21.52.010 Transportation Concurrency

21.52.010 Transportation Concurrency.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to:

1. Comply with the requirement of the Growth Management Act (GMA) that the City; “adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development”;

2. Establish a transportation level-of-service (LOS) standard that seeks to balance mobility, circulation and access¹ demands from existing and future development, with the City’s future vision, framework policies, and policies in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan;

3. Implement the City’s transportation LOS standard set forth in Transportation Element Policy TR-4², establishing the specific relationship between implementation of the Transportation Facilities Plan (TFP) and future development;

4. Provide for “concurrency testing” prior to the submittal of a development application in order to assess development impacts and to determine whether a proposed development will negatively affect the City’s transportation LOS standard;

5. Document a development’s compliance with the City’s transportation LOS standards by providing for the issuance of a certificate of concurrency for developments that pass the concurrency test; and

6. Provide options for developments that do not pass the concurrency test, subject to the approval of the Administrator.

B. Application. This section applies to:

1. All development approval applications filed after its effective date that generate demand for more than 25 mobility units (MUs).

2. Phased Development. A phased development is any development involving multiple buildings where issuance of building permits could occur for individual buildings. The requirements of this section shall be applied at the time of approval of the initial phase and may be adjusted for each subsequent phase based on the cumulative impact of all the phases.

3. Single Projects. All development applications which have been submitted by the same developer on the same or contiguous parcel of land as a single project within the one-year period immediately prior to a current application will be considered along with the current application as being a single application for purposes of determining under subsection B.1 above, whether this section applies.

4. Change in Occupancy. This section will apply to applications for tenant improvements if a proposed new use or an expanded existing use will generate demand for more than 25 additional MUs.

5. Concomitant Agreements. Unless the agreement specifically provides otherwise, this section applies to any development application that is subject to an existing concomitant agreement.

6. Reconstruction of Destroyed Buildings. If a building is destroyed by fire, explosion, or act of God or war, or is demolished and is reconstructed in accordance with the RZC, it will not be required to comply with this section unless the reconstructed building generates demand for more than 25 MUs in excess of those produced by the destroyed building prior to its destruction.

7. Development Agreements. A development agreement may include a provision whereby the City may grant a certificate of concurrency for a proposed development that meets the requirements of this division. In the development agreement, the City may also specify the length of time for which a certificate of concurrency is valid.

C. Relationship to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This division establishes minimum requirements applicable to all developments and is not intended to eliminate the use of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). An analysis of development specific impacts, particularly transportation safety and operational issues will occur, with mitigation identified as allowed under the authority of SEPA.

D. Administration. The Administrator shall be responsible for the administration of this division and may adopt rules for its implementation, provided the Administrator shall first hold a public hearing. The Administrator shall publish notice of intent to adopt any rule and the date, time and place of the public hearing thereon in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 20 days prior to the hearing date. Any person may submit written comment to the Administrator in response to such notice, and/or may speak at the public hearing. Following the public hearing the Administrator shall adopt, adopt with modifications, or reject the proposed rules.

E. Concurrency and the Transportation Level-of-Service (LOS) Standard. The City shall issue a certificate of concurrency only if the City is able to determine that the unallocated mobility unit (MU) supply necessary to provide for the MU demand from a proposed development is available at the time of opening or within six years, consistent with the City’s transportation level-of-service (LOS) standard.

To calculate the MU supply available to serve proposed development, the City shall include complete and fully committed Transportation Facilities Plan (TFP) or six-year program improvements.

F. Review of Development Proposals – Concurrency Testing. The Administrator will use the Comprehensive Plan’s land use growth target and Transportation Facilities Plan (TFP) to determine the mobility unit (MU) demand expected from the growth target and MU supply provided by the TFP. The MU demand shall be determined by calculating the person miles of travel (PMT) generated by development, and shall consider the design, density, diversity of the development, including commute-trip reduction strategies, internal, diverted, and pass-by trips from existing traffic in evaluating the MU demand. The PMT shall be translated into MU demand such that one unit of PMT is equal to one unit of MU demand.

The MU supply provided by the TFP will be implemented through the six-year program. The Administrator shall calculate the MU supply available in each year of the six-year program and determine transportation concurrency for each new development by ensuring that the MU demand from a development does not exceed the MU supply that the City is able to provide for that development under the six-year plan. This analysis of the MU demand and MU supply relationship is a concurrency testing requirement to maintain the City’s transportation level-of-service (LOS) standard under the Plan-Based concurrency system.

The concurrency testing process is divided into the following steps:

1. Application. Any proposed development which is subject to this division shall be tested for transportation concurrency by the Administrator to determine compliance with the City’s transportation concurrency policies and regulations.

2. Certificate of Concurrency. A proposed development passes the transportation concurrency test if the mobility unit (MU) demand from the proposed development is less than or equal to the unallocated MU supply from TFP. The Administrator shall issue a certificate of concurrency to a proposed development that passes the concurrency test. A valid certificate of concurrency is necessary for development approval.

A certificate of concurrency shall include an adequate description of the development proposal to which the certificate applies and any further information necessary to administer this division. The certificate may not be transferred to another proposed development unless approved by the Administrator.

A certificate of concurrency shall be valid for 180 days. The certificate of concurrency will remain valid if a complete development application is received by the City within 180 days of the certificate being issued and subsequently for the duration that development application is under review by the City. A certificate of concurrency will continue to be valid for the same period of time as the development approval granted by the City. If the development approval does not have an expiration date, the certificate of concurrency shall be valid for one year, and then up to two one-year extensions upon approval by the Administrator.

3. Certificate of Concurrency Denial. A certificate of concurrency will be denied if the unallocated MU supply is less than the MU demand from the proposed development.

4. Administrator’s Decision and Appeal Process. Decisions made by the Administrator pursuant to this division may be appealed as specified in RMC 3.10, Impact Fees.

5. Expiration. A certificate of concurrency shall expire:

a. If a complete application for the development for which concurrency is reserved is not made within 180 days of issuance of the concurrency certificate. If a certificate of concurrency expires before a complete development application is submitted to the City, the developer must wait 30 days before submitting another concurrency application request for the same development; or

b. If either the related development application expires or is denied, or if the related development approval expires or is revoked by the City.

1. If a development is tested for transportation concurrency, and does not pass, the developer may:

a. Reduce the size of the proposed development until the MU demand is equal to or less than the MU supply that is available;

b. Delay the proposed development until the City or others increase the MU supply;

c. Obtain supplemental mitigation by purchasing sufficient MUs to serve the MU demand of the proposed development;

d. Upon approval by the Administrator, a developer may implement TDM strategies as supplemental mitigation provided that the MU demand from a proposed development is reduced due to the elimination of trips, and the TDM strategies become a legal project approval condition of the development. The Administrator will determine, consistent with accepted engineering and planning practice, the appropriate reduction in trips and mode split to be applied to the proposed development, and shall review and approve the TDM strategies proposed by the developer, provided that:

i. These strategies shall be pre-negotiated and approved by the Administrator;

ii. There shall be methods to monitor and enforce TDM performance, and a fallback plan which would be implemented if the development fails to achieve TDM goals within two years;

iii. The TDM strategies become a condition tied to all future owners of the development and property; and

iv. The TDM strategies meet the criteria of subsection G.3 below.

2. Payment for and Timing of Supplemental Mitigation. If allowed by the Administrator, a developer may provide funding in an amount equal to the City’s estimated cost of the necessary MUs. The cost per MU supplied shall be indexed for inflation using the same method used to update transportation impact fees. The Administrator, with the concurrence of other affected City departments, may provide for latecomer agreements as provided by state law or for other reimbursement from properties benefited by the improvements unless the City Council finds reimbursement to be inappropriate. The Administrator may require that a developer build or implement a transportation improvement, rather than provide funding.

Funds for transportation improvements must be paid by the developer to the City prior to issuance of a building permit, final plat approval, or other approval requiring improvements under this section; provided that the developer may, at the Administrator’s option, submit an assurance device in a form approved by the Administrator.

A developer providing supplemental mitigation may receive credit towards payment of required transportation impact fees. Credit determination shall be made according to RMC 3.10, Impact Fees.

3. Supplemental Mitigation Decision Criteria – Acceptable Supplemental Mitigation requires a finding by the Administrator that:

a. The supplemental mitigation meets the definition outlined in RZC Article VII, Definitions; or if a developer proposes as supplemental mitigation a transportation improvement that is not identified in the City’s Transportation Facilities Plan (TFP), the transportation improvement must first be considered and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan before the supplemental mitigation is approved.

b. The MU supply is available concurrent with the development or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvement that provides the MU supply within six years.

c. The effect of the improvement would not result in a reduction or the loss of another transportation objective, including but not limited to maintaining high occupancy vehicle lanes, sidewalks, paths, trails, or bicycle lanes.

d. Any adverse environmental impacts of the proposed transportation improvement can be reasonably mitigated.

e. The improvement is consistent with accepted engineering and planning standards and practices.

f. Where practical, transportation improvements required as part of supplemental mitigation should be made at locations most impacted by the development.

g. A developer proposing TDM strategies demonstrates that the MU demand is reduced. The developer must have additional strategies to address a situation where the reduction in MU demand is not met by the developer’s initial TDM strategies.

h. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Administrator has the authority to require correction of a documented safety-related deficiency.

4. Supplemental Mitigation Denial Process. If the Administrator determines that the proposed supplemental mitigation does not meet the requirements of this section, the Administrator may deny the issuance of a certificate of concurrency.

SECTION FOOTNOTES:

1The Redmond Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element describes these demands as follows:

“To achieve Redmond’s transportation vision, the policies have been developed with a common understanding of the concepts of mobility, circulation, and access. ‘Mobility’ is the ability to travel over distances; ‘circulation’ is the ability to move about within an area, connecting different localized land uses; and ‘access’ is the ability to get to individual destinations.”

2Redmond Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. 9-3.