A. 
“Concurrency”
means transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of a development are made concurrent with the development, so that the level of service on a City transportation road does not decline below the levels of service adopted in this chapter. “Concurrent with the development” means that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of the development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years.
B. 
“Mobility unit”
means one PM peak hour person trip end. Each person trip has two trip ends, one each at the origin and destination.
C. 
“Transportation improvement program”
means the annual program of capital transportation projects programmed by the City to be implemented during a six-year period.
(Ord. 23-0578 § 2 (Exh. 1))
There are four components of the City’s integrated transportation program, the goal of which is to operate the program safely and efficiently for all modes of travel. These components are as follows:
A. 
Level of service (LOS) standards to evaluate the performance of the City’s multimodal transportation system and to ensure that the system is built over time to maintain LOS standards (KMC § 12.80.030).
B. 
Concurrency requirements defining an adequate transportation system (KMC § 12.80.040).
C. 
Transportation impact fees to require new growth and development to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new multimodal transportation improvements to serve the new growth and costs (Chapter 20.47 KMC).
D. 
Safe site access to facilitate safe and efficient operation of the transportation system through site-access improvements (KMC § 12.80.060).
(Ord. 23-0578 § 2 (Exh. 1))
Level of service standards are established for different modes of travel within the City:
A. 
Roadway Level of Service Standards.
1. 
The level of service for roadways shall be as described in the most recent Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS shall be amended on a date selected by the city manager whenever the LOS in the Highway Capacity Manual is amended by the Transportation Research Board. The city manager may select and apply alternative LOSs, to be effective on a date selected by the city manager.
2. 
Roadway LOS shall be by functional classification of roadway:
a. 
Major arterials - LOS “E” or better;
b. 
Minor arterials and collectors - LOS “D” or better; and
c. 
Local roads - LOS “C” or better.
3. 
Roadway LOS shall be measured at intersections of classified roadways, except as provided in subsection (A)(4) of this section.
4. 
Roadway LOS shall be measured at the corridor level on SR 522 and 68th Avenue (south of SR 522)/Juanita Drive/Simonds Road.
5. 
When a lower classification of roadway intersects with a higher classification of roadway (for example, when a local road connects with a minor arterial), the LOS for the higher classification shall apply.
B. 
Pedestrian Level of Service Standards.
1. 
The City has designated a yellow LOS for pedestrian access where indicated in the pedestrian priority network (all as defined in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan) as the minimum standard to achieve.
2. 
Outside of the pedestrian priority network, the City has not established an LOS.
C. 
Bicycle Level of Service Standards.
1. 
The City has designated a yellow LOS for bicycle infrastructure where indicated in the bicycle priority network (all as defined in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan) as the minimum standard to achieve.
2. 
Outside of the bicycle priority network, the City has not established an LOS.
D. 
Transit Level of Service Standards.
1. 
The transportation element of the comprehensive plan contains guidance for providing quality transit service, amenities, and access to an identified transit priority network. While the City does not control transit service, it has established the following level of service standards for transit stop amenities and pedestrian access to transit:
a. 
The City has designated a yellow LOS for transit stop amenities and pedestrian access to transit (as defined in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan) as the minimum standard to achieve.
b. 
Outside of the transportation priority network, the City has not established an LOS.
(Ord. 23-0578 § 2 (Exh. 1))
A. 
Transportation concurrency shall be determined using the City-owned and maintained mobility unit spreadsheet. This spreadsheet compares the amount of transportation capital projects constructed or programmed in the next six years (mobility unit capacity) to the amount of mobility units that would be generated by new development (mobility unit demand). If the City’s mobility unit capacity is larger than the mobility units that would be generated by new development, then the transportation system will be deemed to be concurrent.
1. 
Mobility unit capacity shall be determined annually.
B. 
The city manager may approve a reduction in estimated mobility units based on the types of land uses that are to be developed or expected travel characteristics of the development.
1. 
The calculation of mobility unit reductions as described in this section shall be based upon sound and recognized technical information and analytical processes that represent current engineering practice. In all cases, the city manager shall have final approval of all such data, information and technical procedures used to calculate mobility unit reductions.
(Ord. 23-0578 § 2 (Exh. 1))
A. 
Developments shall provide for safe site access to facilitate safe and efficient operation of the multimodal transportation system, in accordance with the Road Standards adopted in Chapter 12.50 KMC.
B. 
For the purposes of this chapter, the developer shall achieve “safe site access” by mitigating either or both of the following when the development is complete and able to generate traffic:
1. 
A roadway intersection that provides access to a proposed development and that will function at a level of service worse than specified in KMC § 12.80.030; or
2. 
A roadway intersection or approach lane where the city manager determines that a hazard to safety could reasonably result.
C. 
The developer shall provide improvements which bring the site access into compliance with the level of service and within a time schedule as may be required by the city manager. Approval to construct the development shall not be granted until the developer has satisfied the concurrency definition and its elements, as set forth in KMC § 12.80.010(A).
(Ord. 23-0578 § 2 (Exh. 1))
Following the submission of an application, the city manager shall calculate the transportation impact fee to be paid under Chapter 20.47 KMC and shall determine whether necessary transportation improvements are provided for as set forth in KMC § 12.80.010(A) and that any required site access improvements are provided.
(Ord. 23-0578 § 2 (Exh. 1))
For transportation impact fees, transportation concurrency, and safe site access, the city manager may adopt such administrative rules and procedures as are necessary to implement this chapter.
(Ord. 23-0578 § 2 (Exh. 1))
A. 
The city manager’s final decision on impact fees and/or transportation concurrency may be appealed to the hearing examiner using the procedures set forth in Chapter 19.30 KMC. The appeal shall be submitted within 21 calendar days of the date of issuance of the City’s written decision.
B. 
Along with the information required by KMC § 19.30.080(B), the applicant must show that either:
1. 
The City committed a technical error; or
2. 
Alternative data or a mitigation plan submitted to the City was inadequately considered.
(Ord. 23-0578 § 2 (Exh. 1))
The procedures set forth in this chapter do not limit the authority of the City to deny or to approve with conditions the following:
A. 
Any zone reclassification request, based on its expected impacts on the multimodal transportation system;
B. 
Any proposed development or zone reclassification, if the City determines that a hazard to safety would result from direct traffic impacts of the development or reclassification, without roadway or intersection improvements, regardless of level of service standards; or
C. 
Any proposed development subject to review under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act.
(Ord. 23-0578 § 2 (Exh. 1))
Except for KMC § 12.80.030 and 12.80.050, the city manager may grant an exception to or deviation from the requirements of this chapter. Any exception or deviation shall be in writing and supported by a finding that extraordinary conditions exist which make full compliance infeasible or would be an unreasonable hardship. The city manager shall make the final determination on what is infeasible or an unreasonable hardship.
(Ord. 23-0578 § 2 (Exh. 1))