It is the purpose of this chapter to assure adequate levels of service on transportation facilities for existing use as well as for new development in the city and to provide adequate transportation facilities that achieve and maintain city standards for levels of service as provided in the comprehensive plan. It is also the purpose of this chapter to ensure that city level of service standards are achieved "concurrently" with development (as required by the Growth Management Act) by approving development applications that would not cause the level of service on transportation facilities to decline below city standards. Applicants for development may propose mitigation measures that will achieve and maintain the city's standard for level of service.
(Ord. 1228 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1542 § 2, 2006)
This chapter applies to development permit applications including subdivisions, short plats, site plans, shoreline development, conditional use and special use permits which have a potential vehicular impact on the level of service of a segment or intersection of any roadway with a comprehensive plan functional classification of residential collector or higher. Except as required by WMC § 18.90.070, development applications that generate less than 25 total weekday morning or evening peak hour trips are not subject to concurrency review, but must prepare a transportation analysis to address safety and operational considerations. Development applications that will generate 25 or more total weekday morning or evening peak hour trips are subject to concurrency review and must prepare a transportation impact study. Requirements of a transportation analysis and a transportation impact study are described in WMC § 18.90.040.
(Ord. 1228 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1542 § 2, 2006)
(1) 
At the preapplication stage of the permit application a determination will be made as to what type of transportation study will be required and whether concurrency review is necessary based on the project size, number of trips generated and other potential impacts. The community development director may require additional information, beyond what is required by WMC § 18.90.040, to be submitted with the full application.
(2) 
The development is not required to meet concurrency requirements if the project meets the exemption provisions in WMC § 18.90.070.
(3) 
Concurrency review and test will be conducted when a complete development permit application is submitted to the city.
(Ord. 1228 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1542 § 2, 2006; Ord. 1613 § 1 (Exh. A), 2008)
(1) 
Scope and Contents of Transportation Analysis.
(a) 
The study shall be prepared or certified by an engineer licensed in the state of Washington with expertise in traffic and transportation engineering.
(b) 
Calculation of morning peak hour, evening peak hour, and daily trip generation in accordance with WMC § 18.90.060, even if the application is not subject to concurrency review. Trip generation during other peak hours may also be required if requested by the community development director.
(c) 
Assignment of site traffic to the surrounding street system for all examined peak hours. Show trip assignment for all intersections to which the development adds 10 or more weekday morning or evening peak hour trips.
(d) 
Sight distance analysis at all site access points.
(e) 
Examination of access spacing standards.
(f) 
Additional information or analysis may be required at the discretion of the community development director.
(2) 
Scope and Contents of Transportation Impact Study.
(a) 
All site accesses and any intersection to which the development adds 25 or more peak hour trips shall be included in the study and be subject to all requirements of this section.
(b) 
The study shall include all items contained in subsection (1) of this section.
(c) 
Existing peak hour traffic counts at all study area intersections. The counts shall not be more than 12 months old, as measured at the time the application is deemed technically complete.
(d) 
A level of service analysis based on the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board.
(e) 
Signal warrant analysis based on warrants in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) if applicable. Particular attention should be given to intersections identified as "future signalized" in the adopted transportation capital facilities plan.
(f) 
Left- and right-turn lane analysis if applicable.
(g) 
Crash analysis consisting of the most recent complete three-year crash history. Safety mitigations at intersections shall be identified at any location with a crash rate in excess of one crash per million entering vehicles. Safety mitigations shall be identified for roadway sections where the crash rate is in excess of two and one-half crashes per million vehicle miles.
(3) 
For comprehensive plan amendments or other land use actions that increase the potential trip generation of a property, a transportation impact study will be required that includes all elements of subsection (2) of this section as well as:
(a) 
Trip generation calculations that compare the trip generation of the site with a reasonable worst-case development under the current land use regulations to a reasonable worst-case development under the proposed land use regulations.
(b) 
A full analysis of the study area intersections for conditions 20 years in the future. This analysis shall consider:
(i) 
Conditions under current land use regulations.
(ii) 
Conditions under current land use regulations plus the net increase in trip generation resulting from the land use action.
(c) 
Mitigations shall be proposed for any intersection operational deficiencies that are a result of the potential increase in trip generation.
(4) 
The community development director may modify the required contents as follows:
(a) 
The community development director has the discretion to require more or less information and analysis if it is deemed appropriate based on the project's size and potential impacts. However, such modifications shall be identified at the preapplication stage or as a portion of the determination of technically complete, if the proposal is not subject to a preapplication conference. Additional addenda beyond this identification may be required only if, through the review process, the community development director is made aware of critical LOS problems or transportation safety issues.
(b) 
The community development director may waive the need for or limit the scope of a transportation impact study level of service analysis by a written determination that potentially affected intersections and arterials and/or collectors:
(i) 
Will not fall below LOS standards set forth in WMC § 18.90.060; or
(ii) 
Have been adequately analyzed in research or reports available to the city, performed within one year prior to submittal of the application.
(Ord. 1228 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1542 § 2, 2006; Ord. 1613 § 1 (Exh. A), 2008)
(1) 
Transportation facilities levels of service standards, as established in the city capital facility plan, are incorporated and adopted by the ordinance codified in this chapter. The level of service standard for signalized intersections is level of service D or better, with all approaches operating with a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of less than one. For unsignalized intersections, the critical movement on the stop-controlled approach shall operate at level of service E or better. Level of service F may be acceptable if all of the following are met:
(a) 
The critical movements operate at a v/c ratio less than one;
(b) 
Installation of a traffic signal is:
(i) 
Not warranted; or
(ii) 
Not recommended as documented in the transportation impact study;
(c) 
No other capacity improvements are identified that could mitigate the level of service; and
(d) 
The intersection will operate safely.
(2) 
Intersections with facilities designated as "Highways of Statewide Significance" (HSS) under HB 1487 (1998 legislation), codified as RCW 47.06.140, shall be exempt from study under transportation concurrency. The HSS was designated by the Transportation Commission through Resolution No. 660 on January 21, 2004. The Legislature concurred and adopted the HSS, including a map and route list through Engrossed House Bill 1433 on March 31, 2004. This does not exempt these intersections from intersection study that may be required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
(Ord. 1228 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1542 § 2, 2006)
(1) 
The community development director shall perform a concurrency test for each application subject to concurrency review.
(2) 
Applications for preliminary development permits shall be tested in the order that applications are determined by the community development director to be technically complete under Chapter 18.94 WMC. A transportation impact study, as specified in WMC § 18.90.040, shall be included with the application for it to be considered technically complete.
(a) 
Final development permit applications that have been previously reviewed and tested, and have met all requirements for concurrency review as established by this chapter, shall not be subject to concurrency unless it is determined by the community development director that the project has changed substantially, requiring additional concurrency review and testing.
(3) 
The concurrency test shall be applied only to the specific scope of the development proposal. Applicants shall specify uses, densities and intensities that are consistent with the uses allowed for the property.
(4) 
In conducting the concurrency test, the community development director shall use standard trip generation rates or equations as set forth in the most recent edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. In using the manual, the community development director shall apply the land use code and trip generation rates or equations that most accurately and realistically portray the anticipated actual trip generation from the development. An applicant may submit a calculation of alternative trip generation rates for the proposed development, which must be completed or certified by an engineer licensed in the state of Washington with expertise in traffic and transportation engineering. The community development director shall review the alternative calculations and make a written determination within 20 business days of submittal as to whether such calculation will be used in lieu of the standard trip generation rates. The community development director shall adjust the trip generation forecast of proposed development to account for transportation strategies proposed by the applicant and accepted by the community development director.
(5) 
The community development director shall not approve a development application unless transportation facilities meet or exceed the LOS standards for existing uses or the impacts of the proposed development are mitigated to meet concurrency standards.
(a) 
If the LOS of transportation facilities impacted by the development meets the LOS standard with the impact of the proposed development, the development meets concurrency.
(b) 
If the LOS of transportation facilities impacted by the development falls below the level of service standard with the impact of the proposed development, the development does not meet concurrency and the applicant shall complete one of the following options:
(i) 
Propose mitigation measures that would assure concurrency is met for the development. Mitigation may include altering the development design or density, voluntarily arranging for the transportation facilities needed to meet concurrency, or other measures acceptable to the community development director;
(ii) 
Accept the denial of the development application; or
(iii) 
Appeal the denial of the application pursuant to the provisions of the Washougal Municipal Code. The community development director shall encumber any available capacity during the appeal.
(6) 
An existing or resultant LOS below city standards on any leg of an intersection of a city street with a state facility that is not under direct city control shall not result in a denial of the application.
(Ord. 1228 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1542 § 2, 2006; Ord. 1613 § 1 (Exh. A), 2008)
The following applications for a development permit are exempt from the concurrency requirement, and may commence with gaining permit approvals and development without applying for concurrency review, although a transportation analysis may still be required:
(1) 
Any development that generates less than 25 peak hour trips to any transportation facility. At the discretion of the community development director, the threshold for concurrency review may be lowered to 10 peak hour trips if:
(a) 
The development contributes more than 10 peak hour trips to a transportation facility that has been identified through previous study as operating at or near the performance standards identified in WMC § 18.90.050.
(2) 
The first renewal of a previously issued, unexpired permit; provided, that substantial progress has been made, as outlined in the applicable sections of WMC Title 17 or 18.
(3) 
Expansions or phases of projects that were disclosed by the applicant and subject to a concurrency test as part of the original application (i.e., phased development); provided, that concurrency review was conducted for the expansion or subsequent phases.
(Ord. 1228 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1542 § 2, 2006; Ord. 1613 § 1 (Exh. A), 2008)
(1) 
The community development director shall coordinate with the public works director to provide for adequate transportation facilities by constructing needed capital improvements and implementing transportation strategies which:
(a) 
Eliminate level of service deficiencies for existing use;
(b) 
Achieve level of service standards for anticipated future development and redevelopment caused by previously issued and new development permits; and
(c) 
Repair or replace obsolete or worn out facilities. Improvements to transportation facilities shall be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the city's engineering standards; and
(d) 
Give ranking priority to transportation improvements funded through the capital facilities plan and six-year transportation improvement plan (TIP) that would alleviate LOS deficiencies on facilities serving sites where essential public facilities are funded for construction.
(2) 
The city shall include in the capital appropriations of its budget, expenditures to meet financial commitments for all transportation improvement projects required to maintain level of service standards, except that the city may omit from its budget any capital improvements for which a binding agreement has been executed with another party to provide the same project in the same fiscal year.
(Ord. 1228 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1542 § 2, 2006; Ord. 1613 § 1 (Exh. A), 2008)
The city may enter into agreements with other local governments and the state of Washington to coordinate the imposition of level of service standards, impact fees and other mitigations for transportation concurrency.
(1) 
The city may apply transportation standards, fees and mitigations to development in the city that impacts other local governments and the state of Washington. Development permits issued by the city may include conditions and mitigations that will be imposed on behalf of and implemented by other local governments and the state of Washington.
(2) 
The city may receive impact fees or other mitigations based on or as a result of development proposed in other jurisdictions that impacts the city. The city may agree to accept and implement conditions and mitigations that are imposed by other jurisdictions on development in their jurisdiction.
(Ord. 1228 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1542 § 2, 2006)
The public works and planning departments should provide an update or report on transportation concurrency once a year. The city's traffic information and modeling shall be updated at least once every five years or sooner if the public works director deems it necessary. The update process shall include traffic volumes (for select locations or the entire city), analysis of completion of previously approved development, improvements to transportation facilities, the effect of transportation strategies, and a review of level of service standards compared to planned transportation facility improvements.
(Ord. 1228 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1542 § 2, 2006)