HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2003-11-24 Item 3F - Ordinance - Transportation Concurrency and Impact Mitigation FeesI CAS Number: 03-151
Agenda Item Title: Adopt Ordinance for Traffic Concurrency Standards and Impact Mitigation Fees
Original Sponsor:
I Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary:
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
03 -15\
Meeting Date Prepared by
11/24/03 CK cal
Council
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):
Fund Source (if known):
Meeting Date
11/24/03
Meeting Date
11/24/03
Admin.
Initials
1 Mayor's review I Council review
K 1 tile
1
ORlV1��TI
Original Agenda Date: November 24, 2003
0 €0 MOB,
Action
Public Works
ITEMNO.
3.C.
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.
Attachments
Information Memo dated November 19, 2003
TMC Chapter 9.48 and Table 12 Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs
Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from November 10, 2003
Additional information will be included in the Transportation Committee packet for 11/24 and
will be provided as a handout to full Council at COW on 11/24.
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Director
Community Development Director
Date: November 19, 2003
Subject: Transportation Concurrency and Impact Mitigation Fees Ordinance Changes
Project No. 01 -RW06
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. 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 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 and updating 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 10/12 Transportation Committee and Community Affairs Parks Committee
November 24 Transportation Committee and Committee of the Whole
December 15 Adoption 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 -wide updates currently underway as required by state law.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and adopt the proposed ordinance changes and mitigation fee list.
\t uk2 \voll\pubwodcskyndy\infonnation nen,o emetgencymw 9.48 update briefing 2.doc
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 9.48
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY STANDARDS
Sections:
9.48.010 Determination of traffic concurrency required
9.48.020 Exemptions
9.48.030 Level -of- Service standards
9.48.040 Arterial classification system
9.48.050 LOS standards for specific locations
9.48.060 Design of arterial improvements; load limits
9.48.070 Traffic studies and mitigation
9.48.080 Mitigation of traffic safety hazards
9.48.090 Appeals
9.48.010 Determination of traffic concurrency
required
A. 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.
B. ,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.
C. 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.
(Ord. 1769 93(part), 1993)
9.48.020 Exemptions
This chapter shall not apply to .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.
(Ord. 1769 §3(part), 1993)
9.48.030 Level of Service standards
A. Level -of- service "LOS gradations for corridors
shall be measured with volume to capacity ratios
graded from LOS A to LOS F, as provided in subsection
13, and intersections shall be measured in average
delays at intersections or average travel speeds on
corridors, as determined by the Department of Public
Works.
B. Volume (V) to capacity (C) ratios shall be used
to quantify LOS for corridors as follows:
I LOS
I A
I B
C
D
E
I F
Level of
Service Existing
A <73 seconds
13 7.5 15 seconds
C 15.1 25 seconds
D 25.1 40 seconds
E 40.1 60 seconds
F 60 seconds
G
I H
I I
I J
Street Classification
Access
Collector Arterial
Minor Arterial
Principal Arterial
Volume /Capacity
up to 0.6
0.6 0.7
0.7.0.8
0.8 0.9
0.9 -1.0
greater than 1.0
C. 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:
Expanded
7.5 seconds
7.5 15 seconds
15.1 25 seconds
25.1 40 seconds
40.1 60 seconds
60 120 seconds
120 180 seconds
180 240 seconds
240 300 seconds
>300 seconds
(Ord. 1769 §3(part), 1993)
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:
Principal Use
access to abutting property
between access minor
between collector principal
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.
(Ord 1769 §3(part), 1993)
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 I.5)
3. Pacific Highway S. (S. 152nd St. to Boeing
Access Rd.)
9-20 Printed January 2, 2003
4. West Valley Rd (I -405 to S. 180th St.)
5. 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 I -5, I -405, the Green River, and S. 180 St.)
C. A minimum LOS standard of E for traffic
capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation
of LOS for individual intersections and corridor
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., 5. 144th St., 53rd Ave. S., and 65th Ave. S.
E. Access streets which exceed I,000 vehicles
per day volume will be evaluated on a case by case
basis to determine whether traffic improvements or
control measures are required to reduce volumes and
provide adequate safety.
(Ord 1769 §3(part), 1993)
9.48.060 Design of arterial improvements; Load
limits
A. Arterial improvements in commercial areas
shall be designed to include trucking 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.
(Ord. 1769 §3(part), 1993)
9.48.070 Traffic studies and mitigation
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 2015 "build out"
development traffic projections. Level of Service
standards are also established for other non specific
arterials and for access streets.
B. Fairshare mitigation costs /trip for the specific
areas and corridors identified in TMC 9.48.050 are
provided in the Transportation Element and
subsequent updates of the Capital Improvement Plan.
C. Any proposed project which requires a Type I,
2, 3, 4 or 5 decision and which will generate five or
more vehicle trips in an AM, noon, or PM peak hour
period shall submit, as part of the application process, a
Printed January 2, 2003
TITLE 9 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
trip generation analysis using standard generation rates
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
other standard references, or from 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.
D. 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 established in TMC 9.48.050,
impact mitigation fees shall be paid for the fairshare
mitigation costs established in the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan or subsequent
Capital Improvement Plan.
E. 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 established 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.
F. 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
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 carpooling
and rideshare programs are proposed, the applicant
shall execute such agreements with the City as are
necessary to assure the permanent availability of such
programs.
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
improvements, the applicant shall be entitled to apply
to enter into a Latecomer Agreement with the City.
H. The Mitigation Payment Schedule for the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive 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 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 affecting 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.
(Ord. 1769 §3(part), 1993)
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(8).
(Ord. 1847 55, 1998)
0-22 Printed January 2, 2003
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Intersection or Link
Southcenter /Strander
widen for WB left turns
Andover Pk E /Strander
widen for n/s left turns
Andover Pk W /Strander
widen for n/s left turns
S 180 St/SR181
widen n/s and e/w
Andover Pk EBaker
n/s lefts, signal
Andover Pk.W/Minkler
'n/s lefts, signal
Southcenter PkWy /168
signal
W Valley/Strander
NB dual left rum lanes
Interurban Bridge
widen for dual lefts
This is a "planing level" estimate.
Table 12 Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs
1990 2010 Pk Vol Improvement Cost/
Pk Vol Pk Vol Diff Cost Trip
3,899 4,853 954 $134,000 $140
3,211 3,905 694 $94,000 $135
3,082 4,016 934 $296,000 $317
5,236 7,760 2,524 $1,200,000 $475
790 1,453 663 $250,000* $377
2,441 3,078 637 $250,000* $392
2,425 3,324 899 $250,000* $278
3,433 4,316 883 $250,000* $283
2,831 3,945 1,114 $1,250,000* $1,122
Future (Beyond 6 years (2000)):
Minkler (APW Southcenter PkWy) 0 1,015 1,015
construct 3 lane street
S 178 St (Southcenter -WCL) 789 1,424 635
realign (cap /safety /transit)
Andover 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 ints.
Southcenter PkWy (180- 200) 408 1,600 1,192
construct 3 and 5 lane street
November 1993 71
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Intersection or Link
Table 12 Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs (continued)
1990 2010 Pk Vol Improvement Cost/
Pk Vol Pk Vol Diff Cost Trig
Pacific Hwy (152 -137)
widen to 7 lanes
S 133 St (Earnst) Bridge
Gateway Dr to S 129 St
E Marginal (BAR -NCL)
widen, c /g/sw, coord sigs
Pacific Hwy /S 116 St
widen for dual left SB
Pacific Hwy Bridge
widen
S 154 St (51 S- Pacific Hwy)
widen to 3 lanes
E Marginal (BAR -115)
widen to 3 lanes
Sperry Dr (S 180 St Saxon)
construct 3 lane street
Southcenter Blvd (I5 -62 S)
widen to 7 lanes
62 Ave S( "S" line bridge)
widen to 6 lanes
Klickitat(Southcenter PkWy -I5)
widen to 5 lanes
Treck Dr (Andover Pk W Andover Pk E)
construct 3 lane street
W Valley (1405 Todd)
widen to 7 lanes
Boeing Access Rd/I5 SB off left
construct left tum/signal
Boeing Access Rd/I5 NB on
construct NB on revision
0 518 518
Future
(to be determined)
7 2 November 1993
Transportation Committee
November 10, 2003
Present: Richard Simpson, Chair; Dave Fenton, Pam Linder
Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Brian Shelton, Pat Brodin, Steve Lancaster, Cyndy
Knighton. Lucy Lauterbach; Dennis Robertson
1. Transportation Concurrences 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
calculations could cause the impact fees to rise substantially, but the method of calculating them
will by following the RCW. Staff plans to finish the work by the next meeting November 24
have it on the COW for the same night, and have it adopted by Council December 15`
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.
/.0/ Committee chair approval