWRC 19.80.130. The City may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan.
The proposed FWRC text amendment is consistent with the following Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) goals and policies:
LUP-6 Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to detennine how to
improve upon the permit review process.
TP 85 Develop a transportation impactfee by 2002 to simplify development review,
assess mitigationfees consistently andfairly, improve the City's ability to
leverage grant funding for transportation funding, and provide adequate
infrastructure to accommodate new growth.
HP-8 Consider the economic impact of all development regulations on the cost of
housing.
2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety,
or welfare.
The proposed amendment bears substantial relationship to public health, safety, and
welfare as it seeks to ensure funding for capital projects in meeting concurrency and
provide development with predictability, consistency and fairness in assessing traffic
impact thus may reduce finance charges to the developer. Consistency and predictability
for developers may encourage new development bringing new jobs and providing more
economic activity in the city.
3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City.
The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city as its intent is to
have new development pay a proportionate share 'of the cost of new facilities needed to
serve new growth, ensure funding for capital projects to meet concurrency needs and
provide predictability, consistency and fairness to the developers in assessing development
impact fees.
X. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Consistent with the provisions ofFWRC 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take the
following actions regarding the proposed development regulation amendments:
I. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as proposed;
2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments to reflect the Permit Stakeholders
preference for Impact Fee collection prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy,
and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as
modified;
8
3. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to City Council
adoption of the FWCC text amendments as modified;
4. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be
adopted; or
5. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to City Council without a
recommendation.
EXHIBITS
A - Stakholders Distribution List Name
B - Transportation Impact Fee Rates for Cities in Snohomish, Pierce, and King County
C - Federal Way Impact Fee Components and Schedule
D - Chapter 19.91 Transportation Impact Fees
E - Chapter 19.90 Transportation Concurrency Management
Report Prepared by:
Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
9
Exhibit "A"
Stakeholders Distribution List Name
Members:
Ann Dower ann.dower@cityoffederalway.com
Bob Cooper bobc@lloydenterprisesinc.com
Cary Roe cary.roe@cityoffederalway.com
Chris Carrel chinook@hylebos.org
Connie Boyle connie.boyle@colliers.com
Dan Biles danb@soundbuilthomes.com
Daria Morin darlam@harsch.com
Dave Matafin dave.matafin@southkingfire.org
Dini Duclos dini.duclos@cityoffederalway.com
Don Perry dperry@lakehaven.org
Eric Faison eric.faison@cityoffederalway.com
Garrett Huffman ghuffman@mbaks.com
Gary Martindale gmartindale@tcafw.com
Gil Hulsmann gilh@abbeyroadgroup.com
Greg Fewins Greg.Fewins@cityoffederalway.com
Haynes Lund haynes.1und@opus-ae_corn
Heidi Swartz hpswartz@comcast.net
Isaac Conlen isaac.conlen@cityoffederalway.com
Jack Dovey jack.dovey@cityoffederalway.com
James Pate jamesp@harsch.com
Jeanne Burbidge iccumc.burbidge(f!)cityoffederaJway.com
Jeffret P.K. Hee Jeffh@tsinw.com
Jennifer Dovey jsdovey@windemere.com
Jerry Heinz jerry.heinz@weyerhaeuser.com
Jim Ferrell jim.ferrell@cityoffederalway.com
John Bowmanjbowman@lakehaven.org
Jon Potter lPotter936@aol.com
Jon Nelson JWN@deaInc.com
Ken Miller Ken.Miller@cityoffederalway.com
Kurt Wilson kurt@soundbuilthomes.com
Larry Petersonlarry.peterson@esmcivi1.com
Lee Bailey Lee.Bailey@cityoffederalway.com
Linda Kochmar lkochmar@lakehaven.org
Linda Kochmar linda.kochmar@cityoffederalway.com
Mark Clirehugh markc@gvakm.com
Marwan Salloum marwan.salloum@cityoffederalway.com
Mike Kerschner mkerschner@aspenpropertiesnw.com
Mike Park michae1.park@cityoffederalway.com
Paul L ymberis paul.lymberis@quadranthomes.com
Paul Manzer pmanzer@pacland.com
Randy Lloyd randyl@lloydenterprisesinc.com
Rick Olson RickOlson@fbsheaIth.org
Rick Perez rick.perez@cityoffederalway.com
Rob Aigner roba@harsch.com
Rod Leland rleland@fwps.org
Ron Biesold ron.biesold@southkingfire.onr
Ryan Healy OPUS NW Contractors
Sheppard Cutler swc@fishersons.com
Sid White swhite@fwps.org
Steve Kelly ~.~~y.!;Jf!;Jly'g,t~:~[l}.~i:dL~Q.m
Steve Nolen Transportation Solution Inc.
Todd Suchan tsuchan@wildwaves.com
Tom Pierson tomp@federalwaychamber.com
Tom Raymond tom.raymond@southkingfire.org
Wes Hill whill @lakehaven.org
William Appleton :~y.mi[~m::iullJ~~.m~.~~:si~ygEf.~9.~.r.~h~:~'y.sgm
:t
c
:r
0
U
D'
C
~
'0
C
III
OJ"
U
...
OJ
~
..
.c
.It!
E
0
.c
0
c
CO \I)
: .5
- !II
.c OJ
~
.c U
>< ...
w .e
!II
8
~
OJ
OJ
U.
1:;
III
Cl.
E
....
c
.2
...
~
0
Cl.
!II
C
l!
I-
ca
>
e
a.
a.
ct!
]i
0..
ca
c
u::
D' ~
C c
- ct!
!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
C ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID
00..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0.. 0..
~ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~o
OJ .S.s .S.S.S.S.S.S.S.s .S.S.S.S.S.S.s .S.s .S.s .S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.-.s
=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0'5'5'5'5 '5'5'5'5'5'5 '5'5'5'5 '5'5 '5'5'5 '5'5 '5'5 '5'5'5 '5'5'5 ~'S
urnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrno..rn
Cl.
:E 'C
Cl.1-
"'M m MmMm~~~ww~ ~ov~MMomovw~mmm
"':rwWmoom~vMoooo~~~woo~vmwov~M~~o~oom~
!o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...~~~~~M~~V~MW~MOO~~~~~~vvvm~~v~MM~
!II~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o III
U OJ
Do.
C
o
~
III .
~ogooooooooo ooooooo~oo~~ooooooo
Cl.ONM~~OO~NN-OO~NNOO~NOO~ON~~N__M~~~~
~,~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~
oo~~_~~_~oooooo ,_ooo~ooo '~ " " '~ ,_~o
Cl.~-_M_N_NN~N ~~~~N__~_~~~~~M~M-~
GO -
o
o
N
.........
Q)
Ol
~ Q)
~ u
~ Q) ~
........l{3 ~ ~ Q) ~ ..... Cl..
gC~~Q) ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B ~c~
c~- ~~~ro""'~> ~gcrourocc>>o ..... ~~~O~
~>W~~~E~~~~c~EOE~'~~~~~~ ~c~c~~o
~~~~~~~roc~o.S~~~Ero~o~CUOlQ) S>E~SE
_~Q)o~oQ)c~Q)~ro=Q)Q)Q)roQ)~g~o~~~~=~~c~~
U~mmmuow~~~~~z~~~~~>~mmw~~~Cl..~~~W
.l::~
~ ~
'E 'E
c Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)oo
:rOOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOl~~~~~~~~~~~~
8QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ~~~~~~~~~~~~
ca Cti_ ca
-ro
> c... > >
0 ca e 0
..... .....
0. .~ 0. 0.
0. LLo. 0.
ro ro ro
Cti Ol...... Cti
.5 ro
c... "O- n::
.....c...
ca 0- ca
u ro
c Q) .~ c
IT: a:LL IT:
"0 "0 "0 "0
C C C c
ro ro ro ro
..... ::::~::::::::::::-.....
E EEEEE EE
\... \..."-"-"-'- '-'-
Q) Q)Q)Q)Q)Q) Q)Q)
c... c...c...c...c...c... c...c...
0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l
C .~ .~ C C C C C .S c c
32"0"03232323232"03232
._ c c ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ C __ ._
::JQ)Q)::J::J::J::J::JQ)::J::J
III c...c...1ll1ll1ll III 1llc...1ll1ll
0(')0)0) L{)<O<OC\JO)
O)L{)L{)I"-(')L{)I"-I"-(').....I"-N
g <0 C\!. ~ ~ 1"-. ~ CO. ~. ~ C\J. C\!.
Y7Y7~~~~Y7~~~~~
gooOOOOOOLt'lO
M....O'I\DI"-Lt'lMLt'lN'<:t"Lt'l
. N N O. 1"-. LI1. 0'1. O. 0 '<:t" Lt'l
N..I"-I"-\DOO...
;::NMM........NNO'ILt'l'<:t"
Q)
U
CO
.....
~
J!! 0-
m Q)~ Q) ~"C
.....I.L.=Q) ~O'-O
:t::,!;! !L!'> Q) Q).!2 Q) E 0
Q)......-Ul.....O..........03:c
....."C 'c ."..u ..... C =.!:: C CO
Q)_COL_C::J~O .:!:
>O.....CO=OO::Jc.19::J
W(,9(,9~~~~~U)U)U)
J::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::J::
Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul
'E 'E 'E 'E 'E 'E 'E 'E 'E 'E 'E
o 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0
.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::.!::
0000000 0 0 0 0
CCCCCCCCCCC
U)U)U)U)U)U)U)U)U)U)U)
Exhibit "C"
Federal Way Impact Fee Components and Schedule
Basic New Avg.Trlp Trip
Land Use rre Land Use Un~ of Trip New Trip Trip Length Length Impact Fee Impact Fee
Code Measure Rate % Rate (miles) Adjust- Rate Rate
ment
Cost Per Trio End 3.1 $2.729 $2.729
eslaenttal
male Familv COetache dwellina lUll" 0 7T' 3.
Muttj-Family 220,221,230. dwelling 0.62 100% 0.62 3.7 1.19 $2.019.46 $2,019
233
emar Housm ~~ dwellinn 1 00 .1
001 e Home In MH Park 240 dwellin 10000 1.5~ 2. 0.9( $.' ,404.2S $1,454
ommfJrc a/. Services
rive-In ank 1 s I FA 00 $
Ole 1 room 00
ate room .0 $. . $
av are enter sllUFA .0
j ra sl FA 0
os un ice sl FA .1 .0 $8'~
ervlce sta Ion VFP .0
arvtee a lonw IOtmart sl/GFA .0
D (jara enter 5 I LA ..
QVIS ea er seal .
ea 4~~, 493 sl/GFA .0 $I.~~I $I.~~
omm9rc . institutional
emen a c 00 st/GFA
I r I c 00 sf/GFA .1 .0
I c 00 51 FA .0
SSIS e IVlno, Nurslna Home 25 bed .0 $0
urch sllGFA .0
osoita 1 51 FA .0
ommerclal. Restaurant
as aurant 1 931 51 FA .0 $1~.451 $1 ~.4~
lah urnover Res aurant I sl/uFA I 60% 6.691 2.31 0.741 $1~.551 $1~.5~
as 00 as auran I ~H I sl/GFA I 0
soresso With unve-Throuah I 5 I FA 1 20% 15.001 2.01 0.651 $~6.411 $~6.4'
ommerc/al- Re oPPJnQ
ooolna L enter sl A ~~ '0% 2. 2. 0.6A $5.0 $5.0'
uperman<et 85( stlGFA 10. 10% 1.88 0.68 $14.~ $l'.ot
onvemence Market sllUFA ~~. "'15% "23:5fl 1. 0.42 $~6.9S
Free Standing Discount Store 813,815,857. sllGFA 4.67 70% 3.27 2.1 0.68 $6.04 $6.04
863. 864
ar ware /Pain ore 51/ FA .0
.peclaltv e all venter 5 I FA .0 $~.O~
urnrture ore 5 I FA 0
orne m rovemen uoers ore 5 ~A .. $~.O/l
armac w nve- I hrouan 5 .0 ./41
ar aes - ew se 51 FA .0 $1.301
ommercla .on,es
anera Ice I sllGFA I 1= .0
e lea Ice 12( I sllGFA I .0
n usr.a
I n us an ae unn ,. 40 sl/GFA .0
eav n US!rv sf/GFA .0
n us r lal Park 5 I FA .0 -
Inl- arehouse/Stora e st/UFA .0 -
are ousln 51 FA 0 -
City Center Impact Fee Rates
es en a
Mutti-Family (CC)
entor OUSIn
ommerc - erv Ces
rIVe-in an 5 I FA .0
a are en er 5 I FA 0
ra S I FA .0
os Ice sl/GFA .0
oVle ea er se I ..
ea 51 FA .0 .1
ommerc estaurant
es uran 511 FA .0
I urnover es auran sllGFA .1 .0
as 00 es aurant 5 I FA .0
ommerc a . ea 0 n
0 In en er 5 I LA 00
u erma e 511 FA .0
armac w nve- rou s
ommerc a - ce
enera Ice 0 sllGFA .0
e lea Ice 2 s I FA .0
City Center
Impact Fee
Rate
$1 ,454
.. 14.32
0 11.52
o. 5.73
.0 8.74
.. 84.
.0 5.06
.4 .0 9.42
.0 9.4
.0 20.
.0 3, 1
.0 10.19
5.42
.0 2.
.1 .. 5.
Nutt"s:
GfA = Gmss flour Arei'l
GLA = (imss Lt";to;abl<!' Area
CC = City- Ct'ntt'T
FuruSt"s with Unit of Mt'i'lsure in sf? trip ntt'is giwn as trips pt-rl,OOO sF
V Fl' = V<!'hid.t' fut'ling "t,sitilms (Maximum numbt'r elf vt'hidt's that can bt' fut'lt'd ...imulta1\t'ously)
Sections:
19.91.030
19.91.040
19.91.050
19.91.060
19.91.070
19.91.080
19.91.090
19.91.100
19.91.110
19.91.120
19.91.130
19.91.140
19.91.150
19.91.160
19.91.170
19.91.180
19.91.190
19.91.200
19.91.210
Exhibit "0"
Chapter 19.91
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
Findings and authority
Definitions
Transportation Impact Fees Methodology
Assessment of Impact Fees
Independent Fee Calculations
Exemptions
Credits
Adjustments
Establishment of Impact Fee Account
Authorization for interlocal agreements
Administrative Guidelines
Refunds
Use of Funds
Periodic Adjustment of Rate
Administrative Fees
Appeals
Existing authority unimpaired
Relationship to State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA)
Relationship to Concurrency
1 Transportation Impact Fees
19.91.010 Title. This code shall be hereinafter known as the City of
Federal Way transportation impact fee (TIF).
19.91.020 Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this
chapter is for the collection of impact fees for streets and roads, and
providing for certain other matters in connection therewith.
19.91.030 Findings and authority. The City Council of the City of
Federal Way hereby finds and determines that development activities,
including but not limited to new residential, commercial, retail, office, and
industrial development in the City of Federal Way will create additional
demand and need for public facilities in the City, and the Council finds that
such new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the
cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. The
City of Federal Way has conducted extensive research and analysis
documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments
on public facilities, has prepared the "Rate Study for Transportation Impact
Fees, City of Federal Way" dated February 2009 ("Rate Study"), and
incorporates that Rate Study into this title by this reference. The Rate Study
utilizes a methodology for calculating impact fees that fulfills all of the
requirements of RCW 82.02.060(1). A copy of the Rate Study shall be kept
on file with the City Clerk and is available to the public for review. Therefore,
pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the Council adopts this title to assess
impact fees for streets and roads. The provisions of this title shall be
liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the Council in
establishing the impact fee program.
19.91.040 Definitions. The following words and terms shall have
the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter, unless the context
clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be
defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090, or given their usual and customary
2 Transportation Impact Fees
meaning.
A. Applicant means a person who applies for a building permit under this
article and who is the owner of the subject property or the authorized agent
of the property owner.
B. Building Permit means an official document or certification which is
issued by the building official and which authorizes the construction,
alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling,
rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or
structure.
C. Capital Facilities Plan means the capital facilities element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A and such plan as
amended.
D. Council means the City Council of the City.
E. Department means the City's Department of Public Works.
F. Development Activity means any work, condition, or activity which
requires a permit or approval under the city's subdivision, zoning, or building
code. Exempt permits are set forth in FWRC 19.91.080.
G. Development Approval means any written authorization from the City
authorizing the commencement of a development activity or use.
H. Director means the Director of the Department of Public Works of the
City of Federal Way or her/hiS designee
1. Encumbered means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the
impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or
other liabilities incurred for public facilities.
J. Hearing Examiner means the hearing examiner operating pursuant to
3
Transportation Impact Fees
the powers and duties set forth by Chapter 2.20 FWRC.
K. Impact fee means a payment of money imposed by the City of Federal
Way on development activity pursuant to this title as a condition of granting
development approval. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit
fee, an application fee, the administrative fee for collecting and handling
impact fees, or the cost of reviewing independent fee calculations.
L. Independent Fee Calculation means the street and road impact
calculation, and/or economic documentation prepared by a applicant, to
support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the rates
listed in the fee schedule, or the calculations prepared by the Director where
none of the fee categories or fee amounts in the traffic impact fee in the fee
schedule accurately describe or capture the impacts of the development
activity on public facilities.
M. Interest means the average interest rate earned in the last fiscal year
by the City of Fedederal Way.
N. ITE Land Use Code means the classification code number assigned to a
type of land use by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the latest
Edition of Trio Generation.
O. (CITY CODE SECTION) means the City of Federal Way Revised Code
or, when followed by a numerical designation, a provision of the FWRC Code.
P. P.M. Peak Hour means the highest volume of traffic for a continuous
hour between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Q. P.M. Peak Hour Trips means the total vehicular trips entering and
leaving a place of new development activity on the adjacent public road or
street during the p.m. peak hour.
R. Project Improvements mean site improvements and facilities that are
planned and designed to provide service for a particular development project
4 Transportation Impact Fees
and are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of
the project, and are not system improvements. No improvement or facility
included in a capital facilities plan adopted by the Council shall be considered
a project improvement.
S. Public Facilities, for purposes of this chapter, means the following
capital facilities owned or operated by the City of Federal Way or other
governmental entities: public streets and roads.
T. Rate Study means the "Rate Study for Transportation Impact Fees,"
City of Federal Way, by Fehr & Peers / Mirai, dated February 2009.
U. Residential or Residential Development means all types of construction
intended for human habitation. This shall include, but is not limited to,
single-family, duplex, triplex, and other multifamily development.
V. RCW means the Revised Code of Washington or, when followed by a
numerical designation, a provision of the Revised Code of Washington.
W. Square Footage means the square footage of the gross floor area of
the development as defined in FWRC.
X. Street or Road means a public right-of-way and all related
appurtenances, which enables motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicycles, and
pedestrians to travel between destinations, and affords the principal means
of access to abutting property, including avenue, place, way, drive, lane,
boulevard, highway, street, and other thoroughfare. For purposes of this
chapter, public streets and roads are collectively referred to as
"transportation. "
Y. System Improvements means public facilities that are included in the
City of Federal Way's capital facilities plan, and such plan as amended, and
are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at
large, in contrast to project improvements.
5 Transportation Impact Fees
Z Transportation means public streets and roads and related
appurtenances.
AA. Transportation Impact Fee A cco un t(s) means the account(s)
established for the transportation impact fees that are collected. The
account(s) shall be established pursuant to FWRC 19.91.110, and shall
comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070.
19.91.050 Transportation Impact Fees Methodology and
Applicability. The transportation impact fee rates are generated from the
formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the Rate Study, which is on
file with the Public Works Department. Except as otherwise provided for
independent fee calculations in FWRC 19.91.070, exemptions in FWRC
19.91.080, and credits in FWRC 19.91.090, all new development activity in
the City will be charged the transportation impact fee applicable to the type
of development as set forth in the Traffic Impact Fee in the current Fee
Schedule.
19.91.060 Assessment of Impact Fees.
A. The City shall collect impact fees, based on the land use categories
and rates on the current Fee Schedule, from any applicant seeking
development permits from the City where such development activity requires
the issuance of a building permit or approval for a change in use, except for
development exempt under FWRC 19.91.080. This shall include, but is not
limited to, the development of residential, commercial, retail, office, and
industrial land, and includes the expansion of existing uses that creates a
demand for additional system improvements as well as a change in existing
use that creates a demand for additional system improvements. The public
works department is authorized to determine the appropriate land use
category found in the rate schedule applies to the application.
6 Transportation Impact Fees
B. All impact fees shall be due and payable prior to issuance of the
building permit or at the time of permit approval for a change in land use
when no building permit is required based on the land use categories on the
Fee Schedule. Unless the use of an independent fee calculation has been
approved, or unless a development agreement entered into pursuant to RCW
36.70B.170 provided otherwise, the fee shall be calculated based on the
impact fee schedule in effect at the time a completed building permit
application is filed. For a change in use for which no building permit is
required, the fee shall be calculated based on the impact fee schedule in
effect on the date of payment of the impact fee.
C. The public works department shall establish the traffic impact fee rate
for a land use that is not listed in the fee schedule. The applicant shall
submit all information requested by the City for purposes of determining the
impact fee rate pursuant to FWRC 19.91.070.
D. For a change in use of an existing building or dwelling unit, including
any alteration, expansion, replacement or new accessory building that
generate additional trips, the impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for
the land use category of the new use, less any impact fee previously paid for
the land use category of the prior use. If no impact fee was paid for the prior
use, the impact fee for the new use shall be reduced by an amount equal to
the current impact fee rate of the current use.
E. For mixed use developments, impact fees shall be imposed for the
proportionate share of each land use based on the applicable measurement
in the traffic impact fee rates set forth in the fee schedule.
F. The Community Development Department shall not issue the required
building permit until the traffic impact fees set forth in the fee schedule have
been paid as set forth in the fee schedule or in the amounts that they exceed
any credits allowable under this chapter. For a change in use where a
7 Transportation Impact Fees
building permit is not required, the applicant shall' not occupy or permit a
tenant to occupy the subject property unless and until the impact fee has
been paid.
19.91.070 Independent Fee Calculations.
A. If in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee
amounts set forth in foregoing section of this title accurately describes or
captures the impacts of a new development on roads, the department may
conduct independent fee calculations and the director may impose alternative
fees on a specific development based on those calculations.
B. The applicant may opt not to have the impact fees determined
according to the fee structure in the traffic impact fee schedule listed in the
City Fee Schedule, in which case the applicant shall prepare and submit to
the director an independent fee calculation for the development activity for
which a development permit is being sought. The documentation submitted
shall be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer and shall show the basis upon
which the independent fee calculation was made using procedures consistent
with those established in the Trip Generation Handbook, current edition, by
the institute of Transportation Engineers. An independent fee calculation
shall use the same methodology used to establish impact fees set forth in the
traffic impact fee schedule, shall be limited to adjustments in trip generation
rates and lengths used in the Rate Study, and shall not include travel
demand forecasts, trip distribution, transportation service areas, costs of
road projects, or cost allocation procedures.
C. The applicant submitting an independent fee calculation will be
required to pay the City of Federal Way a fee to cover the cost of reviewing
the independent fee calculation. The fee required by the City for conducting
the review of the independent fee calculation shall be charged on an hourly
rate as adopted by council at the time of the submittal.
8
Transportation Impact Fees
D. There is a rebuttable presumption that the calculations set forth in the
Rate Study and the fee set forth in the traffic impact fee in the fee schedule
are valid. The director shall consider the documentation submitted by the
applicant, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which
the director reasonably deems to be inapplicable, inaccurate or not reliable.
The director may require the applicant to submit additional or different
documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the
impact fees on a case-by-case basis based on the independent fee
calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or principles
of fairness.
E. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may be
appealed as set forth in FWRC 19.91.180.
19.91.080 Exemptions.
A. Except as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the
payment of all impact fees:
1. Alteration or replacement of an existing nonresidential structure
that does not expand the usable space, add any residential units or generate
any additional p.m. peak trips.
2. Miscellaneous improvements which do not generate increased
p.m. peak trips, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, residential
swimming pools, and signs;
3. Demolition or moving of a structure when additional p.m. peak
hour trips are not generated.
4. A change of use that does not generate one or more p.m. peak
hour trips.
5. Miscellaneous permits such as Electrical, Fire Protection System,
Mechanical, Plumbing, Right-of-way use, Shoreline and sign permits which do
not generate any new trips.
9
Transportation Impact Fees
6. Rezones, Comprehensive plan amendments, Land surface
modifications, Commercial subdivisions, Boundary line adjustment and Lot
line eliminations, which does not generate any trips.
7. Structures constructed by regional transit authority as define in
RCW 82.02.09.
8. Any development permit application that has been submitted to
the City before 5:00 p.m. the business day before the effective date of this
chapter and subsequently determined to be a complete land use application
conjunction with a concurrency application, based on the information on file
as of the effective date of this chapter.
B. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular
development activity falls within an exemption identified in this FWRC
19.91.080 or under other applicable law. Determinations of the director shall
be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in FWRC 19.91.180.
19.91.090 Credits
A. An applicant may request that a credit or credits for impact fees be
awarded to him/her for the total value of system improvements, including
dedications of land, improvements and/or construction provided by the
applicant. Credits will be given only if the land, improvements, and/or the
facility constructed are:
1. For one or more of the transportation projects listed in the Rate
Study as the basis for calculating the impact fee.
B. The director shall determine if requests for credits meet the criteria in
subsection A, above or under other applicable law. Determinations of the
director shall be subject to the appeals procedure set forth in FWRC
19.91.180.
C. Each request for a credit or credits shall include a legal description of
the dedicated land, a detailed description of improvements or construction
10 Transportation Impact Fees
provided, and a legal description or other adequate description of the
development to which the credit will be applied.
D. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall determine
the value of the dedicated land, improvements, or construction on a case-by-
case basis. In the event that the applicant disagree with the director's
valuation, the applicant may submit an appraisal for the director's
consideration, prepared by a state certified MAl (Member of the American
Institute of Appraisers) or licensed engineer and be licensed in good standing
pursuant to RCW 18.40 et.seq., in the category for the property to be
appraised, and shall not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property
being appraised.
E. The appraiser and/or licensed engineer shall be directed to determine
the fair market value of the total value of the dedicated land, improvements,
and/or construction provided by the applicant. The applicant shall pay for the
actual costs for the appraisal.
F. After receiving and reviewing the appraisal, the director will determine
the dollar amount of any credit, the basis for the credit, the legal description
of the real property dedicated where applicable, and the legal description or
other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit
may be applied with issuance of the building permit. If the total value of any
such dedication, improvement or construction cost exceeds the amount of
the impact fee obligation, the developer will not be entitled to reimbursement
of the difference.
G. No credit shall be given for project improvements or right-or-way
dedications for direct access improvements to and/or within the subject
development above and beyond what is proposed in the capital facilities plan.
H. Any claim for credit must be made before payment of the impact fee
and prior to the issuance of the building permit or a permit for a change in
use. The failure to timely file such a claim shall constitute a final bar to later
11 Transportation Impact Fees
request any such credit.
1. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this chapter shall be
subjected to the appeals procedures set forth in FWRC 19.91.180.
J. No impact fee for a specific development shall be increased or
decreased once said fee has been paid.
19.91.100 Adjustments.
Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the
Rate Study has provided adjustments for future taxes to be paid by the
development activity which are earmarked or pro-ratable to the same new
public facilities which will serve the new development. The traffic impact fee
rates in the fee schedule have been reasonably adjusted for taxes and other
revenue sources which are anticipated to be available to fund public
improvements.
19.91.110 Establishment of Impact Fee Account.
A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in a
special interest-bearing account.
B. The City shall establish a separate impact fee account for the fees
collected pursuant to this chapter: Transportation Impact Fee Account.
Funds withdrawn from the account must be used in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter and applicable state law. Interest earned on the
fees shall be retained in the account and expended for the purposes for
which the impact fees were collected.
C. On an annual basis, the finance director shall provide a report to the
Council on the transportation impact fee account showing the source and
amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and the public
improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees.
12 Transportation Impact Fees
Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within six (6) years of receipt,
unless the Council identifies in written findings of extraordinary and
compelling reasons for the City to hold the fees beyond the six (6) year
period. Under such circumstances, the Council shall establish the period of
time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered.
19.91.120. Authorization for interlocal agreement.
The city manager is authorized to execute, on behalf of the city, an interlocal
agreement with other agencies having authority over transportation facilities
to identify impacts and provide mitigation for those impacts. In no case shall
mitigation payments to the city be reduced to account for mitigation
payments to other jurisdictions.
19.91.130 Administrative Guidelines. The Public Works Director
is hereby authorized to adopt internal guidelines for the administration of
transportation impact fees, which may include the adoption of a procedures
guide for transportation impact fees.
19.91.140 Refunds
A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six (6)
years of when the fees were paid, or where extraordinary or compelling
reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to 19.91.110,
the current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may
receive a refund of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been
expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or
encumbered on a first in, first out basis.
B. The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited
with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such
claimants. A potential claimant or claimants must be the owner of record of
13 Transportation Impact Fees
the real property against which the impact fee was assessed.
C. Property owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written
request for a refund of the fees to the director within one (1) year of the date
the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever
is later.
D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made
within this one-year period shall be retained by the City and expended on the
appropriate system improvements.
E. Refunds of impact fees or offsets against subsequent impact fees
under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the
City.
F. When the City seeks to terminate any or all components of the impact
fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds from any terminated
component or components, including interest earned, shall be refunded
pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements
are to be terminated, the City shall place notice of such termination and the
availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2)
times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail at the last
known address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be
retained for a period of one (1) year after the second publication. At the end
of one (1) year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the City, but must
be expended for the appropriate public facilities. This notice requirement
shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within
the account or accounts being terminated.
G. The City shall also refund to the current owner of property for which
impact fees have been paid all impact fees paid, including interest earned on
the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were
imposed did not occur; provided, however, that, if the City has expended or
14 Transportation Impact Fees
encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a
refund, the director can decline to provide the refund. If within a period of
three (3) years, the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with
the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner can
petition the director for an offset in the amount of the fee originally paid and
not refunded. The petitioner must provide receipts of impact fees previously
paid for a development activity of the same or substantially similar nature on
the same real property or some portion thereof. The director shall determine
whether to grant an offset, and the determinations of the director may be
appealed pursuant to the procedure in Section 19.91.180.
19.91.150 Use of Funds.
A. Pursuant to this title, transportation impact fees:
1. Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably
benefit the new development activity;
2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in public
facilities; and
3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operation.
B. Transportation impact fees may be spent for public improvements to
streets and roads as herein defined and, including, but not limited to,
transportation planning, engineering design studies, land survey, right-of-
way acquisition, site improvements, necessary off-site improvements,
engineering, architectural, permitting, financing, administrative expenses,
construction of streets and roads and related facilities such as curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, bike lanes, storm drainage and installation of traffic signals, signs
and street lights, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any other
expenses which can be capitalized.
C. Transportation impact fees may also be used to recoup system
improvement costs previously incurred by the City to the extent that new
growth and development will be served by the previously constructed
improvements or incurred costs.
15 Transportation Impact Fees
D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been
issued for the advanced provision of public improvements for which impact
fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such
bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or
improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section
and are used to serve the new development.
19.91.160 Periodic Adjustment of Rates.
A. The traffic impact fee in the fee schedule will be amended to reflect
changes to the twenty-year transportation project list as part of adoption of
amendments to the capital facilities element of the City's comprehensive
plan. Amendment to the schedule for this purpose shall be adopted by the
council.
B. The traffic impact fee in the fee schedule shall be indexed to provide
for an automatic fee increase each January 1st beginning in the year 2011. A
three-year moving average of the Washington State Department of
Transportation Construction Cost Index will be used to determine the
increase in fees for each year to reflect increased project costs.
C. A new rate study, which established the traffic impact fee in the fee
schedule, shall be updated every three years, unless the city determines that
circumstances have not changed to warrant an update.
19.91.170 Administrative Fees.
A. There shall be a fee for the administration of the Transportation
Impact Fee Program in an amount equal to three percent (3%) of the
amount of the total traffic impact fee determined from the fee schedules.
The administrative fee shall be deposited into an administrative fee account
within the transportation impact fee funds. Administrative fees shall be used
to defray the cost incurred by the City in the administration and update of
16 Transportation Impact Fees
the transportation impact fee program. The administrative fee is not
creditable or refundable.
B. The administrative fee, in addition to the impact fee, shall be paid by
the applicant at the same time as the impact fee.
19.91.180 Review by Director and Appeals.
A. The applicant may pay the impact fees imposed by this title under
protest so that the building permit, or a change in use when no building
permit is required. No appeal shall be permitted until the impact fees at
issue have been paid.
B. Requests for review regarding the impact fees imposed on any
development activity may be filed only by the applicant for the development
activity at issue.
C. The applicant must first file a request for review regarding impact fees
with the director, as provided herein:
1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the City;
2. The request for review by the director shall be filed within
fourteen (14) calendar days after the applicant's payment of the impact fee
at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar
to later seek such review;
3. No administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review
by the director; and
4. The director shall issue his/her determination in writing.
D. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the
impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a
credit, or the director's decision concerning the independent fee calculation
which is authorized in Sect. 19.91.070, or any other determination which the
director is authorized to make pursuant to this title, may be appealed by the
applicant or owner using the same process as the underlying development
permit application or process I of Chapter 19 FWRC if there is no underlying
development permit, substituting the director of public works for the director
17 Transportation Impact Fees
of community development. The appeal, in the form of a letter of appeal,
must be delivered to the department of community development within 14
calendar days after issuance of the decision of the director. In those cases
where the proposed development activity may require a public hearing under
the authority of other chapters of this code, the hearings may be combined.
For example, if the underlying development permit application is a
preliminary plat, the appeal shall be heard at the preliminary plat public
hearing.
19.91.190 Existing Authority Unimpaired.
Nothing in this title shall preclude the City from requiring the applicant or the
proponent of a development activity to mitigate adverse environmental
impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy
Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents
accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or Chapter
58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; so long as the exercise of such
authority is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW and
Chapter 82.02 RCW.
19.91.200 Relationship to State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA)
(1) All development shall be subject to the environmental review pursuant to
SEPA and other applicable city ordinances and regulations.
(2) Further mitigation in addition to the impact fee shall be required for
identified adverse impacts appropriate for mitigation pursuant to SEPA that
are not mitigated by an impact fee program.
19.91.210 Relationship to Concurrency Management
Neither compliance with this chapter or the payment of any fee hereunder
shall constitute a determination of transportation concurrency under this
chapter.
18 Transportation Impact Fees
K:\TRAFFIC\TIF-Dev\DRAFT TIF Fees Code 6-15-09.docx
19
Transportation Impact Fees
roo.
I
1:
1~
i.$.~.~.ti.c?~~.:..............................................................................................................................................................................................
119.90.010 Definitions. ~
[19.90.020 Purpose.
119.90.030 Authority.
j'19.90.040 Applicability.
119.90,050 Capacity reserve certificate required.
\19.90.060 Exempt development.
h 9.90.070 Level of service standards.
h 9.90.080 Application for a capacity reserve certificate.
119.90.090 Amendments to capacity reserve certificates.
[19.90.'100 Use of reserved capacity.
;19.90.110 Transfer of reserved capacity.
;19.90,120 Capacity evaluation method.
119.90.130 Concurrency administration - Purpose and procedure.
[19.90.140 Concurrency determination letter.
119.90'-150 Mitigation methods.
l.1E.:.~0.1.9._Q. Appeals.
1'19.90,170 Annual report.
U-~_:.~QJ..~Q. Interagency coordination.
)19.90. .190Co()rdina.tionlJVith..()the~r~quir~rnerlts~ .
Exhibit "E"
Chapter 19.90
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
[19 .90~01 O.Definitiol1s.
1 The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context
[clearly requires otherwise. Terms not defined here are defined according to .
[Chapter 19.05 FWRC or FWRC 1.05.020 in that order. The public works director j
1shall have the authority to resolve questions of interpretation or conflicts within i
[this chapter. 1
1 "Affected intersection" means any intersection within the city meeting the :
[requirements of FWRC 19.90.070 and having a direct traffic impact as a result of l
ldevelopment activity. :
: "Available capacity" means capacity which can be encumbered, reserved, or
lcommitted to future users, expressed in an appropriate unit of measure, such as i
[p.m. peak hour trips. [
[ "Background traffic" means existing traffic levels and the anticipated traffic from:
jail proposals for which CRCs have been approved under the provisions of this .
[chapter.
[ "Build-out year conditions" means the volume of traffic that is projected to
[occur on the roadway system as of the anticipated date of occupancy of a :
[proposal. Traffic conditions include regional traffic and the anticipated traffic from ~
[all proposals for which CRCs have been approved under the provisions of this [
t~~c:lP!~~~... .... l
["......;;capildiy;;.m.eans."ihe..avai.labi"iity.o"f.an..affected..inte.rsectio.n..to..acco.m.mo.date.......,
:increased traffic resulting from a development without causing the LOS to fall
:below the standards established in the comprehensive plan.
: "Capacity reserve certificate (CRC)" means the certificate issued by the city
ipursuant to the terms and conditions of this chapter which constitutes the proof
:that adequate capacity for each affected intersection has been reserved to serve :
:the densities and intensities of development within the time frame designated on :
:the certificate. i
i "City of Federal Way development standards"means those standards adopted:
:by the Federal Way public works director. :
: "Concurrency denial letter" means a letter issued by the director which
:summarizes the results of the concurrency evaluation and the reason for denying
ithe request for a concurrency reserve certificate.
: "Concurrency evaluation" means the evaluation by the director to ensure that
:necessary roadway improvements are made concurrent with proposed
:development activity, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070.
: "Concurrency management" means the process local jurisdictions use to
iensure that necessary roadway improvements are made concurrent with
:proposed development activity, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070.
: "Direct traffic impact" means any net increase in vehicle traffic generated by a
:proposed development.
: "Director" means the director of the department of public works or her/his
idesignee.
: "Level of service (LOS)" means a qualitative measure describing operational
:conditions within a traffic stream, described with alphabetical representations of
:"A" through "F" as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual prepared by the ,
iTransportation Research Board of the National Research Council, to indicate the :
:amount of congestion and delay at particular locations, and adopted by the city. :
: "Net new trips" means the trip generation of the development activity less any i
:allowable credit for existing activity that will be replaced, demolished or :
iabandoned as part of the development activity.
: "Peak hour" means the highest volume of traffic for a continuous hour between
:4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays.
: "Reserved capacity" means capacity which has been allocated to a particular
iproperty through issuance of a capacity reserve certificate reserving capacity for
:a set period of time.
: "Select zone analysis" means a travel demand model analysis that identifies
:trips generated within a selected transportation analysis zone.
: "Six-year transportation improvement program (TIP)" means the annually
iadopted transportation improvement program which identifies all the city's
:transportation needs over the next six years, including the total project costs.
: "Standards" means the adopted city of Federal Way development standards.
i "Total project cost" means the total cost for the transportation projects, as ~
:defined in the current TIP. This cost includes, but is not limited to, studies, ~
:.c:Il3. .s.i.9. ':1!.. .r.i.9. h ~ ~g f.~.v.v. <:1 Y..<:1 ~q lJ. .i.~.i. t.i. C? .rl.!..lJ. ~i I.i.ty.. r.l3.'g.<;.<:1 t.ig rl.', ,9 r.<:1c:1.i. ':19!.. .<:1':1 c:I..~C? n..s..tr.lJ. c:.~i C?r1,:.,...............i
:.......;;Transportaiion..an.aijisls..zone;;.i1i.ei;l.r;.s..the"i;l.re'a.deflned'v\iithin"i;l"travei"'de'm'and"';
:model representing all the land uses contained within that area. .
: "Trip assignment" means the determination within a travel demand model of
:the number and type of trips using a defined roadway. :
~ "Trip distribution" means the determination within a travel demand model of the ~
:number and type of trips traveling between any given pair of transportation :
:analysis zones. :
: "Trip generation" means the number of peak hour trips estimated to be :
~produced by the development activity using Institute of Tr3.ffic Transportation :
:Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, current edition, or other methodology approved!
:by the director. '
: "Trip generation credit" means a reduction in the number of new peak hour
:trips attributed to an application as described in FWRC 19.90.080, equal to the
inumber of peak hour trips generated on the site described on the application
:from uses that have had a SEP A analysis prior to the effective date of the
iordinance adopting this chapter that have ceased or will cease if the
:development permit is granted.
i(Ord. No. 09-593, 9 20, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 06-525, 9 1 (Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001
1919-151.)
:19.90.020 Purpose.
i The purpose of this chapter is to implement the concurrency provisions of the
!transportation element of the city's comprehensive plan, in accordance with RCW!
:36.70A.070(6)(e), consistent with WAC 365-195-510 and 365-195-835 as ~
:currently exists or as hereafter amended. No development permit shall be issued!
:except in accordance with this chapter. '
i(Ord. No. 06-525, 91(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001919-152.)
:19.90.030 Authority.
: The director of public works has the authority to adopt rules and regulations to
:carry out the provisions of this chapter and has the authority to administer and
ienforce this chapter and any such rules and regulations including making
:determinations regarding concurrency and issuing capacity reserve certificates :
:(CRCs) according to the procedures in this chapter. It is unlawful to violate or fail:
~to comply with any provision of this chapter or any such rule or regulation. .
: The director's determination of concurrency and the issuance or nonissuance
~of a CRC shall be integrated, insofar as possible, with any applicable decision
~making processes on permits, applications, and proposals submitted to the city
ifor review and decision. For each development activity subject to concurrency
:evaluation and the requirement for a CRC, the director shall determine how the
:review can be best integrated with the decision making process.
:(Ord. No. 09-597, 951, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 06-525, 9 1 (Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001
1919-153.)
: ~..~ ~.~.Q ~.Q~9...App.li.c=.(;l.t>.i.li.t.y ~.. ...... .... ........... .......... ........ ....... ...... ....... ....... ........................ ............. ... ........ ............ ..... ........ ......
~"""('1.)"this'.chapte'r.'sha'ii"ap.p'iy'to"aH"appi"ication.s..for.deve'iophie'n"i'pe.rmits.;"except"';
:for development exempt under FWRC 19.90.060, if the development activity will
:generate any net new trips in the peak hour.
: (2) All construction or changes in use initiated pursuant to a development
!permit for which a SEPA decision was issued prior to the effective date of the
\ordinance codified in this chapter shall be exempt from the provisions of this
~chapter. However, if the city determines that a previously issued development
jpermit for which the SEPA decision was issued has lapsed or expired, pursuant
\to the applicable development regulations, then no subsequent development
~permit shall be issued except in accordance with this chapter.
I(Ord. No. 06-525, S 1 (Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 S 19-154.)
:19.90.050 Capacity reserve certificate required.
~ (1) Prior to the issuance of any permit for a nonexempt development activity,
~the director shall determine if the proposal is covered by an existing CRC or if
~capacity exists on the road facilities to permit the proposed development activity. :
~Permits for the development activity shall be issued only if the director finds that !
:the activity is covered by an existing CRC or capacity exists in accordance with :
\Ievel of service standards adopted in the comprehensive plan. Where such ;
\capacity exists, the director shall issue a CRC to the applicant for the
~development activity.
: (2) A CRC shall be issued only after a capacity evaluation is performed
!indicating that capacity is available on all applicable road facilities. ,
! (3) In no event shall the director determine concurrency for a greater amount o(
!capacity than is needed for the development proposed. :
: (4) Residential subdivisions shall be evaluated for concurrency as a single :
\development permit. Commercial subdivisions and other projects constructed in j
\phases shall be evaluated for concurrency as each phase is submitted for ;
!applicable development permits, notwithstanding any requirement to analyze the ;
:commercial subdivision as a whole under SEPA. '
!(Ord. No. 06-525, S 1 (Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 S 19-155.)
~19.90.060 Exempt development.
\ (1) Any development activity or development permit may be exempted from
:this chapter if the development activity or development permit is deemed by the
!director to generate no net new trips in the peak hour.
~ (2) The following types of development permits are typically exempt from
~concurrency management review and the requirements of this chapter because :
~they do not create additional long-term impacts on road facilities. However, if any:
:development permit from the list below generates any net new trips in the peak ;
!period, it shall not be exempt from concurrency evaluation.
~ (a) Boundary line adjustment;
: (b) Demolition permit;
: (c) Electrical permit;
! (d) Fire protection system permit;
i (e) Tenant improvements with no change of use;
! (f)LCincJ. ~LJrfCi<::~rTl()c.iifi<::CitiOI1;
(g) Lot line elimination;
(h) Mechanical permit;
(i) Plumbing permit;
(j) Right-of-way modification;
(k) Right-of-way use permit;
(I) Sign permit;
(m) Single-family remodeling with no change of use;
(n) Rezones;
(0) Comprehensive plan amendment;
(p) Shoreline permit;
(q) Commercial subdivisions.
(r) Accessory Dwellina Unit (ADU)
(s) Bindina site Plan (BSP)
(t) Business License
(u) Use Process I
: (3) Exemption from concurrency review fees. City-owned facilities shall be
:exempted from the concurrency review fees. City-owned facilities shall not be
:exempted from concurrency review and appropriate mitigation, if any.
!(Ord. No. 06-525, ~ 1 (Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 ~ 19-156.)
:19.90.070 Level of service standards.
: The director shall use the LOS standards set forth in the comprehensive plan
:to make concurrency evaluations as part of the review of any application for a
:CRC issued pursuant to this chapter.
i (1) The street system measured for concurrency purposes are all intersections:
lof collectors and arterials as defined in the city's comprehensive plan, except for :
!the intersections of two or more minor collectors, as these intersections would :
:exist upon completion of all projects listed in the currently adopted TIP and
jcurrently funded projects by other transportation agencies.
: (2) The city's adopted LOS standards shall be applied in the revie'w of
:development activity pursuant to administrative procedures developed by the
1Public works director.
I(Ord. No. 06-525, ~ 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 ~ 19-157.)
119.90.080 Application for a capacity reserve certificate.
1 (1) An application for a CRC shall be on a form provided by the director. The
1application shall be submitted and accompanied by the requisite fee, as
1determined by city council resolution.
: (2) An applicant may request a concurrency feasibility analysis. However, a .
:CRC shall not be issued for applications not associated with an active :
:development permit, nor shall the trips generated by the development proposal i
:be reserved. The director may adjust applicable fees for subsequent analyses on :
:the same property associated with an active development permit to the extent .
:that the director determines data from the feasibility analysis remains valid.
:.(9 r.q.:. . f\J. C?: ..9.~~ ???~.. s. ..1.{~~h...~},..~~ ~.~.9.~.~..g.().c:l.E:l..?.9.9.~. ..s ..1..~~.1.??. :}............ ........... ........... .....................:
:19:90:090'.A.mendme'nts'.t()".cap~iciiy..rese.rve..ce.rtificate.s:..........................................................]
: (1) Any request to increase the number of trips from a development application:
:for which capacity is reserved shall require an analysis that determines that: 1
: (a) The analysis used for the development's original CRC is still valid; and~
: (b) No level of service impact is reasonably anticipated. :
: In addition, the following conditions must be met in order to amend an
:existing CRC:
~ (c) The application to amend an existing CRC must be received within
ione year of the issue date of the CRC;
: (d) The trips generated by the amendment may not exceed the greater of :
:10 trips or 10 percent of the trips approved in the existing CRC. :
: (2) The analysis will be used to develop:
: (a) A finding that the additional capacity sought by the applicant through
ian amended CRG is available to be reserved by the project or can be made
:available through mitigation of the additional impact; or
: (b) A finding that the amendment is denied.
I(Ord. No. 06-525, ~ 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 ~ 19-159.)
[19.90.100 Use of reserved capacity.
[ When a valid development permit is issued for a project possessing a CRC,
:the CRC shall continue to reserve the capacity until the development permit
~expires, is withdrawn, or is cancelled, whichever occurs first.
I(Ord. No. 06-525, ~ 1 (Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 ~ 19-160.)
:19.90.110 Transfer of reserved capacity.
: Reserved capacity cannot be sold or transferred to property not included in the
i1egal description provided by the applicant in the application for a CRC.
I(Ord. No. 06-525, ~ 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 ~ 19-161.)
:19.90.120 Capacity evaluation method.
: (1) Any development permit application that will generate any net new trips in
ithe peak hour shall require a CRC. :
: (2) For the purposes of this chapter, application for a development permit shall :
:include consideration of the cumulative impacts of all development permit :
:applications for contiguous properties that are owned or under the control of the :
isame owner, when one or more development permits would be issued within two ~
!years of the date of issuance of a development permit for such contiguous ;
iproperty.
i (3) Increased impact on affected intersections. If a development activity would
ihave a greater impact on affected intersections than the previous use, then a
:CRC shall be required for the net increase only to the extent that trips generated .
iby the last previous use were analyzed and, if required, mitigated by a previous :
:SEPA decision or CRC; otherwise, a CRC shall be required for all trips generated:
iby the development activity. .
: (4) Demolition or termination of use. In the case of a demolition or termination
:of an existing structure or use, only to the extent that trips generated by the last
!previous use were analyzed and, if required, mitigated by a previous SEPA
:decision or CRC, shall a trip generation credit be applied to the trip generation for~
!the use subsequent to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter.
!The number of trips allowed in the credit shall be as estimated using ITE's Trip
[Generation, or other methodology approved by the director.
l(ord. No. 06-525, S 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 S 19-162.)
:19.90.130 Concurrency administration - Purpose and procedure. :
: Where either the city or the applicant may perform any part of the concurrency ~
:transportation impact analysis, analysis prepared by the applicant is subject to :
[the review and approval of the city at the applicant's expense. The applicant may:
!also review and comment on any analysis prepared by the city. .
! (1) The concurrency management transportation impact analysis may be
[prepared by the city or the applicant and shall follow the procedure outlined
:below. Each development permit subject to this chapter shall be analyzed in the
:order the concurrency application is deemed complete by the director, as
:described in subsection (2) of this section. Concurrency transportation impact
[analyses shall be completed sequentially in the order of receipt of the
:concurrency application. The most recent concurrency management
:transportation impact analysis shall be the beginning point for each succeeding
:concurrency management transportation impact analysis.
[ (2) In performing the concurrency evaluation, the city or the applicant subject
:to the city's approval shall determine the impact of the traffic generated by the
:proposed development activity on the city's road system. The evaluation shall be
:based on data generated by the city, by professional associations, by the :
:applicant and, if needed, by independent analysis. The city shall examine the :
:data to verify that existing and projected trip generation is consistent with the ~
ilatest version of the ITE's Trip Generation or documented generation for uses not ~
:typical of uses in Trip Generation. Upon successful evaluation, the concurrency ,
:application will be deemed complete by the director.
[ (3) The city or the applicant shall perform level of service calculations for all
:applicable intersections affected by the development based upon build-out year
:conditions with and without the proposed development. The city or the applicant :
:shall determine if the capacity on the city's road facilities, plus the capacity that is :
[or shall be generated by all existing, reserved, and approved development, can :
:be provided while meeting the LOS standards set forth in the comprehensive
:plan.
: (4) Technical provisions for each concurrency evaluation shall be prepared in
ithe following format:
: (a) Project description shall be provided by the applicant in enough detail
:to accurately determine the scope of analysis required.
: (b) Analysis scope shall be provided by city after consultation with
:affected departments.
[ (c) The city, based on the information supplied by the applicant, shall
:determine project trip generation. If the applicant provides a detailed trip
:generation study, that data shall be used for concurrency management traffic
:impact analysis at the discretion of the public works director. The applicant may
:<:3J. !;.9... r.~",i~"!..?l1c:l..c;.9.'!I. '!I~t:!~. .9.t:!. .<:l.c;i.ty~p.r.~P?.r.~c:l.,c;.<:llc;lJ.I.<:l ~i q .11. .q~ ..tr.ip. 9.~t:!~.r.<:lt.i.9.t:!..... ...... .. ........
.....................(d).i:i.roject..trrp.~issignme.ni'.to"th'e"street"s~iste'm"sha'ii"be"provided'by"tfie.......:
:city, consistent with the most current and updated travel demand forecasting
:model. Three levels of analysis are defined based on the number of new trips
igenerated:
: (i) For applications generating less than 50 peak hour trips, a select
:zone analysis shall be conducted.
: (ii) For applications generating 50 peak hour trips or more, but less
:than 500 peak hour trips, a new trip assignment shall be conducted.
i (iii) For applications generating 500 or more peak hour trips, a new
:trip distribution and assignment shall be conducted. :
: ( e) Traffic volumes at existing intersections that include background traffic ~
:shall be provided by the city.
i (f) The city shall include appropriate through traffic to each affected
:intersection to obtain a revised traffic assignment for affected roadways and
:intersections.
: (g) The applicant or the city, at the applicant's request and expense, in
:compliance with the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual, shall
~complete the capacity analysis, using the city's chosen software. The applicant
:may review and comment on a city-prepared capacity analysis.
: (h) After verification of the capacity analysis, the applicant or the city, at
:the applicant's request and expense, shall prepare the final report.
i (i) The applicant or the city, at the applicant's request and expense, may
:propose suggested mitigation measures for any LOS failures identified in the
:capacity analysis. .
: (j) The applicant or the city, at the applicant's request and expense, shall :
io.l!::o identify pro rata !::hare contribution!:: for TIP projects impacted by the net nO'.~:
:trips generated by the propo!::ed development in a manner consistent 'Nith
:Cho.pter 82.02 RC\^!.
!(Ord. No. 06-525, 91(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 919-163.)
119.90.140 Concurrency determination letter.
: The director shall issue a concurrency determination letter to the applicant
:advising the applicant as to whether available capacity exists. If the applicant is :
:not the property owner, the concurrency determination letter shall also be sent to ~
ithe property owner. The concurrency determination letter shall identify the :
:application and identify which status is determined to be applicable to the
:application: approval; approval with mitigation; or denial.
! (1) Approval with mitigation shall include a recommendation that would provide
jadequate capacity and a description of the options available to the applicant.
1These may include:
1 (a) The applicant may agree to construct the recommended mitigation
:measures at the applicant's cost;
: (b) The applicant may agree to construct alternative mitigation measures
ithat address the level of service deficiencies, subject to the approval of the
:director; or
j (c) The applicant may modify the development proposal to reduce trip
:generation to within available capacity by any combination of capacity
!improvements and transportation demand management measures, subject to the
iapproval of the director.
i (2) Denial. If no appeal is transmitted to the director pursuant to FWRC
!19.90.160 within +4 30 calendar days after issuance of the determination, the
:encumbrance shall be released and made available for subsequent applications.
I(Ord. No. 06-525, ~ 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 ~ 19-164.)
!19.90.150 Mitigation methods.
! (1) If mitigation is required to meet the level-of-service standard, the applicant
!may choose to:
j (a) Reduce the size of the development until the standard is met,
j (b) Delay the development schedule until the city and/or others provide
:needed improvements, or
! (c) Provide the mitigation per subsection (2) of this section.
i (2) Payment for and timing of improvements. The director shall determine the
imethod by which assurance is provided the city that the mitigation is provided in
ia manner that is concurrent with development consistent with state law. This
!determination shall address whether the improvements are to be constructed by
ithe applicant or if the applicant would fund the cost of the improvement to be
:constructed by the city or another party. If the latter case, the determination shall
ialso include the appropriate amount and timing of payment to the city.
! (a) Construction improvements subject to the city's direct operational
icontrol which are required of a developer under FWRC 19.90.140 must be
icompleted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, final plat approval, or
:other such approval upon which new trips are generated.
i (b) The developer may provide funding in an amount equal to the
:director's. cost estimate for improvements required under FWRC 19.90.140, if
japproved by the director. The director may require actual construction rather than
jprovision of funding. Payment for transportation improvements must occur prior
!to issuance of building permit, final plat approval, or other such approval.
j (c) All funds received by the city under subsection (2)(b) of this section
jshall be expended consistent with state law.
j (d) A proposal for construction of transportation improvements to
jintersections partially or wholly outside the city's direct operational control, or
!payment for those improvements in an amount equal to the director's cost
jestimate, which improvements are required of a developer to meet the
:requirement of FWRC 19.90.140, must be submitted to the agencies which have
:control of the intersection prior to issuance of building permit, final plat approval,
!or other such approval.
i (3) Transportation demand management.
: (a) As a mitigation measure, the developer may propose to establish
itransportation demand management strategies to reduce single occupancy
ivehicle trips generated by the project. The director shall determine the
icorresponding trip volume reduction, considering adjacent land uses and trips
igenerated, how well the site is served by transit, HOV facilities, bicycle facilities,
iand pedestrian facilities, workforce composition, empl9yer-provided incentives,
:~.rl.c:l. .p.~r~irl.9..C:ly.c:lilc:lt:>il.iW!.. c:l.rT:I9rl.9. .<:>t.~.~rl5.."..... ..... ............................. ...................... ..... ...... ............. .... ................. ....
j....................(b).ihe..director..s"haH..mo.nrtor..and.enforce..the..transp.6rtatl"On.dema.rid..............,
:management performance as directed under Chapter 8.10 FWRC. A
:performance assurance device may be required as determined by the director.
: (4) Decision criteria - Acceptable mitigation. Acceptable mitigation requires a
ifinding by the director that:
: (a) The mitigation is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
: (b) The mitigation contributes to system performance.
: (c) Improvements to an intersection or roadway may not shift traffic to
:other intersections for which there is no reasonable mitigation available.
i (d) The improvement shall not violate accepted engineering standards
jand practices.
j(Ord. No. 06-525, ~ 1 (Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 ~ 19-165.)
j19.90.160 Appeals.
: The concurrency determination of the director may be appealed by the ~
:applicant or owner using the same process as the underlying development permit:
:application or as provided for in process IV of this title if there is no underlying
:development permit. The appeal, in the form of a notice of appeal, must be
:delivered to the department of public works within +4 30 calendar days after
:issuance of the decision of the director. In those cases where the proposed
:development activity may require a public hearing, the hearings may be
icombined.
\(Ord. No. 09-594, ~ 16, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 06-525, ~ 1 (Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001
I~ 19-166.)
:19.90.170 Annual report. :
~ The city shall monitor LOS standards through an annual update of the six-year:
itransportation impact program, which shall add data reflecting development ~
:permits issued and trip allocations reserved. The city's traffic demand model shall i
:be recalibrated at least biannually based on traffic count information, obtained .
:from at a minimum the city's public works department.
I(Ord. No. 06-525, ~ 1 (Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 ~ 19-167.)
\19.90.180 Interagency coordination.
\ The city may enter into agreements with other agencies having authority over
\transportation facilities to identify impacts and provide mitigation for those
:impacts. In no case shall mitigation payments to the city be reduced to account
\for mitigation payments to other jurisdictions.
I(Ord. No. 06-525, ~ 1(Exh. A), 6-6-06. Code 2001 ~ 19-168.)
:19.90.190 Coordination with other requirements.
: (1) Concurrency determinations are categorically exempt from SEPA.
: (2) Concurrency determinations provide for mitigation only for vehicle capacity
:issues during the weekday evening peak hour. Mitigation of transportation ,
:impacts outside of vehicle capacity issues during the weekday evening peak hour:
ishall be addressed through other review processes (in city code, land use permit :
:conditions, or SEPA). This analysis may be prepared either by the applicant or
:the city at the applicant's expense.
:(Qrd.~ ...~.()...Q~=???,....S1 (.~.?<~~J\), ..~=l3.=g?~g()d~..?QQ1S1~=1~~~)..........