The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW 2004-04-12 Item 4J - Resolution - Transportation Impact Fee Schedule ..... , ............. Initials ITEM 2~0. Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor'* review Council review 04/12/04 CK ~('~ ~ fi~,'~ t~l l-/7' ~ CAS Number: I Original Agenda Date: April 12, 2004 Agenda Item Title: Adopt Ordinance for Traffic Concurrency Standards and Impact Mitigation Fees Original Sponsor: Council ~ldmin. Public Works Timeline: Sponsor's Summary: Recent legal challenges to the City's Traffic Concurrency Standards ordinance, specifically to the impact mitigation fee methodology, have created a need for Tukwila to modify the Tukwila Municipal Code (Chapter 9.48). We also have to update the project list. Recommendations: Sponsor: Amend the Traffic Concurrency Standards Ordinance (TMC 9.48) and approve by resolution a new Impact Mitigation Fee Schedule: Committee: Forward to Committee of the Whole. Administration: Same as Sponsor. Cost Impact (if known): N/A Fund Source (if known): N/A Meeting Date Action 04-12-04 Meeting Date Attachments 11-24-03 0~) Informational Memorandum dated l l-19-03 ~) TMC- Ch. 9.48 & Table 12- Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs (~ Additional information provided at Transportation Committee & COW on 11-24-03 (~ Transportation Committee Minutes- 11/10/03 & 11/24/03 t01-26-04 ~ Informational Memorandum dated 01-22-04 ~ 1-26-04 was Crate meetin9 Table 12- Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs ~ ?..nl~ y (not COW or Regular (~ Transportation Committee Minutes - 01-26-04 / ~g. ). Information provided 4/12/04 Information Memo dated.4pril 7, 2004 ~or nistorxca, purposes. Draft Impact Fee List with CIP Sheets Draft TMC 9.48 Language INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: April 7, 2004 J Subject: Transportation Concurrency and Impact Mitigation Fees Ordinance Changes ISSUE Update to the Impact Mitigation Fee list and modifications to the Concurrency Ordinance (TMC 9.48). BACKGROUND Recent legal challenges to the City's Concurrency Ordinance, specifically to the impact mitigation fee methodology, have created a need for Tukwila to modify the Concurrency Ordinance (TMC 9.48) and update the Mitigation Fee list. ANALYSIS Proposed modifications to the City's Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee list have been brought forward to the Transportation Committee on two occasions and once to the Committee of the Whole. New sections have been introduced for clarification purposes as well as to bring the language into compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 82.02). The City's Impact Fee list also needs to be updated to include current project costs, eliminate completed projects no longer requiring development contribution, and introducing new projects required to maintain the City's established Level of Service standards. Within the Comp Plan, the City is given the authority to update the impact fee list on a regular basis at least every two years or in conjunction with the annual update to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). During the January 26, 2004 Transportation Committee meeting, staff was given policy direction that no individual cost per -trip fee amount should exceed approximately $2,500.00. The GMA requires that reasonable financial assumptions be made when establishing impact fees, balancing between impact fees and other sources of public funds. In other words, the City cannot rely solely on impact fees to finance public facilities. Given both the policy direction and the legal requirements within the GMA, staff has developed a possible option for the updated Impact Fee list. The attached proposed list includes the current project costs from the CIP but assumes that the City is not expecting to fully fund all projects through grant monies and general revenue. Policy direction is needed from Council before the final Impact Fee list can be adopted. RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed ordinance changes and mitigation fee list and refer to full Council for adoption \WIQ\wll\pubwo Xcyndy\infb u im nnmo 9A8 upE briefing x3413 -0C.d Draft Impact Fee List CITY OF TUKWlLA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2001 to 2006 PROJECT: Southcenter Parkway Signals LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.5951'xxx. xx. 93 PROJECT NO. 96-RWXX DESCRIPTION: Evaluate need for signals on Southcenter Parkway. Construct traffic signal at S 168 Street. JUSTIFICATION: Vehicle and pedestrian safety. STATUS: Southcenter Pkwy/S 168 St. signal will be designed and constructed in 2001. MAINT. IMPACT: Additional maintenance needed. COMMENT: FINANCIAL Thru Est',mted (In $000's) t999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 BEYOND TOTAl ExPENSES ............ Engineering 38 2 38 7~ Land (R/VV) Construction 4C 222 26~ TOTAL ExPENSES 38 42 260 a 0 0 C 0 a 34( FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant Proposed Grant Mitigation Actual Mitigation Expected City Oper. Revenue 38 42 260 0 0 0 (] 0 0 34C TOTAL SOURCES 38 42 260 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 34( 42 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2003 to 2008 PROJECT: West Valley Hwy & Strander .Blvd. LINEITEM: 104/02.595.. .12 PROJECTNO. 93-RWll DESCRIPTION: Design and construct safety and capacity improvements for trail pedestrian traffic and northbound dual left turn lanes. JUSTIFICATION: Pedestrians cross between Interurban and Green River Trails. Northbound lelts queue through curves affecting safety and capacity. STATUS~ Channelization approval from WSDOT received in 2002. Construction advertisement scheduled for late 2002, award early 2003, MAINT, IMPACT: Minimal. COMMENT: Federal Hwy STP Grant for $464,000. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 151 1 a 60 221 Land (R/W) C Construction 297 435 73; TOTAL EXPENSES 448 1 a 495 0 0 (~ o 0 a 95~ FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 61 7 396 46z Proposed Grant C Mitigation Actual ( Mitigation Expected ( City Oper. Revenue 387 3 99 0 O C 0 0 a 48~. TOTAL SOURCES 448 la ' 495 0 a C 0 0 {~ 95." CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2004 to 2009 PROJECT: Interurban Bridge Widening (Sctr BlvdlGrady/I-405) LINE ITEM: 104 / 01.595. .98 PROJECT NO. 89-RW13 DESCRIPTION: Design and construct widening of Interurban Bridge for northbound HOV lane to F405 Southbound on-ramp, Improve traffic by increasing capacity for freeway access. Dual left turn lanes (one HOV) to on-ramp for increasing JUSTIFICATIONi traffic volumes. Construction began in May 2003 with completion scheduled for the summer of 2004. Construction of Trail Bridge STATUS: (Parks) and West Valley Hwy System & Abandonments (Water) to be included in project. MAINT. IMPACT: To reduce maintenance. COMMENT: Federal Hwy Fund grant (ISTEA) = $1.08 million and $148,000 of National Highway Funds. FINANCIAL Through Estimated ~n,3uuus! ~uu~ .~003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineedng 220 132 55 407 0 Land (PJW) Construction 1 ;000 480 1,480 TOTAL EXPENSES 22(; 1,132 535 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 1,887 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 136 979 113 1,228 0 Proposed Grant Mitigation Actual 41 41 0 Mitigation Expected City Oper. Revenue 43 153 422 0 (; 0 0 0 0 618 TOTAL SOURCES 220 1,132 535 0 (; 0 0 0 0 1,887 32 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2004 to 2009 PROJECT: Minkler Blvd (Andover Park W - Southcenter Pkwy) LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595. .72 PROJECT NO. 84-RW07 Widen Minkler Blvd from Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway. Add third lane and curb, gutter, and DESCRIPTION: sidewalk on the south side. JUSTIFICATION: Accommodate anticiaated future development fmntat improvements to complete three lane street section. Completed construction of"half street" and opened road to Southcenter Pkwy with two lanes and sidewalks STATUS: on one side with water, sawer and drainage improvements in 1995. MAINT. IMPACT: Minor addition for maintenance. COMMENT: Anticipated future developer frontal improvement construction. FINANCIAL Through Estimated !003 .... 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL ~ln :~UUU s~ ,~uu~ ~'-"~-~ 2004 EXPENSES Engineering 460 75 535 Land (R/VV) 27 27 Construction 732 350 1,082 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,219 0 0 0 0 (} 0 425 0 1,644 FUND SOURCES C Awarded Grant C Proposed Grant Mitigation Actual .. Mitigation Expected 425 42.~ City Oper. Revenue 1,219 0 0 - C 0 0 0 d 0 1,21.~ TOTAL SOURCES 1,219 0 0 C 0 0 0 425 0 1,64~ Project Location 60 CITY OF TUK~NILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2004 to 2009 PROJECT: Andover Park West (Tukwila Pkwy to Strander Blvd) LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595, .47 PROJECT NO. 88-RW04 DESCRIPTION: Complete widening for left turn lane, JUSTIFICATION: Adding an improved left turn lane will reduce accidents and lessen congestion. Major portion of Andover Park E at intersections are complete. Next step would be to complete the STATUS: entire road with a left turn lane. MAINT. IMPACT: Negligible. · COMMENT: Anticipated future developer frontal improvement construct[on. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000°s) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 100 15(] 25C Land (PJW) 5(] 5C Construction 50(] 50C TOTAL EXPENSES 0 (] 0 0 100 0 0 0 700 80C FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant C Proposed Grant C Mitigation Actual C Mitigation Expected 400 40C City Oper. Revenue 0 0 0 0 100 (] 0 0 300 40C TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 0 0 100 (] 0 0 700 80( 53 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2004 to 2009 PROJECT: Andover Park E/Minkler Blvd. LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595. PROJECT NO. 03-RW05 DESCRIPTION: Design and construct left turn lanes on Andover Park East and reconstruct traffic signal. JUSTIFICATION: Improve safety and provide needed capacity. sTATus: New project for 2004-2009 ClP. MAINT. IMPACT: Annual signal re-lamping and routine operations. COMMENT: FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) - 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL EXPE~NSES Engineering 50 5C Land (R/W) ' Construction 150 15C TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 0 a 0 200 0 0 C 20C FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant Proposed Grant I Mitigation Actual Mitigation Expected City Oper. Revenue 0 0 0 a 0 200 0 0 C 20c TOTAL SOURCES 0 0! 0 0 0 200 0 0 C 20C 56 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2004 ' to 2009 PROJECT: Southcenter Pkwy (S 180.St - South City Limits) LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595. .60 PROJECT NO. 84-RW37 Extend 5-lane Southcenter Pkwy to south city limits including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage, and DESCRIPTION: possibty combining with water and sewer improvements. JUSTIFICATION: Southwest access needed for commercial business district (CBD) and development of adjoining area. STATUS: Alignment is decided. Updating design report is scheduled for 2004. MAINT. IMPACT: Additional street maintenance. * Both the Federal Hwy Surface Transportation Program (STP) Grant of $200,000 and the $150,000 State Artedal COMMENT: (ALP) Grant are obligated. · FINANCIAL Through Estimated V" ? .... ! 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 381 615 99( Land (PJW) 2,00(~ 2,00( Construction 4,10C 4,10( TOTAL EXPENSES 0 (3 381 0 C 0 C 0 6,71~A 7.09( FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 350 35( Proposed Grant 5,372 5,37; Mitigation Actual .. Mitigation Expected City Oper. Revenue 0 0 31 (3 0 (3 0 (3 1,343 1,37, TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 381 £ 0 (3 0 ~ 6,715 7,091 45 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2004 to 2009 PROJECT: Southcenter Blvd ( I-5 to International Blvd) LINE ITEM: 104/02.595. . . PROJECT NO. 02-RW04 Improve roadway to a three-lane urban arterial with medians, turn lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street DESCRIPTION: lighting, and drainage. Traffic volumes are growing and full urbar? standards will accommodate future growth and improve safety for JUSTIFICATION: motorists and pedestrians. Project includes improvements needed in conjunction with the proposed Sound Transit Light Rail station at Southcenter Blvd (formerly S 154t~ St) and Intemational Blvd. STATUS: Design Report needed. MA]NT. IMPACT: . Minimal to high, depending on whether landscaped medians are used. COMMENT: FINANCIAL Through Estimated tin $000's) 2002 2003. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 150 15(3 Land (PJW) I 100 10(3 Construction 1,50(3 1,50(~ TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 0 0 0 (3 0 150 1,60(3 1,75C FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant Proposed Grant C Mitigation Actual Mitigation Expected City Oper. Revenue (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 150 1,60(3 1 TOTAL SOURCES (3 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 150 1,60C 1 64 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2004 to 2009 PROJECT: E Marginal Way (BAR - S 112 St) LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595. .29 PROJECT NO. 89-RW05 DESCRIPTION: Design and construct curb, gutter, drainage, lighting, tum lanes, and traffic control JUSTIFICATION: Safety, capacity, and drainage items needed to serve this area of increasing vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Design report scheduled for 2004. Project will include improvements needed in conjunction with the proposed STATUS: Sound Transit Light Rail. MAINT. IMPACT: Reduction in maintenance. COMMENT: FINANCIAL Through Estimated 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES ,'. Engineedng 35 320 35,~ Land (R/W) 500 50( Construction 1,100 1,10( TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 3~ C 0 0 0 C 1,920 1,95,' FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant ( Proposed Grant 700 70( ( Mitigation Actual .. Mitigation Expected 660 66( .City Oper. Revenue 0 (~ 35 0 0 0 0 0 560 59! TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 1,920 1,95~ Project Location 52 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2004 to 2009 PROJECT: Klickitat/S/C Pkwy/i-5 Access Revision LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595. .20 PROJECT NO. 84-RW19 Preliminary design and alternatives analysis for capacity and safety in order to improve traffic flow on Southcenter DESCRIPTION: Parkway, Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. JUSTIFICATION: Provide needed future traffic capacity and safety improvements and reduce accidents. STATUS: New project for 2004-2009 CIP. The design study will be the first phase. MAINT. IMPACT: None during study phase. Coordinate with WSDOT regarding potential impacts to I-5 on-romps and Southcenter Mall regarding planned COMMENT: additions. FINANCIAL Through Estimated lin $0ou's~ zuuz ~vvo 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 3EYOND TOTAL EXPENSES 200 Engineering 300 500 0 Land (R/W) 0 Construction TOTAL EXPENSES C 0 30C 200 0 ¢ 0 (~ 0 500 FUND SOURCES 0 Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant '- 0 Mitigation Actual 0 Mitigation Expected City Oper. Revenue 0 (; 300 200 0 0 (~ 0 0 500 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 300 200 0 0 £ 0 d 500 Project LoCation 46 Division I: Authority and Purpose and Definitions, etc. 9.48.010 Authority and Purpose A. Tukwila is authorized to impose transportation concurrency standards and transportation impact fees on new development pursuant to the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.070 and P, CW 82.02.020 B. The purposes of this chapter are to: L Establish reasonable transportation concurrency standards to ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve existing and future traffic demands on city facilities. 2. Ensure that financial commitments are in place so that adequate transportation facilities are available to serve new growth and development; 3. Promote orderly growth and development by 6stablishing standards requiring that new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new transportation facilities needed to serve new growth and development; 4. Ensure that transportation impact fees are imposed through established procedures and criteria so that specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative fees for the same impact; and 5. Implement the transportation policies of the transportation element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. 9.48.xxx Definitions. "Development Activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any changes in the use of land, that creates additional demand and need for Transportation System Improvements. "Director" means the Tukwila Director of Public WOrks or his or her authorized designee. "Transportation Impact Fee" means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for Transportation System Improvements needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new develoPment that creates additional demand and need for public transportation improvements, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the transportation improvements, and that is used for transportation improvements that reasonably benefit the new development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit or application fee. "Transportatioh System Improvement" means any and all capital improvements to the transportation infrastructure of the city constructed pursuant to city design and development standards and requirements, including without limitation roads, bridges, overpasses, sidewalks, curbs, turn lanes, traffic signals, traffic signs, HOV lanes, bus shelters, and associated landscaping. DR,4FT 9.48.020 Exemptions A. This chapter shall not apply t°'single family building permits, multi-family building permits for projects containing four or fewer units, short plats, or any non-residential project that is categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to TMC 21.04.080, 100, or 110. The Department shall also waive compliance with this chapter for other projects which will not generate new traffic trips. B. Any impact fees resulting from the Development Activities listed in this subsection shall be paid from public funds. Division 1I. Transportation Concurrency Management 9.48.010 .Determination of traffic Concurrency required A. Any new development or redevelopment which is not categorically exempted under 9.48.020 is required to demonstrate compliance with this chapter. B. No Type 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision which is subject to this chapter shall be approved unless a determination is made by the appropriate Department that the standards of this chapter have been met. C. For Type 1 and 2 decisions, the Department of Community Development shall refer the application to the Department of Public Works, which shall determine whether the application complies with City standards regarding traffic concurrency and, if not, what mitigation is required. D. For Type 3, 4, and 5 decisions, the Department of Community Development shall refer the application to the Department of Public Works, which shall determine whether the application complies with City standards regarding traffic concurrency and, if not, what mitigation is required. A statement identifying the required mitigation, if any, shall be incorporated into the staff report required by TMC 18.112.020. 9.48.030 Level-of-Service methodology A. Level-of-service ("LOS") gradations for corridors shall be graded from LOS A to LOS F, as defined in the most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. Intersections shall be measured in average delays at intersections or average travel speeds on corridors, as determ'med by the Department of Public Works following the methodology included in the Highway .Capacity Manual or other approved methodology. B. The Department of Public Works may, in its discretion, utilize either a standard LOS gradation system or, in the case of intersections that are experiencing high congestion, an expanded LOS gradation system to evaluate. The LOS gradations for intersections, based on average delays are: Level of ~ Service Existing Expanded A <7.5 seconds < 7.5 seconds B 7.5 - 15 seconds 7.5 - 15 seconds C 15.1 - 25 15.1 - 25 seconds seconds D 25.1 - 40 25.1 - 40 seconds seconds DR, F'I' E 40.1 - 60 40.1 ~.60 seconds seconds F > 60 seconds 60 - 120 seconds G 120 - 180 seconds H 180 - 240 seconds I 240 - 300 seconds J >300 seconds 9.48.040 Arterial classification system A. The Tukwila Functional Arterial Classification System, which is in accord with required Federal and Washington State arterial standards, is as follows: Street Classification Principal Use Access access to abutting property Collector Arterial between access & minor Minor Arterial between collector & principal Principal Arterial between communities B. The Department of Public Works shall classify all streets in the City in accordance with the classifications in Subsection A. Such classifications shall be reviewed and modified as necessary by the Department from time to time. 9.48.050 LOS standards for specific locations A. A minimum LOS standard of E for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation of average LOS, for the following arterial segments: 1. E Marginal Way (S. 112th St. to North City Limit) 2. Interurban (Southcenter Blvd. to 1-5) 3. Pacific Highway S. (S. 152nd St. to Boeing Access Rd.) 5. 4.West Valley Highway (I-405 to S. 180th St.)Southcenter Parkway south of S. 180th St. B. In the Central Business District ("CBD") area, a minimum average LOS level of E shall be maintained. In the CBD, LOS shall be determined by using the "link" averages for the 17 segments defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. For purposes of this section, the CBD is the area bounded by 1-5, 1-405, the Green River, and S. 180 St. C. A mira'mum LOS standard of E for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation of LOS for individual intersections and 9orddor segments for all other minor, collector and principal arterials principally serving commercially zoned property. D. A minimum LOS standard of D for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation of LOS for individual intersections and corridor segments for all minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas, provided that for the following arterials, LOS shall be calculated based on the average LOS for the arterial: 42nd Ave. S., S. 160th St., S. 164th St., Macadam, S. 124th St., S. 130th St., S. 132nd St., S. 144th St., 53rd Ave. S., and 65th Ave. S. E. Access streets which exceed 1,000 vehicles per day volume will be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine whether traffic improvements or control measures arc required to reduce volumes and provide adequate safety. DRAFT DRAI=T 9.48.060 Design of arteriai improvements; load limits A. Arterial improvements in commemial areas shall be designed to include tracking geometric and loading parameters. B. Trucking will be allowed on all arterials as well as commercial area access streets unless restricted by load limits. Load limits may be used as restrictions following a traffic study. Division III Impact Fees 9.48.xxx Transportation System Improvement for which Transportation Impact Fee may be Imposed. An Impact Fee may only be imposed on Transportation System Improvements that are identified within the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan and/or any associated background reports therein referenced or adopted, Or any updates to the aforementioned documents. 9.48.xxx Scope and use of impact fees. Impact fees: A. Shall only be imposed for transportation improvements that are reasonably related to the traffic impacts of the new development; B. Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of transportation improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; C. Shall be used for transportation improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development; D. Shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies; and E. Shall not be Imposed to mitigate the same off-site traffic impacts that are being mitigated pursuant to any other law. 9.48.xxx Designation of Service Area The service area in which the City shall calculate and impose an Impact Fee for Transportation System Improvements per unit of development shall be the area contained within the legal boundaries of the city. 9.48.xxx Previously Incurred Transportation System Improvement Costs The Director may impose a Transportation Impact Fee for Transportation System Improvement costs incurred by the city prior to Development Activity if the Development Activity will be served by the previously constructed Transportation System Improvement. However, no Impact Fee imposed pursuant to this subsection may make up for any Transportation System Improvement Deficiencies. 9.48.100 Traffic studies and mitigation of impacts A. TMC 9.48.050 identifies Level of Service standards for specific areas and corridors that can be maintained by making improvements identified in the Transportation Element based on 2010 "build out" development traffic projections. Level of Service standards are also established for other non-specific arterials and for access streets. DR, IFT Any proposed project which requires a Type 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 decision and which will generate five or more vehicle trips m an AM, noon, or PM peak hour period shall submit, as part of the application process, a trip generation analysis using standard generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, other standard references, or f~om other documented information and surveys approved by the Department of Public Works. In addition, such projects shall submit a trip distribution study, unless the requirement for such study is waived by the Department of Public Works. ~.C~ If the trip generation and distribution studies demonstrate that the proposed project will generate five or more additional peak hour traffic trips in a specific area or corridor prior to the horizon year established by the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan impact mitigation fees shall be determined based on the fees established in this chapter. ~.~, If the trip generation and distribution studies demonstrate that the proposed project will generate five 5 or more additional peak hour traffic trips on any non-specific arterial or access street such that the intersection, corridor, or area will be below the Level of Service standards established in TMC 9.48.050, prior to the horizon year egtablished by the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the Director of the Department of Public Works shall require, as appropriate to the particular circumstances, one of the following methods for mitigation of the project's traffic impacts: 1. Require the applicant to pay a mitigation payment equal to the applicant's proportionate fair share of the cost of the improvements necessary to restore the intersection(s) arterial(s) or access street(s) to (1) the level of service that would exist at the time the project is completed, but without project traffic, or (2) the level of service standard established in TMC 9.48.050; or 2. Require the applicant to complete the improvements required to restore the intersection(s) arterial(s) or access street(s) to (1) the level of service that would exist at the time the project is completed, but without project traffic, or (2) the level of service standard established in TMC 9.48.050; or 3. In appropriate cases, mitigation may consist of a combination of improvements constructed by the applicant and mitigation payments. If the proposed project does not generate five or more additional peak hour traffic trips at an intersection or corridor which will be below the Level of Service standards established in TMC 9.48.050 prior to the horizon year for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, no mitigation under this section will be required for that intersection or corridor. ~. ~. A project applicant shall have the right to mitigate all or a portion of the capacity impacts of a project by utilizing capacity mitigation measures, including but not limited to, carpooling and rideshare programs, widenings (roadway, lane, radius), signal improvements, and other capacity improvements. In the event that mitigation measures such as carpooling and fideshare programs are proposed, the applicant shall execute such agreements with the City as are necessary to assure the permanent availability of such programs. ,~. ¢. In the ~vent that the applicant completes improvements which'are part of the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule and the cost of such improvements exceeds the applicant's ~ proportionate fair share of the cost of such improvements, the applicant shall be entitled to apply to enter into a Latecomer Agreement with the City DRA/ I' 9.48.110 Impact mitigation fees. A. Impact fees for the specific areas, intersections and corridors identified in TMC 9.48.050 are provided in the Schedule of Impact Fees in section 9.48;xxx. The Transportation Impact Fee Schedule has been reasonably adjusted for taxes and other revenue sources which were anticipated to be available to fund public improvements. B. The Transportation Impact Fee Schedule shall be updated annually by the Department of Public Works and adopted by motion or resolution of the City Council. C. If the trip generation and distribution studies demonstrate that the proposed project will generate five 5 or more additional peak hour traffic trips on any project or projects identified in the Transportation Impact Fee schedule, an impact mitigation fee will be assessed, payable at issuance of the building permit. Final fee determination is based on the number of trips impacting the project multiplied by the cost per trip identified in the Transportation Impact Fee schedule. 9.48.xxx Schedule of Impact Fees. The standard Transportation Impact Fees to be imposed are set forth as follows: , Intersection or Link 1990 2010 Pk Vol Improvement CosfJ Pk Vol Pk Vol Diff Cost Trip Southcenter Pkwy/168 signal W Valley/Strander NB dual left turn lanes Interurban Bridge widen for dual lefts Minkler (APW - Southcenter PIoNy) construct 3 lane street S 178 St (Southcenter Pkwy - WCL) , malign (cap/safety/transit) Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander) widen to 5 lanes Andover Pk E @ Minkler widen to 5 lanes I~ ints. Southcenter Pkwy (180 - s. City limits) construct 3 and 5 lane street 9.48.xxx Credit to Developer A developer is entitled to a credit against an Impact Fee for the value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any Transportation SyStem Improvement provided by the developer to the city as a condition of approval of the Development Activity. 9.48.xxx Unusual Circumstances At the time a Transportation Impact Fee is imposed, the city shall be allowed to adjust the standard Transportation Impact Fee to consider unusual cimumstances in specific cases to ensure that an Transportation Impact Fee is imposed fairly. DR,4FT. DRA?T 9.48.xxx Consideration of Studies or. Data provided by Developer. In calculating the mount of a Transportation Impact Fee, the Director may consider studies and data submitted by the developer in determining whether any adjustment of the standard Impact Fee is warranted. 9.48.120 Adjustments to mitigation requirements A. If, in the rare instance, and in the judgment of the director, none of the options for calculating impact mitigation amounts accurately reflect the impacts of the new development, the director may allow the fee payer to conduct an independent fee calculation. The fee payer shall, at that time, prepare and submit to the director an independent fee calculation of the development activity for which the building permit or development approval is sought. The document(s) submitted shall show the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made and the proposed amount of the fee. The director is not required to accept any documentation that the director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or unreliable and may require the fee payer to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. Based on the information within the director's possession, the director may adjust the impact fee calculation to the specific characteristics of the development, if necessary. 9.48.130 Mitigation o f traffic safety hazards A. If the Department of Public Works determines that a hazard to safety could reasonably exist as a result of traffic generated by a project, the applicant shall be required to construct the improvements necessary to mitigate the traffic safety hazard regardless of whether the roadway corridor or intersection meets the capacity standards of this chapter. B. If the Department of Public Works determines that there is an existing hazard to safety affect'mg a traffic corridor or intersection which will be impacted by traffic from a proposed project and that the improvements necessary to resolve the safety hazard are not a funded project in the Capital Improvement Program and are not already funded for correction from other sources, the applicant shall have the option of (1) constructing the improvements necessary to mitigate the traffic safety hazard, subject to the right to apply to enter into a Latecomer Agreement regarding such project, or (2) postponing the project until such time as a project to correct the safety hazard has been fully funded. Division IV. Appeals 9.48.200 Appeals A. Any party seeking to appeal an impact fee or mitigation requirement imposed by a City administrator under this chapter may file an appeal of Type 1 decision as provided in TMC 18.104.010(B) and TMC 18.108.010(B). B. Any fee payer may pay the impact fee imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain development approval. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may oflly be taken forward by the fee payer of the property where such development activity will occur. No appeals shall be permitted unless and until the impact fees at issue have . been paid. C. Determination of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value ora credit, or the director's decision with respect to the independent fee calculation or any other shall be appealed to the heating body pursuant to TMC 18.104.010(B) and TMC 18.108.010(B). DRAFT Attachment III.C. INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director,,_q~ Date: November 19, 2003t ~ Subject: Transportation Concurrency and Impact Mitigation Fees Ordinance Changes Project No. 01-RW06 ISSUE Update to the Impact Mitigation Fee list and modifications m the Concurrency Ordinance (TMC 9.48). BACKGROUND. Recent legal challenges to the City's Concurrency Ordinance, specifically to the impact mitigation fee methodology, hive created a need for Tukwila to modify the Concurrency Ordinance (TMC 9.48) and update the Mitigation Fee list. Originally, staff thought modifications to the Comprehensive Plan and the associated Transportation Background Report would be necessary but further review has shown modifications to be unnecessary at this time. ANALYSIS Recent litigation decisions, still in the appeals process, exposed a very r~al n~ed for updates to the. City's way of collecting impact mitigation fees..Staff is developing p~oposed language changes to'the Transportation Concurrency ordinance and updaiing Table 12: Mitigation Proportionate Fair Share Costs from the Transportation Background Report. Because of the very short timeframe in which these changes are being done, the actual verbiage and updated impact fee list will be presented'during the Transportation Committee, immediately followed by the Committee of the Whole on November 24, 2003: Schedule for this:process is: November 10112 - Transportation Committee and Community Affairs & Parks Committee November 24 - Transportation Committee and Committee of the Whole December 15 - Ailoption by City Council Action A full update to the Transportation Element will be done in late 2004. Those changes will be in conjunction with other city-wida updates currently underway as required by state law. RECOMMENDATION Review and adopt the proposed ordinance changes and mitigation fee list. TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 9.48 B. Volume (V) to capacity (C) ratios shall be used TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY STANDARDS to quantify LOS for corridors as follows: LOS Volume/Capacity '~ A up to 0.6 Sections: . B 0.6.0.7 9.48.010 Determination of traffi~ concurrency required C 0.7- 0.8 ' 9.48.020 Exemptions. D 0.8 - 0.9. -- 9.48.030 Level-of-Service standards E 0.9- 1.0 9.48.040 Arterial classification system 9.48.050 LOS standards for specific locations F · greater than 1.0 9.48.060 Design of arterial improvements; load limits C. The Department of Public Works may, in its · 9.48.070 Traffic studies and mitigation discretion, utilize either a standard LOS gradation 9.48.080 Mitigation of traffic safety hazards system or, in the case of intersections that are 9A8.090.Appeals experienqing high congesti, on, an expanded 'LOS " gradation system to evaluate. The LOS gradations for 9.48.010 Determination of traffic concurrency intersections, based on average delays, are: required ' Level of, A. No Type 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision which is Service' . Existing · Expanded subject to this chapter shall be approved unless a ' A <7.5 seconds < 7.5 seconds determination is made by the .appropriate Department B .7.5: 15 seconds 7.5 - .15 seconds that the standards of this chapter, have been met. ' C 15.1 - 25 seconds - 15.1 - 25 seconds B. For' Type 1 and 2 decidons, the Department of D 25.1 - 40 seconds · 25.1 - 40 seconds community Development shall refer the application to E 40.1 - 60 seconds ' 40.1 - 60 seconds' the Department of 'Public Works, .which .shall F > 60 seconds' 60 - 120 seconds determine whether the .application complies with 'City G 120-. 180 seconds standards regarding traffic cohcurrency, and, if not, what · H · . · 180 - 240 seconds mitigation is required. ' . I ' 240 - 300 seconds · C.' For Type 3, 4, and 5 'decisit~ns, the' Department· ': j. ' >300 seconds of'Community Development shall refer the appilcatioti . " Ord. 1769 ~3[pa(t), 1993] tO the Departmefit of Public Works 'which shall . .. .... ~ . '. determine whether the' opplication complies with City ..9.48.040 Artenal classification sy~tem'i': . · . standards regarding traffic concurrency and, if not, what' .A. The Tukwila Functfo'nal. Arterial Classification mitigation is re~tuir~d. A .statement identifying the System~ which is in accord with required Fed~rai and required 'mitigation, if ~ny, shall br..incorporated'into' -Washington State arterial standards is as follows:. · ' · the ~taff rePort required by TMC 18.112.020."...' ' · .' '-... : · :--' ' · - - · ' : ' '. (Ord. l?d9 §3[part), 1993] Street Classification" Principal Use"' -. ~.. ' · . . . · ." ' ' - ' · . . .' · Access.. · access to abutting pr0perty.'- 9.48.020 Exemptions" · -'.This chapter shall not 'apply't6 single 'family .: Collector Arterial ... between access & minor . . Minor Arterial - · between collector &'principal . .building'. permit§', multi-family building permits, for Principal Arterial between communities -... : "pr0Iects containing fbur or few~r'units~ short plats, m; · anynon-residential project that is categorically exempt .-. B.' The Departmeni of Public Works ~hafi ci'assif7 from.SEPA pursuant to TMC 21.04.080;:100, or 110. 'all streets, in the City 'in accordance with the The Department shall also.waive compliance with this classifications, in 'Subseqtior/ A. Such. classifications ' chapte~ for other projects which will not generate new ' shall be reviewed and modified as. necessary, by the traffic urips? ' Department from time to time. ' ' ' - ' [Ord:/?dg §3(part), 19~3) : .. · [Ord. 17~ §S[part), lg~S) 9,48.030 Level-of-Service standards '9.48.050 LoS standards for specific locations A.. Level-of-service ("LOS") gradations for corridors A. 'A minimum LOS standa/~d Of E. for traffic shall' be measured with volume to .capacity ratios capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation graded from LOS A to LOS F, as pr6vided in subsection of average LOS, for the following arterial segments: B, and intersections shall be measured in 'average 1. E Marginal Way (S. 1 l'2th St. to North City delays at intersections, or average travel speeds on Limit) corridors, as determined by the Department of Public 2. Interurban (Southcenter Blvd. to 1-5) Works. 3. Pacific Highway S. (S. 152nd St. to Boeing Access Rd.) TITLE 9 - VEHICLE5 ANU I HAFFIC " '4. West Valley Rd {I-405 to S. 180th St.) trip generation analysis using standard generation rates 5. Southcenter Parkway south of S. 180th St. published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, B. In the Central Business Dis~ct ("CBD"} .area, a other stan~lard references, or from other documented minimum average LOS level of E shall be maintained, information and surveys approved by the Department In the CBD, LOS shall be determined by Using the of Public '~orks~ In addition, such projects shall submit "llnk"'averages f~r the 17 segments defined in' the a trip distribution study, unless the requirement for Transportation Element of the Comprehensive' Plan. such study ls waived by the Department of Publi~ For purposes of this section, the CBD is' the area Works. D. If the trip generation and distribution studies b0ufided by I-5, I:405, the Green River, and S. 180 St.)- . 'C. 'A.minimum LOS standard, of E for traffic demonstrate that the proposed project will generate capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation five or more additional' peak hour traffic trips in a of. LOS for individu'al inter~ections and corridor specific area or corridor prior to the horizon year .segments for all other minor, collector and principal established by the Transportation Element of the arterials principally' serving'commercially zoned 'comprehensive Plan established in'TMC 9.48.050, ' impact mitigation fees shall .be paid .for the fairshare property. - . D. iA minimum LOS standard of D for' traffic mitigation costs established in the Transportation · capacity Shall be malntair~ed~ based upon a calculation Element of .the Comprehehsive Plan or subsequent of LOS. for individual intersections' and: corridor 'Capital Improvement Plan. . segments for all re!nor and collector arte/'ials in' E. If the trip generation and distribution'studies predominantly residential areas, provided that. for the demohstrate, that the proposed project will generate following arterials, LOS Sha~l be calcblated based on the' five 5 or more additional peak ~our traffic trips on any average 'LOS for' the arterial: 42nd Ave. S:, S. 160th St., . non-Specific, arterial or access street such that. the S. 164th'St., Macadam,"S. 124th St., S.: '130th St.,'S. intersection,'corridor,'-or area will be belo~v the.Level 132nd St. S~ 144th St, 53rd Ave. S, and 65th A'~el S. ' 'of Sea,'vice standards established ~n TMC 9.48.050, prior · E.:' Access .streets' whihh exceed 1,000 v~hicle$ to the horizon year established by. the Transportation. per day volun~e will-be evaluated bna case .by. case Element of the Comprehensive Plan;-'the Director of.. ' basis to determine whether 'traffic improvements hr the Department of 'Public Works shall .require, as · control, measurei are. ~'equir~d to reduce, volumes andappropriate to .the particular circumstances, one 'of the ' provide adequate safety~ ' following methods for mitigation of the. project's traffic · .' ' ''i' (Ord. 'l'Y69§$(pa~t),:f~j. impacts: ' ' ' ' · · · '.' . ' ' ' ' ' 1. Require the .applicant t~ pay. a :Mitigation 9.48.060~ Design of arterial improvement's; 10ad' payment equa! to the applicant's proportionate fair limits "' . .. ~ "' ~ Share of the cost of.the .improvements necessary to · A." Arterial improvements iff domme~:~ial, areas ~'estore the intersection(s)amrial(s)~or 'access street(s) shall be designed to include trucking geometric and to [1) the level of se~ice .~hat would exist .at .the time..': ' ~oadin8 parameters. .... . the projedt'is completed; but' without project h'affic; or · B. Trucking wiil be allowed On all arterials as Well "(2) 'the level of service standard established~ in .TMC as commercial area access streets.unless restricted by' 9.48.050; or load' limits. Load .limits may'be' used .as restrictions 2. Req[ti're the applicant- tO .compl'ete' the. followinga ~affic study:.. ' improvements required ..to' restore thel intersection(s} . · {Ord.. 1769 §3(part), 1993] arterial(s) or. access stre~t(s)'.to (1) ~he. level of service. ..... :' that would exist at the time the project is completed, ' 9~48.070 Traffic studies and mitigation· ". 'bUt without Pr0jec{ t. faffic, or (2) the. level·of service. A. 'TMC 9.48.050.'identifies 'Level of Service standard established in TMC 9.48 050;.or " standards for specific· areas' and corridor~ that can be 3. Id. appropriate cases~' mitigation may consist maintained by making improvements identjl~ed in the of. a combination of improvements constructed by the Transportation Eleme~t based:on 2015 "build Out" applicant and mitigation paYments.. ' ' development traffic projections. Level'of Service' If the proposed.project does not.generate five or standards' are also' established for other non:specific more additional peak hou~ traffic trips at an intersection · arterials and for access s~eets.. · or 'corridor which will be below the Level of Service · B. Fairshare.mitigation ~0sts/trip for.the specific standards established in TMC 9.48.050 prior to the areas and 'corridors identified in TMC 9.48.050 are horizon year for the Transportation Element of the provided in the Transportation Element and Comprehensive Plan, no mitigation under this section: subsequent updates of the Capital Improvement Plan. will .be required. C. Any proposed project'which requires a Type 1, F. A project applicant shall have the right to 2, 3, 4 or $ decision and which will generate five or mitigate all or a portion of the capacity impacts of a more vehicle trips in an AM, noon, or PM peak hour project by utilizing capacity mitigation measures, petiod shall submit, as part of the application process, a including but not limited to, carpooling and rideshare Printed danuary 2, 2003 Page 9-21 TUKWILA ·MUNICIPAL CODE programs, widenings' {roadway, lane, radius), signal . . improvements, and other capacity improvements. In the event' that mitigation measures such as carpoollng .. and.r{deshare programs are proposed, the applicant shall execute such algreements with the City as are necessary to assure the permanen[ availability of such prbgrams. G. In the event that the applicant completes improvements which are part of the Circulation System adopted in the Comprehensive Plan and the cost of such improvements exceeds the. applicant's proportionate fair share of the cost .of such · improyements, the applicant ~hall'be entitled to apply to enter into a Latecomer Agreemen[ with the City. H. The Mitigation ·Payment Schedule for the Transportation Element of,the Comp/'ehensive Plan shall be updated every, three years or with the annual Capital Improvement. Plan update. [Ord. 1769 §3[part), 1993) 9.48.080 Mitigation of traffic safety' hazards '~A. If the Deparunent of Public-Works determines that'a hazard to safety could reasonably exist as a result of traffic, generated by a projec[, the applicant shal} be . .required to construct' the improi, ements necessary [o . . ..... mitigate the traffic safety hazard regardless of whether .. the roadway, corridor or lores:section meetS'the capacity , . . standards of this chapter. B. If the: Department o! Public Works determines that there is an existing hazard to safety affecting a traffic . .corridor or .intersection-which will be impacted by .... ..~:. ~..._..-...:.... traffic from a proposed project and 'that :the improvements necessary 'to. resblve the safety hazard are i~ot' a funded project in 'the Capital 'Improvement.- 'Program and are not already:funded for correction from '. other sources; the applicant.shall'have the opttqn of (l) · consmicting the improvements necessary-to mitigate.. ..:... ~ :..?......: the traffic safety hazard', subject to the right to'apply m . . . .. ~n(er tiro a Latecomer. Agreement regal'ding such · .. .project, or [2) postponing the project until such time as - · . " a project to correct the safety' hazard has been fully . ' . . ' .., :.funded.'. ~), 7'9931 9.48['090 'Appeals ' .. "- -- ' . Any party seeking to appeal an impact fee or mitiga- .. ~.. tion requirement imposed by a City' administrator under'this chapter may file an appeal of'Type 1 decision as provided in TMC 18.104.010(B) and TMC · 18.108.010(B). Printed January 2, 2003 9-22 Table 12 - Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs 1990 2010 PkVol Improvement Cost/ l_nte~sccdon or Link Pk Vol Pk Vol Diff Cost Trip Southcenter/Strander 3,899. 4,853 954 ' "$134,000' $140 widen for WB left tums Andover ?k E/strander 3,211 3,905 694 $941000. $135 widen for n/s. left tums ' Andover Pk. V~/Strander 3,082 4,016 934 $2~6,000 ' .$317 widen for n/s left tums :' S 189 st/SRi81 5,236 7,760 2,524 $1,200,000 $475 widen n/s and edw Ando~er Pk E/Baker 790 1,453 663 $250,000* $377 n/s lefts, signal AndO~ Pk.W/Nfinkl~r 2,441 · 3,078 637 $250,000*' . $392 n/s lefts, signal SoUthcenter p.kwy/168 2,425 3,324 899 :$250,000* ·$278 W Valley/S~ander .,3,433 4,316 883 $250,000* $283- ~ dual left mm lanes Lnterurban Bridge. 2,831 3,945 1,114 $1,250,000' $1,122. widen fciC' dual left~ .. · Tiffs is a "planing level" estimate. Fu t u r e' (Beyond 6 years (2000)): · Nfinkl~r (APW - Southcenter PkWY) 0 1,015 1,015 construc · -8':178 'St iSbumcenter PkWy-WCL) ' 789 1,424 635 malign' ( caplsafety ltranftO Andovcr PkWy (T PkWy-180) 1,112 1,833 721 widen to 5 lanes. Andover Pk. E (T PkWy-180) 970 1,420 450' widen to 5 lanes @ in~. $outhccnte~ PkWy (180-200) 408 1,600 1,192 construct ~ and 5 lane stxeet 71 November 1993 Table 12 - Mitigation Proportiona[e Fairshare Costs (continued) 1990 2010 Pk Vol Improvement Cost/ Pk Vol · . Diff Cost T~p Pk Vol Intersection or Link __' --- . Pacific Hwy (152~lTD widen to 7 lanes S 133 St (Eamst) Bridge 0 518 518 Ga[eway Dr ~o S 129 St widen, c/g/sw, conrd sigs Pacific Hwy/S 116S£ widen for dual left SB , Pacific Hwy Bridge, . widen . ' S 154 St (51 S-Pacific Hwy) Future widen to 3 lanes B Marginal (BAR-115) (to be determined) widen to 3 lanes is construct 3 lane street $outhcenter BlYd (I5-62 S) w~den to 7 lanes 62 Ave S('S" llne bridge) widen to 6 lane~ Klickitat($outhcenter PkWy-I5) widen to 5 lanes Treelc'Dr (Andover Pk'W: And0ver Pk E) · construct 3 lane street. W va~ey (I405 i Todd) widen to 7 lanes Boeing ACcess Rd/IS SB offleft comtmct left mnffsignal Boeing Access Rd/IS NB on construct NB on re,rision ~ ~-- November 1993 72 Ma~ 28 03 11:42a Ken,on Dorna~ Marshall City oF OLYMPIA Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Olympia Mnnicipal Code §15.16.040 Adopted through Ordinance 6164 (200 I) Amended through Ordinance 6176 (2002) Amended through Ordinance 6224 (2002) Amended through Ordinance 6235 (2002) May 28 03 11:42a Kenyon Dorna Marshall 15.16.040 Schedule I). Trayrsr)ortatloat Impact Fees SCHEDULE D TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Land Uses I� 1 'Cost per Now Trip Generated 'Residential Jinja Family (Detached) Multi Family Townhouse, Duplex Accessory Dwelling IReti ement Cgmmm ity !Mobile Home h MH Parts !Commercial Services IDrive-in Bank Igraik:m Bank IDav Can (Library psi Office Motel/Motel !Service Station 'Service StationMlioiuurt IMovil Theater }Cnwnh 'Health Club }Racquet Club Marina 11 11 dwelling II 11 dwelling II 11 11 II se NGPA II 11 ,q ft)GFA 11 II sq NGFA I( II sp NGFA 11 II sgft/GPA 11 11 mom II II Fueling Position 11 11 PuaingPoaitloa 9 11 alt 11 11 site 11 I fl 11 11 a 11 Unit of II Measure 1 1 dwelling J dwelling II sq ft/GFA eq ft/GFA Barth Institutional 11 11 'Elementary /Jr.High High School II student 11 (Univenit,ICoilege 11 student 11 N. IChuroh II sq NGFA II Hoao Iital II auft/GFA II INunMg Home 11 bed 11 'Congregate CacnfAntLving I1 dwelling II lmdusaial II 11 (Light Indatry/Menufachgmg 11 so NGFA II Itndusaisl Perk II W NGFA 11 fWarehousing/Stonge 11 agt/GFA 11 [Restaurant 11 11 'Restauran'Restaurant 11 sq fVGPA 11 !Fast Food R..�,.,,.....,iw /oddvetbnt 11 eq NGFA 11 Fut Food Ratawantw /dSa tiny 11 eq NGPA 11 Retail Shoepbag Center 11 11 ue to 9.99911 so NGLA 11 10,000.499991f 14 NGLA II 1 50.000. 99,99911 sq NGLA 11 425 -_.32 7071 p.5 Rate 11 11 Land Uses 11 Unit of fl Rate 11 Measure L 32.001 61 11 3zo1 576511 IlAutomobile Parts Sales S1.421 $27111 11�ickLubrientien Vehicle Shop I1Servising Positions 11 32,2111 570211 flPhamiecy/Dtugstore(w /o drive -Oun) 32321 Wharmacy/Dmgstore(wit drive -thru) $3.181 31.0741 n 11 I Nuary/Gruen Center II 11 51.26511 1 Automobile Cam Curter 11 �IRetui[ Shopping Center (con[) 11 Sq NGFA 0.q ft/GLA sq [NGFA 11 eg NGFA 11 s ft/GFA 317.6511 IIKHrdwarc/BuildingMatmiel3 Store 11 sq ft/GFA 510.2411 ll Merchandise Store It sq [NGFA 37.0911 IlVideo Rental II IQ ft/GFA 33.2411 Monte Improvement Supentorc II iq ft/GFA $4.9211 1 �dmbeisfra a Office 11 51.01711 II 0-99.99911 53.54611 II 100.000 -199 Jl__9 NGFA $2.44311 II 200.000-29999911 •q NGF A $98[1 11 over 300,0001J_ et NGFA 530.15611 11 Medical Office&Clinicll sq tt/GFA sq NGFA 1 1 11 II 11 II II II 11 II II 51.821 52.231 55121 1.191 $4.151 32.711 II 52.:21 II Ss. ;6! 52.31! $7.5811 11 )1 11 1 51.521! IID TOwN FEES II II 1 319011 IIMuI Fae�yn &d Townhouse, Duplexlldwellmg i1 11 retirement Community Ildwelling 11 $1841 48611 /Pursing Home II bed II 51361 520011 1)Cngrcgate Csre/AsstLiving 11 dwelling II 31161 40.8711 IlDowntown Service' II egNGFA II $1.92! 31.3211 IIWaIk -MBank 11 age/GFA 11 55261 520011 IIBoteFMonl 11 mom II 36351 517011_ IllpM, vi ovie Theater 1! sea 11 3811 11 1 11" `'—Club 11 iq B/GFA If 30.911 $1.7911 11h /farina il Bash II 511111 516811 '(Restaurant 11 egft/GFA 11 31.9' 30.9311 IIFnt Food Restaunnt 11 ag5/GFA II 37.111 11 11DuwntownRetdha 11 miff/GLA 11 $1.10$ 57,2911 I Suupetmarket 11 ft/GFA II 53.291 5 ltConveniance Maker II sgNGFA II 35.401 511.9611 Video Rental 11 .q NGFA 11 52.801 I) I1Administrathve Office 11 11 I stash 11 0-9999911 &q NGFA 11 $2.89 $21911 II 100,000-19959911 sq NGFA 11 522.171 52041! 14 260,000- 199.99911 sq NGPA 11 31.881 5337 http: /www.olympiamu nicipalcode. org/ A55799/ O1y- muni. nsf/ 30c2b313f243223t88255f9c007b49 3/21/2003 May 28 03 11:43a Kenyon Dornay Marshall Supermarket IC. a Market Iivfisoellaneous Retail tNumlNm Stare 1Cr Sales New/Used dotes: 425 -.,32 -71371 A•6 100,000499,99911 sgtVGLA II 52.00n 11 ever 300.00011 agfVGFA II Sr.59I 200,000 299,99911 agft/GLA II 51.8211 Wanes! Offie4/Clinio II ag1VGFA II 54.6.71 300,000. 399,999 agtt/GLA 11 $2,1611 i1industnat Park It sq RlGFA 11 S1041 over 400,0001L aq NVGLA 11 52.4311 IIWarehousina/Storage 11 aq ft/GFA 11 50.581 J sq e/GFA I1 56.4911 11 II 11 I II sgtt/GFA JI 511.2511 IL 11 11 1 11 so R/GLA II 51.1011 11 II II 1 1t agiVGFA 11 $0.1611 11 11. 11 I II aq 8/GFA II S d 1 1 11 I For uses with Unit of Measure in. "sq ft/GFA" or "sq ft/GLA trip rate is given as trips per 1000 sq ft of gross floor area (GFA) or gross leasable area (GLA), and impact fee is dollars per square foot. Trip Length Adjustment Factor for a and use type is calculated by dividing its Trip Length by the Average City Trip Length in miles. Downtown: Defined as in December 1994 Comprehensive Plan or subsequent updates. Downtown Services: Library, Day Care, andHealth Club Downtown Retail: Includes all retail uses except those otherwise listed. (Ord. 6235 §1 2002; Ord. 6224 §8, 2002; Ord. 6176 §1, 2002; Ord. 6164 §9, 2001). http:// www. olympiamunicipalcode .org/A55799 /01y -muni. nsf/ 30c2b313 f243223f88255f9c007b49... 3/21/2003 27.04.030 Assessment of impact fees. (a) The city shall collect impact fees, based on the schedule in Appendix A, from any applicant seeking a building permit from the city, or certificate of occupancy permit if a building permit is not required. . . , Co) ,Al_l impact fees shall be collected from the apph .Can. t prior to issuance of the building permit, or cer1~cate of occupancy permit if no building perrmt ts required, using the impact fee schedui¢ ~en in e~ect or pursuant to an independent fee calculation accepted by the director pursuant to ection 27:04.040. (c) The department shall establish the impact fcc rate for a land use tha~ is not listed on lhe rate schedule in Appendix A. The applicant shall submit all information requested by the depa~-u~tent for purposes of determining the impact tee rate ~..u~s. uant to Sect/on 27.04.040. The adopted cost per trip in Appendix A shall be.the bads for establishir~ the impact tee rate. http://search.mrsc.org/nxt~gat~w~y~d~/~drk27:htm~?f`~temp~ates$~=~rkd~c~ame.htm$3.~$q--`~/~2.~. 3/20/2003 May 28 03 11:43a Kenyon Barney Marshall rnyle. 17. Gldld3 4: 47PM PLANNING DEPT ay ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDUILE Effective 6/14/99 9m NINO� O Laud Uses COST PER TRIP a AssmwdlaMMIMMORMINEM Single remits Multi Family Retirement Community Nursing Home Assisted thing N10 School UnNersity /Cofleae Church Hos Itat Millirrigt Restaurant Unit of II FEE PER UNIT Measure san.0 viawipmarampailis dwelling II 5946.00 dwelling dwelllnd bed dweling 5585.00 5207.00 $153.00 5130.00 Orfva4n Bank so h /GFA 523.46 Walk-in Bank sq ft/GFA 510.87 Day Care so ft/GFA 35,41 Ubrn sa ft/GFA 92.47 Post Office so ft/GFA 1 53.76 Hasel /Motel room 1 5648.00 Extended Stay Motel mom 1 5382.00 Servica Station VFP I 52.704.00 Service Station /Minimart VFP I 51.864.00 Sarvka Station /MMImauHCarwash VFP 1 52.756.00 arwash site 4 523.020.00 Made Theater screen 1 523,780.00 Health Club so ft/GFA 1 $2.73 Recovet Club 1 so ft/GFA 11 51.16 Marina 1 Barth $144.00 �maeea: 11 c ElementarySehool /JJr. ilia; Went 1 student 611440 student student so t/GFA sq ft/GFA 676.00 3156.00 30.67 $1.02 sq ft/GFA 55.56 Land Uses Commix /i/WPa ilgyai erifi?e up to 9.999 s0 ftl 10,000 so ftto 49,000 so ftl 50.000 so ftto 99699 so ill 100.000 so ft to 199.999 so ft! 200.000 sn ft to 299,999 sq ft1 300,000 sa tt b 399,999 so ftt aver 400,000 sq ftt Auto Park Sales Auto Core Center Car Sales Naw /Used Convenience Market Discount Club Electronics Superstore Free Standing Discount Store PumitureStore Herdwe a /PeIMStore Home Improvement Sup_rsbm Mlarellaneou; Retail Safes Nurser /Garden Center Pharmacy (with Drive Through) Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shoo Video Rental corrected 4/19/01 425 -..92 -7071 90.000 sq ftto 99,999 so IN 100,000 act ftto 199,999 sa 81 200,000 sq ftto 299,999 so ftl over 300.000 so ftl NO.979 P.2 /2 Unit of Measure sq ft /GLA sgft/GLA so ft/GLA so ft/GLA IQ fVGLA so ft/GIA se ft/GLA sg ft/GFA so ftGLA SO it/GFA ft/GFA so ft/GFA se ft/GFA so ft/GFA sq ft/GFA ea R/GFA so ft/GFA sa ft/GFA soft/GRA sa ft/GFA Service Bay sa ft/GFA Supermarket 1 SC ft /GFA Tire More 1 Service Bay sgft/GFA so tt/GFA sb ft/GFA so ft/GFA so ft/GFA 1 1 l 1 1) an to 9,999 eq ftl se NGFA 1 10.000 so Rto 49.000 so tl so tr/GFA 1 p.8 FEE PER UNIT tincAppa 62.43 52.13 51.56 $1,52 51,39 51,65 51.85 51.94 61.101 52.31 68.59 $2.91 25.61 61.70 50.13 51.44 91.151 60.84 52.24 52.41 5944.00 $2.17 94.95 51,125.00 Fast Food Resteurantw /a drive thru I so ft/GFA 1I 37.14 Medical OMee. Clinic Fast Food Rasteurentw/ drNathou I1 so ft /GFA 11, 909.16 /ridr7sbVYsjS fdb ftlnt teOMML:-114 1 c4l v? g Opp Industry /High Technology 1 so IVGFA if 61.37 industrial Park I so ft/GFA II 51.281 Warehousing/Stefan I sq NJGFA 1 90.71 VFP Vehicle Fuallhg Positions (Maximum humbar of Vehitias that can be fueled simultanefMey) GU- Gross Leasibia Are GFA• Gross Fleet Area I. For additional InfosmatIan, see Kirkland Municipal Code, Chapter 27.04 (Ordinance 305 as adopted). Z. Fee must he paid pea to Issuance of Building dr Tenentirnproverpent Permit. 9. For land use was not Included Ip ma rate schedule, contact the Public works Oepanment, 4. The impact fee for mixed use developments shall be basal on the proportionate sham of each land use. tress a muitl1enant averaging agreement is approved by the Public Works Department S. Accessory Dwelling Units approved under Section 115.65 of the Zoning Code are consk*ted can at the assacteted sinidefamjy unit for the purposes of tills fee. 6. Fee must be paid for change In use if new use has a higher impact ice. Credit Is +Nan to existing error use since Jamrary 1, 1999. ¢wave, .IWIITtY 64.71 54.71 1 52.73 1 t2.07 1 51.31 1 31.6 1 $4.011 Ma~ ~8 03 11:43a Ken~on Dopna~ Mapshail 4~5-~-?071 po? City of Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Kirkland Municipal Code Chapter 27.04, Appendix A Adopted ~hrough Ordinance 3685 (1999) Art~rltm~ £ Questions & Answers (EastSide Transportation Concurrency Study) Page 1 of 5 Ui~lOl~ What is the Growth Management Act (GMA)? nswe~ Washington's Growth Management Act was adopted in 1990 to manage the Timeline, in the state. Counties and cities are required to create 20-year plans that d, growth areas for projected development to avoid urban sprawl and to prote Deliverables, The Growth Management Act also requires local governments to ensure tha & Project Progress other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any developmer approved. For more information about the Growth Management Act, log onl Study TE~ rrls ' htto://www.ocd.wa.gov/info/Iod/orowth/law/index.tel. Resources Also relevant to the issue of concurrency is Vision 2020, the Puget Sound R plan for 20-year growth. It has been developed by the Puget Sound Region, Events & Neetings What is concurrency? Site Map Concurrency is the requirement that infrastructure to support development and funded before development can be improved and built. Such infrastrucl -,~. facilities for water, sewage, and transportation. This study is concentrating transportation element of concurrency. The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that public transpo the other infrastructure facilities be in place within six years from "the time accommodate the impacts of new development. Local governments plannin must establish Level of Service (LOS) standards for their transportation sys roadways, in their comprehensive plans. They may permit new developmen jurisdictions as long as the transportation infrastructure will sustain the req developer mitigates circumstances to achieve the LOS. What is the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study? Revised July 16. 2002 The Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study is a two-year assessment o managed in the four Eastside cities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, and is.· will evaluate the extent to which meeting concurrency requirements assists complying with the intent of the state's Growth Management Act and the re objectives. The study will investigate alternative measures of transportatior suggest what changes, if any, to state and local laws would provide more el dealing with concurrency issues. The city of Bellevue is managing the project on behalf of the four Eastside c $250,000 in funding from the state legislature. The study is being undertak Washington team led by the Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC Evans School of Public Affairs, the Department of Urban Design and Plannin Associates. Why is the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study being undertaken? The cities of Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, and Issaquah identified four pro[ with current transportation concurrency practices that this study will try to 1. Existing concurrency measures work against the Growth Managemen of the GNA was to encourage land development in compact centers v http://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/questions.html 6/5/2003 Questions & Answers (Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study) Page 2 of 5 could be provided efficiently. From a development perspective, conct discouraging development in centers when traffic approaches level ol standards. Instead, development may move out to the urban fringe t related impact fees and permitting uncertainties. This effect is contra the GNA, exacerbating sprawl and contributing to even greater level., 2. Cities must deal with vehicle trips that are diverted from congested s city streets. People making trips that should be carried by the region increasingly shifting to city streets to find shorter travel times. This c t hat would otherwise be available to serve local land use. 3.There i s little cross-jurisdictional coordination on LOS standards or h( cross-jurisdiction trips. Travel is not restricted to jurisdictional bound generated by land uses in one city often affects streets in another. G cities currently practice concurrency, they lack any collective means · on a regional or subregional basis. 4. The methodology for determining LOS used by most local governmer vehicle traffic during the busiest part of the day compared with stree method does not reflect person movement or provide for pedestrian, mobility (except to the extent that they reduce vehicle trips). Existin! measures do not encourage the evolution of the multi-modal transpo needed to support the region's center-based growth strategy. What are the goals of the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study? The cities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland and Issaquah will work cooperati~ the following: · Assess different ways that the four cities measure concurrency, evalt current concurrency systems have had on supporting the implement~ and the Growth iVlanagement Act, and identify opportunities and chal with developing a more uniform and coordinated system. · Identify areas of common agreement on the use of concurrency regu principles involved in their application to determine whether a mutua outcomes among the cities is possible. · Analyze alternative approaches for measuring concurrency (e.g., tim, vs. peak period, delay, and methods that reward or enhance multi-m solutions to broaden what is now principally an auto-based accountin · Evaluate alternative approaches, focusing on helping Bellevue, Kirkla Issaquah comply with the intent of the Growth iVlanagement Act and 2020 objectives, given the current realities of congested freeways an · Develop specific'recommendations for changes to state and local law effectiveness of concurrency methods over time. Which cities are involved in the Eastside Transportation ConcurrencyStu~ · Bellevue: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/ · Issaquah: http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/ · Kirkland: http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/ http://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/questions.html 6/5/2003 Questions & Answers (Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study) Page 3 of 5 · Redmond: http://www.ci.redmond.wa.us What is the benefit of studying multiple cities? Although each local city government is responsible for approving local land determining a particular level of service standard, decisions made in one cit neighboring cities. Therefore, the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Stuc potential concurrency changes to improve coordination on the sub-regional state and regional transportation providers should be involved. Who is working on the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study? · Executive Steering Committee The Executive Steering Committee (ESC) provides direction on key issues a shepherding the project through city councils and providing guidance to the Committee. The ESC comprises the planning and public works directors of E Kirkland, and Issaquah. · Technical Advisor,/Committee The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) ensures that affected agencies are their expertise in a timely and coordinated manner. The TAC comprises star Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, and Issaquah. · University of Washington Study Team The University of Washington Study Team will conduct the research, develo present findings to the ESC, TAC, and elected and appointed officials, as w~ opportunities for both the TAC and ESC. The Study Team comprises senior Washington State Transportation Center; the Evans School of Public Affairs. Architecture and Urban Planning; and Kittelson and Associates. How is the study being funded? The State of Washington appropriated $250,000 of the motor vehicle accou Transportation Concurrency Study. In support of this effort, the cities of Be Kirkland and Issaquah are providing $100,000 in an in-kind staffing commil state grant. When will the study be finished? By November 1, 2003, a report of the findings will be made to the transpor; the legislature. Level of Service Standards · What is LOS? LOS stands for "level of service." It is a measure of how well a given transp performing. In general, LOS is reported as a grade ranging from "A" (very (. bad). · How is LOS determined? http://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/questions.html 6/5/2003 Questions & Answers (Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study) Page 4 of 5 Roadway LOS has been defined both mathematically and descriptively by ti' Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council for a variety of roac simple terms, LOS A for any facility means that traffic flows smoothly enou~. behavio~'(speed, ability to change lanes) is not affected by other vehicles. [ many vehicles are on the facility that vehicle flow has broken down and tral inconsistently (i.e., stop and go traffic conditions). LOS B through LOS E ar~ between these extremes. The mathematical calculations used to compute LOS vary from one type of (e.g., the procedures for freeways are different from those for intersections some of the preferable measurements are hard to collect, simplified proced the volume being carried with the theoretical capacity of the facility are con estimate LOS for all types of roadway facilities. LOS for transit systems, pedestrians, and bicyclists are less well defined. Ti developing, and at some point will adopt, standard methods for computing modes that can be applied uniformly across the nation. Some jurisdictions ~ measures being considered as part of the TRB's development review proces · How is capacity measured? Roadway capacity is a function of the type of facility (arterial versus freewa of lanes), its lane configuration (e.g., any left turn lanes), and any control r example, the signal timing used at an intersection). Formulas for computin(. roadways are presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, as well as within ~ standard engineering texts. In some cases, authoritative texts provide mine capacity calculation. These differences, while minor, allow engineers to trad capacity calculations with the time and effort required to calculate such esti versions of these equations ignore or don't estimate the minor effects that ~ design features have on measured capacity, which can be captured more p~ the more detailed (and resource intensive) capacity calculation procedures. Capacity is traditionally expressed as the maximum number of vehicles thai a one-hour period. This is important for reviewing rush hour roadway perfol hour, traffic demand normally peaks. That is, volume demand is uneven thr Thus, even though the "hourly volume" is below "hourly capacity," congesti during part of that hour. This is because at the peak of the rush hour, volur roadway can handle, whereas at other times during that same hour volume roadway can handle. · Why do cities measure capacity differently? As noted above, the mathematics for computing roadway LOS vary by facili practical matter, cities have neither the time nor resources to measure cap~ roadway attributes. (For example, LOS can be computed for an entire arter each intersection along that arterial, as well as for each approach to each o' intersections.) To limit the cost of LOS measurements, cities generally choose to examine attributes when reviewing roadway performance. They commonly attempt t attributes that the city staff believes most accurately reflect how the public performance. The Concurrency Study Web site is maintained by the Washington State Transportal University of Washington. For more informatio,~ contact Ron Porter (206.543.334 ~). http://depts, washington.edu/trac/concurrency/questions.html 6/5/2003 Tra~nsportation Committee November 10, 2003 Present: Richard Simpson, Chair; Dave Fenton, Pam Linder Jim Morrow, Frank Lriarte, Brian Shelton, Pat Brodin, Steve Lancaster, Cyndy Knighton. Lucy Lauterbaeh; Dennis Robertson 1. Transportation Concurrency and Impact Fees Although a thorOugh update to.the Transportation Plan is planned for 2004, a more immediate update is needed quickly. The City has been challenged on its impact mitigation fees, and Jim said he wants to get those fees and the method used to calculate them passed before some large upcoming projects are started. Staff will update, the concurrency list of projects, and calculate the project cost/trip by pegging the cost 'for the project, and subtracting any known grants, and calculating the number of trips. The new calculaiinns could cause the impact fees to rise substantially, but the method of calculating them will by following the RCW. Staffplans to finish the work by the next meeting November 24th, have it onthe COW for the same night, and have it adopted by Council December 15th. '2. PSRC ' PSRC is talking of changing the way they allocated funds for transportation projects. It is currently split 60% for regional projects and 40% for local projects A move is afoot to change the split to 40% for regional projects and 60% to local projects. Information. Committee chair approval Transportation Committee . November 24, 2004 Present: Richard Simpson, Chair; Dave Fenton, Pam Linder Frank Iriarte, Brian Shelton, Robin Tischmak, Cyndy Knighton, Lucy 1. 2003 Overlay Completion and Acceptance Robin passed out a map showing where the six overlay projects were done this year. Projects were done on 42nd Ave S., S. :[53rd, Baker Boulevard, 40TM Ave S., T[B and 51st Ave. S. Lakeside industries was the contractor, and all work has been done. There was $36,105 in under runs due to quantity under runs. Traffic control and street planning were overruns, but there were no weather delays or bad soils: Recommend contract acceptance and release of retainaqe to Reqular Meetinq. 2. KFC/Taco Bell Turnover KFC is moving to the old Burger King site on 'fiB. As part of their development, they are dedicating public right of way off of -FIB. This will make things easier for the city right of way projects. Recommend acceptance of turnover documents to Reqular Heetinq. 3. Olive Garden Turnover of :improvements As a condition of the Olive Garden's development they built to city specifications and are now ready to turn over some utilities. These include storm pipes, catch basins and their lids, and stormceptors. Their value is $37,048.58. Recommend adceptance of utilities to Reqular Heetinq. 4, Transportation Concurrency and Impact f4itiqation Staff explained that the rush 6n this is self-imposed both because of the current lawsuit appeal and because of some impending developments it would be good to have it ready for. The information presented tonight is a first draft of what needs to be done. [t is more of a quick fix than a very thorough assessment of the whole concurrency and mitigation system. A more complete review and ordinance will be done next year. Cyndy said the department is interested in plugging vulnerabilities with this interim plan. Cyndy passed out a table of mitigation expected for specific sections of streets in the CBD. Some were projects that have already been done, and others were projects that are beyond six years. She then passed out language that would be in the ordinance but it was written in an easy to read format, which showed current and newly proposed language. As'she went through the memo and explained some of the changes. Pam suggested she write a memo to guide people through the changes and the tables, and explain some anomalies. The committee suggested she explain Level of Service as well as the difference between concurrency and impact mitigation. She said concurrency is a yes/no issue of whether facilities are adequate now or in the future to handle the new growth. [f the answer is "no", developers must pay traffic impact fees. They must also do a traffic study to determine how many trips their business is expected, to add to the current traffic. Dave was concerned that traffic mitigation would be a surprise to developers, but ~taff assured him that even new developers learned about it early in the process at the pre-applicatioh meeting. Finally, Cyndy passed out a Working Draft of an Impact fee schedule with more complete numbers on it than previous drafts. Some project names were changed from previous lists, and some projects were dropped or added. Numbers for trip costs are not firm yet, but they are the best current estimate. lin the end, the committee understood more about the process, but admitted they would like to spend a little more time on it to learn more. Recommend issue to that eveninq'$ COW, committee chair approval INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: January 22, 2004 Subject: Transportation Impact Fee Update ISSUE Direction ~s needed from Council on how to proceed with the update to the Transportation Impact Fee list. BACKGROUND Recent litigation decisions, still in the appeals process, exposed a very real need for updates to the City's way of collecting impact mitigation fees. Staff is developing proposed language changes to the Transportation Concurrency ordinance (TMC 9.48.070) and updating Table 12: Mitigation Proportionate Fair Share Costs from the Transportation. Background Report. ANALYSIS The attached draft table is an update to Table 12 from the Transportation Background Report. The dollar amounts have been calculated using the existing methodology adopted through the City's Comprehensive Plan. No dollar amounts have been reduced to reflect potential funding sources, only known sources for income (including general fund dollars). It is clear that several per-trip amounts are rather substantial and direction from Council is required for staff to complete the draft. RECOMMENDATION Review the attached table and give direction to staff on how to proceed. hSpubworks~cyndy~informat~on memo impact fee update 1-26-04.do¢ working Draft Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Transportation Committee (~ January 26, 2004 Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Pam Carter; Joe Duffle (arr. 6:15) Jim Morrow, Brian Shelton, B~b Giberson, Ryan Partee, Cyndy Knighton, Gail Labanara, Robin Tischmak, Lucy Lauterbach; Brent Carson-Westfield Mall 1. Tukwila International Boulevard Because the City did not receive a $4 million grant from TIB they were hoping for, Phase 3 of TIB is short of funding. To address the issue, the department decided to combine KPG's Phase 2 and 3 designs to see what kinds of savings they could get. They showed the Committee some options they have found thus far. As undergrounding costs are very high,ththe option saving the most money does not include' undergrounding from about S. 139 north on the highway. To do the two projects together with only Tukwila money, one lane would be taken out in parts, with no planters in some positions, and a road shoulder to get to the river. However, it is possible we will be able to use some WSDOT funds they had scheduled for using in the same area. If so, though there would still be less undergrounding than if full funding were available, but five lanes would be maintained, and medians would be put in where there are no left tums. The Committee agreed that changing the undergrounding ordinance would be a policy decision the Council would need to make before we could consider option 2 or 3.. loa,.¢ sa. id that, topic is an item on the Council Retreat Agenda. Information 2. Transportation Impact Fees A recent court case showed that the City needs to fom~alize its impact fee process. The long-term goal will be to change the Transportation Concurrency ordinance. For now they have devised a table with impact fees based on the methodology in the current, comp plan. They showed the cost for several sections of roadway or intersections calculated according to the RCW. Cost ranged from $280/trip to $12,900 for the most expensive cost/trip. Trips are calculated on the number of 4-6 p.m.weekday peak trips. When asked what other cities did, Cyndy said there is a large range of costing methods. Some cities have a flat fee, and others negotiate every case. Some have different per cost trips for different areas of their city. The Committee pointed out that the highest three cost/trip (Southcenter Parkway S. of 180th; Southcenter Blvd 5 lSt-TIB; and Klickitat Southcenter-I-5 flyover) should be looked at for options that would reduce their high costs. Brent pointed out that one trip could involve several of these areas, each with a separate cost/trip. Reschedule. 3. 2004 Committee Agendas Jim had a list of 11 potential committee agenda items. Some are very large items, such as funding options for infrastructure improvements in the TUC. Almost each of the policies could take several meetings. Staff mentioned that Renton wants a meeting with the Transportation Committee to talk about the Strander project February 9th. Information. 4. Reloeati6n of City Light Facilities The Sound Transit (S.T.) pi'oject will require undergrounding some Seattle City Light facilities. Staffpointed out those areas where they will not be required to underground, areas where they'll need to raise the wire heights, and areas that will be undergrounded. The area'on S. 154th (Southcenter Boulevard) from 42ad tO TIB is still under discussion, with the City's view that it needs to be undergrounded. Sound Transit wants this agreement to be a separate contract with the City. With only four crews for the whole South end, City Light will lend Sound Transit two of those four crews for this projecti Information. ,- h2~~ Committee Chair approval