20D.210.10 Transportation Management Code.

20D.210.10-010 Overview of the Permit Process.

Prior to submitting a development application, the developer of a project subject to this chapter may submit a request for a certificate of concurrency to the Department of Planning and Community Development. The request shall be on a prescribed transportation certificate of concurrency request form developed by the Administrator, and shall contain questions concerning the nature of the development, including a project description, location, uses, intensities, and trip generation characteristics.

The Administrator shall, with the assistance of other City departments, use the information to determine the net trips generated, considering commute-trip reduction strategies, internal trips, diverted, and pass-by trips from existing traffic, and determine whether the development passes the concurrency test as required by RCDG 20D.210.10-020 through 20D.210.10-090. If the project passes the concurrency test, the Administrator shall issue a certificate of concurrency which shall expire if a complete application for the development for which concurrency is reserved is not applied for within 120 days of issuance of the certificate of concurrency.

If the proposed development does not pass the concurrency test, the developer may provide supplemental mitigation to meet concurrency requirements. The cost of supplemental mitigation may be credited towards a portion of the developer’s impact fee obligation, subject to certain limitations.

The Administrator shall determine the project impact fee based on information provided pursuant to RCDG 20D.210.10-090 through 20D.210.10-210, after the developer submits a complete development application. Requests for an impact fee exemption or credit against payment of the impact fee shall be reviewed pursuant to RCDG 20D.210.10-180 and 20D.210.10-190, respectively.

Impact fees shall be used to pay for off-site transportation system improvements identified in the City’s transportation facility plan (TFP), and shall not duplicate any mitigation provided under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

The developer may appeal the Administrator’s decision on concurrency and/or impact fees according to the process described in RCDG 20D.210.10-220, Administration and Appeals.

For the administration of this division only, the Administrator shall be the Directors of the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Department of Public Works, the Directors’ authorized representative(s), or any representative authorized by the Mayor. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.010))

Transportation Concurrency

20D.210.10-020 Purpose and Intent.

This section sets forth specific standards providing for City compliance with the concurrency requirements of the State Growth Management Act (GMA) and for consistency between City and County-wide planning policies under the GMA. The GMA requires that the City of Redmond “must 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”. In response to the mandates of the GMA, the City of Redmond has developed level-of-service (LOS) standards that:

(1) Balance congestion management with land use objectives.

(2) Match TMDs with long-range objectives and shorter term standards tailored to each district’s characteristics and needs.

(3) Are specific to each TMD, to include: reflection of availability of other mobility options; adjustment of LOS where appropriate; interim standards for specific areas until completion of interlocal negotiations; consideration of trips crossing district boundaries; and use of an average arterial intersection LOS method of evaluating transportation system adequacy.

To examine development impacts and determine whether a proposed project meets the requirements of this section, concurrency “testing” should occur prior to the submittal of a development application, consistent with the requirements of this section. If a proposed project passes the concurrency test, the City shall issue a certificate of concurrency, which shall expire if a complete application for the development for which concurrency is reserved is not applied for within 120 days of the issuance of the certificate of concurrency. This section shall apply to all development applications as specified below. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.030(10)))

20D.210.10-030 Application.

This section applies to:

(1) All development approval applications filed after its effective date; if the development or use will generate 30 or more new p.m. peak hour trips; provided, this section shall not apply to a development which received preliminary development approval prior to the effective date of this section.

(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 (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 result in the physical expansion of the existing parking area under applicable parking standards of the City and will produce 30 or more p.m. peak hour trips in excess of those produced by the previous occupancy.

(5) Reclassifications. The City may approve a proposed reclassification (commonly known as a rezone) only if the reclassification, assuming full development of the property under the proposed zoning classification using the highest trip generating permitted uses, will comply with this section and the other applicable decision criteria specified in the Community Development Guide. Specific requirements for transportation improvements to mitigate the impacts of a proposed reclassification and assure compliance with this section may be imposed as a condition of reclassification.

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

(7) 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 Community Development Guide, it will not be required to comply with this section unless the reconstructed building produces trips in excess of those produced by the destroyed building prior to its destruction.

(8) Development Agreements. A development agreement obligating a party to fund or provide major infrastructure improvements that directly support implementing important objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, may grant a certificate of concurrency for a proposed development upon a showing that concurrency standards can be satisfied, and may also establish that the certificate is valid for the duration specified in the agreement. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.030(20)))

20D.210.10-040 Exemptions from Concurrency Requirements.

The uses listed below may be exempted from transportation service standard compliance. The developer of these uses may apply for a special development permit (SDP) to be granted an exemption from transportation service standard compliance if the development meets the criteria for such an exemption in subsection (1)(b) below.

(1) Exemptions may be considered for the following uses:

(a) Child day care facilities, if not operated for profit;

(b) Public transportation facilities;

(c) Public parks and recreational facilities;

(d) Social service facilities, if privately operated and not for profit;

(e) Low and moderate income housing;

(f) Public libraries;

(g) Hospitals, if not operated for profit;

(h) Publicly funded educational facilities.

(2) The following criteria shall be used to determine whether a use should be exempt from concurrency requirements:

(a) The exemption granted to a proposed development achieves a broad public policy objective by the nature of the development’s use and location; and

(b) The benefits of granting the exemption outweigh short-term impacts to the transportation system. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.030(30)))

20D.210.10-050 Relationship to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

This section establishes minimum standards which are to be applied to all proposals in order to provide transportation improvements to minimize congestion on the roads, paths, sidewalks, and trails in the City, and is not intended to eliminate the application of SEPA to specific proposals. Each proposal shall be reviewed and may be conditioned or denied under the authority of SEPA. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.030(40)))

20D.210.10-060 Administration.

The Administrator shall be responsible for the administration of this section. The Administrator may adopt rules for the implementation of this section, 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. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.030(50)))

20D.210.10-070 Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards.

(1) Established Standards. Average arterial intersection LOS standards are established and tailored for each TMD, reflecting distinct conditions and multiple community objectives to measure transportation system adequacy. The district average arterial intersection LOS is the average LOS of those intersections within each TMD as defined in Chapter 20A.20 RCDG. The district average arterial intersection LOS standard and the maximum V/C ratio permitted for each TMD is established by the Comprehensive Plan, and is as follows:

Transportation Management District
Average Arterial Intersection Service Standards

		District	Maximum
Transportation		Average LOS	V/C
Management District		Standard	Ratio
(a)	Downtown	E+	0.950
(b)	NE Redmond	D+	0.850
(c)	Willows/Sammamish Valley	D-	0.900
(d)	Grass Lawn	D+	0.850
(e)	Overlake Area	E+	0.950
(f)	Viewpoint Area	D+	0.850
(g)	SE Redmond	D-	0.900

(2) Service Standards. A development proposal will not be approved which causes the average arterial intersection LOS to be degraded below the standard set for each affected TMD. Where existing conditions already fail to meet the standard, no development shall be approved which causes the LOS to be further degraded. A development may proceed if supplemental mitigation which preserves the standard or the LOS existing prior to the development proposal is provided and approved in accordance with RCDG 20D.210.10-080, Review of Development Proposals – Concurrency Testing. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.030(60)))

20D.210.10-080 Review of Development Proposals – Concurrency Testing.

(1) Application. Any proposed development which is subject to this section will be reviewed by the Administrator to determine its impact on each affected TMD. This review may be conducted before a development application is submitted to the City.

(2) Certificate of Concurrency. A certificate of concurrency will be issued under this section if the volume of traffic resulting from the proposed development, when added to the background traffic volumes of the affected intersections, would not cause degradation of the average arterial intersection LOS standard described in RCDG 20D.210.10-070(1) and (2), above in any TMD for which the development contributes 30 or more new p.m. peak hour trips at a system intersection. Concurrency testing may rely on capacity provided by fully funded projects, including projects in the current six-year TCIP, projects funded for construction within six years by other agencies or jurisdictions, and by transportation improvements under contract as part of other approved development proposals. The issuance of a certificate of concurrency is subject to the requirements that the applicant must fully fund or construct any necessary transportation improvements which are not included in the above, subject to RCDG 20D.210.10-090.

      The certificate of concurrency issued by the Administrator shall expire if a complete application for the development for which concurrency is reserved is not made within 120 days of issuance of the certificate of concurrency. 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 chapter. The certificate may not be transferred to another proposed development unless approved by the Administrator.

      If a certificate of concurrency expires before a complete development application is submitted to the City, the developer must wait 14 days before submitting another certificate of concurrency request for the same development.

      A certificate of concurrency shall be valid for the period after submittal of a complete development application, and subsequently 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 not be approved under this section if degradation is caused beyond the adopted LOS standard for a TMD, or, if the LOS standard already is exceeded, would decline further, and not mitigated to the LOS standard or level that existed prior to development by:

(a) The existing street network; and

(b) Fully funded projects; and

(c) Transportation system improvements under contract as part of other approved development proposals which are fully funded; and/or

(d) Supplemental mitigation as defined in RCDG 20D.210.10-090.

(4) Administrator’s Decision and Appeal Process.

(a) The Administrator will determine if supplemental mitigation is required under this section.

(b) If required, the Administrator shall determine if the supplemental mitigation proposed by the developer meets the requirements of RCDG 20A.20.190, Supplemental Mitigation. Notice of the Administrator’s decision and the transportation improvements required shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City or consolidated with any other notice required by the Redmond Community Development Guide for the particular permit application.

(c) Decisions made by the Administrator shall be conveyed to a developer by letter. If the development meets the concurrency requirements of this section, the letter, or other document developed by the Administrator, shall be the certificate of concurrency.

(d) Determinations made by the Administrator pursuant to this section may be appealed as specified in RCDG 20D.210.10-220.

(5) Changes to Fully Funded Projects. If the list of fully funded projects is modified after the time the proposal is subject to the requirements of RCDG 20D.210.10-030, the applicant may elect to rely on the new capacity provided by the modified list of fully funded projects provided that such election must be made prior to issuance of development approval.

(6) Expiration. A certificate of concurrency shall expire if either a development application becomes inactive, or, if the underlying development approval expires, is revoked, or denied by the City. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.030(70)))

20D.210.10-090 Methods of Providing Transportation Improvements.

(1) If supplemental mitigation is required to meet the average arterial intersection LOS standard for a TMD (maintain concurrency), or the LOS existing prior to the development, preliminary supplemental mitigation proposals must be submitted within 30 days of the City’s notice that supplemental mitigation is required. The applicant shall have an additional 60 days to finalize the supplemental mitigation proposal. The applicant may choose to:

(a) Reduce the size of the development until the standard is met; or

(b) Delay the development schedule until the City and/or others provide needed improvements; or

(c) Design and construct necessary transportation facilities; or

(d) Implement a Transportation Demand Management program over and above that required by the City as a standard condition of development approval, consistent with subsections (3) and (4); or

(e) Provide other supplemental mitigation which meets the requirements of RCDG 20A.20.190, Supplemental Mitigation, and subsection (4).

(2) Payment For and Timing of Supplemental Mitigation. All supplemental mitigation funding and construction shall comply with the following requirements:

(a) Payment for developer-funded transportation improvements affecting facilities subject to the City’s direct operational control, necessary to meet the concurrency requirements of RCDG 20D.210.10-060 and 20D.210.10-070, must occur in accordance with RCDG 20D.210.10-130, Payment of the Transportation Impact Fee. Any improvements required to be constructed by a developer to meet the requirements of RCDG 20D.210.10-070(2) must be completed within six years after issuance of the building permit. All funds received by the City from applications under this section shall be expended within six years of receipt.

(b) Payment for or the requirement of the developer to construct any transportation improvement necessary to meet the requirement of RCDG 20D.210.10-070(2), affecting facilities which are partially or wholly outside the City’s direct operational control, must be submitted for approval by the appropriate agency(ies) which have control. Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, should the appropriate agency(ies) elect to postpone the proposed improvements, or refuse to accept the proposed supplemental mitigation, the Administrator shall collect and hold the amount estimated for supplemental mitigation until the improvement is made or until six years have elapsed. An assurance device satisfactory to the Administrator may, at the Administrator’s option, substitute for the payment required in this section.

(c) The development proponent may provide funding in an amount equal to the cost estimate of the Administrator for necessary transportation improvements. 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 actual construction rather than provision of funding. Funds for projects to be constructed by the City must be paid in full by the project proponent to the City prior to issuance of a building permit, final plat approval or other approval requiring improvements under this section; provided the project proponent may, at the Administrator’s option, provide an assurance device in a form approved by the Administrator.

      A developer may receive credit towards payment of required impact fees for funded or constructed supplemental mitigation necessary to meet concurrency requirements. Credit determination shall be made according to RCDG 20D.210.10-190, Credits Against Payment of Transportation Impact Fees.

(3) Transportation Demand Management (TDM). The project developer may establish TDM strategies to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips generated by the project as a supplemental mitigation measure. The Administrator will determine, consistent with accepted engineering and planning practice, the appropriate single occupancy vehicle mode split reduction to be applied to the proposed development, and shall review and approve the developer’s proposed TDM strategies. These strategies shall be prenegotiated and approved prior to approval of supplemental mitigation, and shall:

(a) Include proposed 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 after initial occupancy; and

(b) Become a legal project approval condition of the development; and

(c) Become a condition tied to all future owners of the development and property.

      A TDM program may be denied based on the criteria of subsection (4) below.

(4) Decision Criteria – Acceptable Supplemental Mitigation. Acceptable supplemental mitigation requires a finding by the Administrator that:

(a) The supplemental mitigation meets the definition outlined in Chapter 20A.20 RCDG; or if a developer proposes as supplemental mitigation a transportation facility that is not identified by the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the transportation facility must first be considered and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan before the supplemental mitigation is approved.

(b) The supplemental mitigation contributes to system performance within six years of development.

(c) If the supplemental mitigation proposed involves an intersection, the intersection must be improved to meet the district LOS standard, or the intersection LOS is not degraded below the LOS that existed prior to the project.

(d) The City and the applicant can agree on a transportation improvement that has the same effect as subsection (4)(c) above, or provides a viable alternative travel mode.

(e) Improvements to an intersection or roadway may not substantially shift traffic to a residential area.

(f) Improvements to an intersection or roadway may not shift traffic to intersections within another jurisdiction which would violate that jurisdiction’s policies and regulations, provided that the City has an adopted interlocal agreement with that jurisdiction which addresses these issues.

(g) Improvements to an intersection or roadway may not shift traffic to another TMD and violate that TMD’s LOS standards.

(h) 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.

(i) The adverse environmental impacts of the improvement can be reasonably alleviated.

(j) The improvement is consistent with accepted engineering standards and practices.

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

(l) Transportation improvements to principal and minor arterials within and adjacent to residential zones shall be compatible with residential uses and maintain design objectives. Road widening resulting from supplemental mitigation shall only be permitted when consistent with other mobility objectives. Factors to be considered should include but not be limited to safety of design for all travel modes, the scale of the improvements, and identified community and environmental impacts, including maintenance of safe pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access.

(m) If transportation demand management strategies are proposed as supplemental mitigation, a developer must demonstrate that vehicle trips can be reduced. The developer must have additional strategies to address a situation where mode split targets are not met by the developer’s initial transportation demand management strategies.

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

(5) 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. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.030(80)))

Transportation Impact Fees

20D.210.10-100 Purpose and Intent.

This section is intended to assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the requirements of the GMA, and:

(1) To regulate the use and development of land so as to assure that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital expenditures necessary to support a transportation system which operates within adopted service standards;

(2) To allow the City the option to impose impact fees for transportation system improvement costs previously incurred, to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements. Such fees shall not be imposed to make up for any transportation system improvement deficiencies. (Ord. 1908 (20C.100.040(10)))

20D.210.10-110 Imposition of the Transportation Impact Fee.

(1) Any person who, after the effective date of this section, seeks to develop land within the City of Redmond, by applying for development approval for a development which will generate additional travel demand, is hereby required to pay a transportation impact fee in the manner and amount set forth in this section.

(2) No new development permit for any activity requiring payment of an impact fee pursuant to RCDG 20D.210.10-130 shall be issued unless and until the transportation impact fee hereby required has been paid.

(3) No extension of a development permit issued prior to the effective date of this section, for any activity requiring payment of an impact fee pursuant to RCDG 20D.210.10-050, shall be granted unless and until the transportation impact fee hereby required has been paid. (Ord. 1908 (20C.100.040(20)))

20D.210.10-120 Computation of the Transportation Impact Fee and Administrator Decision.

Transportation impact fees are based on the cost of a program of transportation facilities which support the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain and improve mobility and support adopted intersection LOS standards. This program is known as the City’s transportation facility plan (TFP), a part of the capital facilities plan (CFP) of the Comprehensive Plan. Credit for future transportation related taxes has been applied to the cost of the TFP to determine the net amount which is funded through impact fees. The two methods to be used to calculate the impact fee for a particular development are described in this subsection. No matter which method is used for calculation, the impact fee determination shall be issued by letter from the Administrator to the applicant for a development permit.

(1) At the option of the fee payer, the amount of the transportation impact fee may be calculated by determining in which TMD the proposed development is located, and using the City of Redmond Adopted Transportation Impact Fees – Fee Schedule in RCDG 20D.210.10-125, adopted by separate ordinance. The impacts of a new development on the transportation system depend on the location of the development, and are reflected in the impact fees charged in each of the TMDs.

      TMDs are established to account for variation in impacts by location, and are aggregations of traffic analysis zones used in the City’s traffic forecasting model. In general, TMDs are sections of the City which have been combined on the basis of similar uses and trip-making characteristics. The fee schedule includes credit for future specifically dedicated transportation taxes imposed for the purpose of improving the transportation system.

(a) If a development permit is requested for a mixed use development, then the fee shall be determined by apportioning the space committed to uses specified on the applicable schedule.

(b) For applications for a development permit approval extension:

      The amount of the fee is the net positive difference between the fee currently applicable, and the fee applicable at the time of original permit application, pursuant to this section. If the extension is for a development permit originally issued prior to the effective date of this section, the fee currently applicable shall be collected.

(c) For applications for a change of use, redevelopment, expansion, or modification of an existing use, which requires the issuance of a development permit:

      The amount of the fee is the net positive difference between the fee currently applicable for the use after redevelopment, expansion, or modification, compared to the fee that is currently applicable for the use prior to redevelopment, expansion, or modification, pursuant to this section. The same fee calculation shall apply if an application was originally issued prior to the effective date of this section.

      The Administrator shall be guided in this determination by traffic generation statistics provided by the City’s Department of Public Works and contained in the most recent edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

(d) If the type of development activity proposed in a development application is not specified on the applicable fee schedule, the Administrator shall use the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable types of land use on the fee schedule. The Administrator shall be guided in the selection of a comparable type by the most recent edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. If the Administrator determines that there is no comparable type of land use on the applicable fee schedule, then the Administrator shall determine the fee by:

(i) Using traffic generation statistics provided by the City of Redmond, Department of Public Works, or the building permit applicant, or contained in the most recent edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers; and

(ii) Applying the formula set forth in RCDG subsection (2) hereof.

(2) If a fee payer chooses not to have the impact fee determined according to subsection (1) above, then the fee payer shall prepare and submit to the Administrator an independent documentation as specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) below, and shall follow the prescribed methodologies and formats established as an appendix to the Community Development Guide. Along with the study, the developer shall submit an administrative processing fee in an amount specified by separate ordinance. Based upon the documentation provided by the fee payer, the cost per vehicle mile of travel (VMT) shall be determined by the Administrator. Documentation by the fee payer shall include:

(a) Documentation of trip generation rates appropriate for the proposed land development activity.

(b) Documentation of trip length appropriate for the proposed land development activity.

(c) Documentation of any other trip data appropriate for the proposed land development activity.

      Independent documentation, including any studies, shall be prepared and presented by professionals qualified in their respective fields. The Administrator, with advice from the Public Works Department, shall consider the documentation submitted by the fee payer, but is not required to accept such documentation as he/she shall reasonably deem to be inaccurate or not reliable, in the Administrator’s determination of the impact fee. The Administrator may, in the alternative, require the fee payer to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. If acceptable independent documentation is not presented, the fee payer shall pay transportation impact fees based upon the schedules shown in subsection (1) of this section.

      Upon acceptance of independent engineering documentation, the following formula shall be used by the Administrator to determine the impact fee per unit of development:

New Vehicle Miles Traveled

=

Trip Generation Rate

X

% New Trips

X

Average Trip Length

Impact Fee	=	New Vehicle Miles Traveled	X	Cost per Vehicle Mile of Travel (VMT) (from RCDG 20D.210.10-125, City of Redmond Adopted Transportation Impact Fees – Fee Schedule, or its successor)

(Ord. 2016; Ord. 1954; Ord. 1940; Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.040(30)); Ord. 1907)

20D.210.10-125 City of Redmond Adopted Transportation Impact Fees – Fee Schedule.

Land Uses	Standard of Measure (1)	Impact Fee
		Area 1 Downtown	Area 2 Ed Hill	Area 3 Willows/SV	Area 4 Grass Lawn	Area 5 Overlake	Area 6 Viewpoint	Area 7 SE Red-mond
Cost per VMT	VMT	$801.57	$470.76	$801.57	$216.11	$801.57	$216.11	$801.57
Residential
Single-Family	Dwelling	$2,833.54	$1,664.15	$2,833.54	$763.95	$2,833.54	$ 763.95	$2,833.54
Multiple-Family	Dwelling	$1,738.40	$1,021.56	$1,739.40	$468.96	$1,738.40	$468.96	$1,739.40
Retirement Community	Dwelling	$628.43	$369.08	$628.43	$169.43	$628.43	$169.43	$628.43
Nursing Home	Bed	$381.55	$224.08	$381.55	$102.87	$381.55	$102.87	$381.55
Congregate Care/Asst. Living	Dwelling	$381.55	$224.08	$381.55	$102.87	$381.55	$102.87	$381.55
Hotels and Motels
Hotel/Motel	Room	$2,212.32	$1,299.31	$2,212.32	$596.47	$2,212.32	$596.47	$2,212.32
Commercial – Services
Bank/Savings and Loan	sq. ft./gfa	$40.57	$23.83	$40.57	$10.94	$40.57	$10.94	$40.57
Day Care	sq. ft./gfa	$18.71	$10.99	$18.71	$5.04	$18.71	$5.04	$18.71
Library	sq. ft./gfa	$4.84	$2.85	$4.84	$1.31	$4.84	$1.31	$4.84
Post Office	sq. ft./gfa	$6.24	$3.67	$6.24	$1.68	$6.24	$1.68	$6.24
Service Station	Fuel Position	$8,274.09	$4,859.42	$8,274.09	$2,230.78	$8,274.09	$2,230.78	$8,274.09
Service Station/Minimart	Fuel Position	$7,133.54	$4,189.57	$7,133.54	$1,923.28	$7,133.54	$1,923.28	$7,133.54
Movie Theater	Screen	$29,836.88	$17,523.36	$29,836.88	$8,044.33	$29,836.88	$8,044.33	$29,836.88
Carwash	Stall	$4,826.71	$2,834.76	$4,826.71	$1,301.33	$4,826.71	$1,301.33	$4,826.71
Health Club/Racquet Club	Member	$168.97	$99.24	$168.97	$45.56	$168.97	$45.56	$168.97
Commercial – Institutional
Elementary School	Student	$68.21	$40.06	$68.21	$18.39	$68.21	$18.39	$68.21
High School	Student	$118.63	$69.67	$118.63	$31.98	$118.63	$31.98	$118.63
Church	sq. ft./gfa	$2.14	$1.25	$2.14	$0.58	$2.14	$0.58	$2.14
Hospital	sq. ft./gfa	$3.37	$1.98	$3.37	$0.91	$3.37	$0.91	$3.37
Commercial – Restaurant
Restaurant	sq. ft./gfa	$16.70	$9.81	$16.70	$4.50	$16.70	$4.50	$16.70
Fast Food Restaurant	sq. ft./gfa	$29.28	$17.20	$29.28	$7.89	$29.28	$7.89	$29.28
Commercial – Retail Shopping Center and other Retail
Up to 99,999 sq. ft.	sq. ft./gla	$4.96	$2.91	$4.96	$1.34	$4.96	$1.34	$4.96
100,000 – 199,999 sq. ft.	sq. ft./gla	$4.63	$2.72	$4.63	$1.25	$4.63	$1.25	$4.63
200,000 – 299,999 sq. ft.	sq. ft./gla	$4.17	$2.45	$4.17	$1.12	$4.17	$1.12	$4.17
300,000 sq. ft. and over	sq. ft./gla	$4.90	$2.88	$4.90	$1.32	$4.90	$1.32	$4.90
Supermarket	sq. ft./gfa	$13.05	$7.67	$13.05	$3.52	$13.05	$3.52	$13.05
Convenience Market	sq. ft./gfa	$25.19	$14.80	$25.19	$6.79	$25.19	$6.79	$25.19
Discount/ Department Store	sq. ft./gfa	$5.31	$3.12	$5.31	$1.43	$5.31	$1.43	$5.31
Miscellaneous Retail	sq. ft./gfa	$3.27	$1.92	$3.27	$0.88	$3.27	$0.88	$3.27
Furniture Store	sq. ft./gfa	$0.32	$0.19	$0.32	$0.09	$0.32	$0.09	$0.32
Car Sales – New/Used	sq. ft./gfa	$7.73	$4.54	$7.73	$2.08	$7.73	$2.08	$7.73
Commercial – Administrative Office
up to 99,999 sq. ft.	sq. ft./gfa	$7.36	$4.32	$7.36	$1.98	$7.36	$1.98	$7.36
100,000 – 199,999 sq. ft.	sq. ft./gfa	$6.14	$3.61	$6.14	$1.66	$6.14	$1.66	$6.14
200,000 – 299,999 sq. ft.	sq. ft./gfa	$5.37	$3.15	$5.37	$1.45	$5.37	$1.45	$5.37
Over 300,000 and over sq. ft.	sq. ft./gfa	$4.75	$2.79	$4.75	$1.28	$4.75	$1.28	$4.75
Medical Office/Clinic	sq. ft./gfa	$11.77	$6.91	$11.77	$3.17	$11.77	$3.17	$11.77
Industrial
Light Industry/ Manufacturing	sq. ft./gfa	$4.01	$2.35	$4.01	$1.08	$4.01	$1.08	$4.01
Industrial Park	sq. ft./gfa	$4.01	$2.35	$4.01	$1.08	$4.01	$1.08	$4.01
Warehousing/ Storage	sq. ft./gfa	$3.03	$1.78	$3.03	$0.82	$3.03	$0.82	$3.03
Notes: gla = gross leasable area; gfa = gross floor area, VMT = Vehicle Mile of Travel. (1) For uses with Standard of Measure in sq. ft., impact fee is dollars per square foot.

Note: Land uses are defined in Chapter 20A.20 RCDG. See Impact Fee – Transportation – Land Uses. Amendments to this fee schedule which are changes in policy, such as changes in the methodology, growth assumptions, or funding percentages, shall be processed as a Development Guide amendment. Nonpolicy changes to the fee schedule, such as changes to reflect fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index or Construction Cost Index, or changes to the cost of a project, shall be adopted by the City Council by ordinance.

(Ord. 2056; Ord. 2016)

20D.210.10-126 Impacts to County Transportation Facilities.*

(1) Collection of Fees. In addition to the Transportation Impact Fees established and collected under RCDG 20D.210.10-110 or RCDG 20D.210.10-120, the City shall collect impact fees for those King County transportation facilities identified in the most current list of County growth-related projects adopted by the City; provided, that such fees shall be collected only during the term of any interlocal agreement between the City and the County providing for the reciprocal collection of each other’s impact fees.

(2) Fee Imposed.

(a) Any person who, after the effective date of this section, seeks to develop land within the City of Redmond, by applying for development approval for a development which will generate additional travel demand, is hereby required to pay, in addition to the impact fee provided in RCDG 20D.210.10-110 or RCDG 20D.210.10-120, a fee for impacts to King County transportation facilities as set forth in this section.

(b) No new development permit for any activity requiring payment of any impact fee under this section shall be issued unless and until the transportation impact fee hereby required has been paid.

(c) No extension of a development permit issued prior to the effective date of this section, for any activity requiring payment of an impact fee under this section, shall be granted unless the transportation impact fee hereby required has been paid.

(3) Computation of Fees – Fee Schedule. The City will calculate impact fees for County transportation facilities in accordance with the County methodology described in King County Code Chapters 14.65 and 14.75 (“the County MPS System”), as the same now exist or as the same may be amended or superseded, and development impact data supplied by the County and City. The impact fee so calculated shall be referred to as the County MPS Fee for purposes of this section.

(4) Payment of Fees. The fee payer shall pay the County MPS Fee required by this section to the Director or her designee prior to the issuance of a building permit consistent with a development approval.

(5) County MPS Fee Account. There is hereby established a separate County MPS Fee account into which all fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited. The account shall be interest bearing and the funds deposited in the account shall be disbursed only as provided in this section.

(6) Use of Funds – Transfer to County.

(a) The City will transfer the principal amount of all County MPS Fees collected by the City to the County at such intervals as may be provided in the interlocal agreement. The City will retain all interest earned on the funds collected for the County MPS Fees while the same remain in the City’s accounts in order to compensate the City for its handling of the funds. The City will not pay interest to the County on such fees.

(b) All funds transferred to the County under this section shall be expended or encumbered by the County within six years after the date of collection and may only be so expended or encumbered for County transportation facilities which reasonably benefit the new development which paid said fees. In the event that the County does not so expend or encumber the fees within the six-year period, the County will return such fees to the City, unless the County Council makes a written finding pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(3) that there exists an extraordinary or compelling reason for the fees to be held longer than six years.

(7) Refund of Fees Paid. Fee payers may apply for refunds of County MPS Fees collected pursuant to this section in the same manner and for the same reasons as are set forth in RCDG 20D.210.10-170 with respect to impact fees related to City transportation facilities.

(8) Exemptions. Those development activities which are exempt from the payment of transportation impact fees under the County’s MPS system shall be exempt from the payment of impact fees under this section.

(9) Adjustments. Pursuant to RCW 82.02.060(4) and (5), the County MPS Fees collected under this section may be adjusted based upon unusual circumstances or based upon studies and data provided by developers of individual projects. Such adjustments shall be made utilizing the process and criteria described in RCDG 20D.210.10-120.

(10) Credits. Those fee payers who are entitled to credits against impact fees under the County MPS System shall be entitled to credits against the County MPS Fees imposed under this section.

(11) Payments Under Protest and Appeals. Impact fees paid under this section may be paid under protest in order to obtain a building permit or other approval or permit. Determinations made by the Director pursuant to this section may be appealed as specified in RCDG 20D.210.10-200 and 20D.210.10-220. (Ord. 2057)

*Code Reviser’s Note: This section was originally added as 20D.210.10-125. It has been renumbered to avoid conflict with existing provisions.

20D.210.10-127 Adopted Impact Fees to Mitigate Impacts on Transportation Facilities in Unincorporated King County.

Land Uses	Standard of Measure	Impact Fee
		Area 1 Downtown	Area 2 Ed Hill	Area 3 Willows/SV	Area 4 Grass Lawn	Area 5 Overlake	Area 6 Viewpoint	Area 7 SE Red-mond
Single-Family King County	Dwelling	$757.00	$1,400.00	$601.00	$123.00	$425.00	$254.00	$1,086.00
Multiple-Family King County	Dwelling	$454.20	$786.51	$360.00	$73.80	$255.00	$152.40	$651.60
Note: The transportation impact fee charged to Redmond developments other than single- and multiple-family dwellings for mitigation of impacts on unincorporated King County transportation facilities shall be calculated based on a project-specific model run using the King County Mitigation Payment System (MPS). See RCDG 20D.210.10-126, Impacts to County Transportation Facilities.

(Ord. 2056)

20D.210.10-130 Payment of the Transportation Impact Fee.

(1) The fee payer shall pay the transportation impact fee required by this section to the Administrator or designee prior to the issuance of a building permit consistent with a development approval.

(2) All funds collected shall be properly identified by TMD and promptly transferred for deposit in the appropriate transportation impact fee accounts as determined in RCDG 20D.210.10-150, and used solely for the purposes specified in this chapter. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.040(40)))

20D.210.10-140 Transportation Management Districts (TMDs).

There are hereby established seven TMDs designated for the purpose of defining transportation facilities providing service to development within the district. (Ord. 1908 (20C.100.040(50)))

20D.210.10-150 Transportation Management District (TMD) Fee Accounts Established.

There are hereby established seven separate TMD accounts, one for each TMD within the City of Redmond established by RCDG 20D.210.10-140. Funds withdrawn from these accounts must be used in accordance with the provisions of RCDG 20D.210.10-160. (Ord. 1908 (20C.100.040(60)))

20D.210.10-160 Use of Funds.

(1) Transportation impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and retained in special interest-bearing accounts. All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes for which the impact fees were imposed. The Administrator shall annually provide a report to the Mayor and City Council on each impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received and transportation system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by transportation impact fees.

(2) Impact fees for transportation system improvements shall be expended only in conformance with the TFP.

(3) Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within six years of receipt, unless there exists an extraordinary and compelling reason for fees to be held longer than six years. Such extraordinary or compelling reasons shall be identified in written findings by the City Council as provided in RCDG 20D.210.10-170.

(4) Impact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain a permit or other development approval of development activity. Protest must be submitted in writing to the City within 30 days of payment of the fee.

(5) Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in RCDG 20D.210.10-170.

(6) The City shall be entitled to retain not more than three-tenths percent of the funds collected as compensation for the expense of collecting the fee and administering this section. (Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.040(70)))

20D.210.10-170 Refund of Fees Paid.

(1) The owner of the property on which the impact fee was paid may receive a refund of such fees if the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid or such other period of time established pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(3), on transportation facilities intended to benefit the development for which the transportation impact fees were paid, unless the City Council finds that there exists an extraordinary and compelling reason for fees to be held longer than six years.

      The request for a refund must be submitted by the applicant to the City in writing within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises, or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. Any transportation impact fees that are not expended within these time limitations, and for which no application for a refund has been made within this 90-day period, shall be retained and expended on projects identified in the adopted TFP. Refunds of transportation impact fees under this subsection shall include interest earned on the impact fees.

(2) Should the City terminate any or all impact fee requirements, all unexpended or unencumbered funds, including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the City shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail to the last known address of claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the City, but must be expended for projects identified in the adopted TFP. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within an account or accounts being terminated.

(3) A developer may request and shall receive a refund, including interest earned on the transportation impact fees, when the developer does not proceed with the development activity and no impact has resulted. The City shall be entitled to retain not more than three-tenths percent of the funds collected as compensation for the expense of collecting the fee and administering this section. (Ord. 2130; Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.040(80)))

20D.210.10-180 Exemptions from Payment of Transportation Impact Fees.

See RCDG 20D.60.10-040, Exemptions to the Requirement to Pay Impact Fees, or its successor, and 20D.60.10-050, Exemptions to the Requirement to Pay Impact Fees for Low- and Moderate-Income Housing, or its successor, for the transportation impact fee exemptions. (Ord. 2072; Ord. 1928; Ord. 1908 (20C.100.040(90)))

20D.210.10-190 Credits Against Payment of Transportation Impact Fees.

(1) No credit shall be given for project improvements and/or right-of-way dedications classified as project improvements.

(2) Credit shall be given for supplemental mitigation provided by a developer when the following conditions are met:

(a) To avoid the duplicate collection of money for a particular transportation facility, credit for payment or construction of supplemental mitigation shall be equal to the cost of construction of the system improvement or impact fee amount allocated by the City towards that portion of the system improvement constructed by the developer, whichever is less; and

(b) Such credits are determined and provided as set forth in subsections (3), (4), and (5) below.

(3) A developer may obtain supplemental mitigation credit against transportation impact fees due or to become due by offering to dedicate rights-of-way and/or construct transportation facilities, which are system improvements within the TFP for which the City collects impact fees. The developer’s supplemental mitigation offer must specifically request a transportation impact fee credit. Construction of transportation facilities must be in accordance with City of Redmond design standards as applicable.

      The Administrator shall allow credit against impact fee obligations only if the following criteria are met:

(a) The transportation facility is a system improvement(s) within the TFP for which the City collects impact fees; and

(b) The facility is not in the six year funded TCIP; and

(c) The conditions in subsection (2) above are met.

(4) Other Credit Against Transportation Impact Fees. A developer may obtain credit against transportation impact fees due or to become due by offering to dedicate rights-of-way and/or construct transportation facilities, which are in the City’s impact fee list of the TFP. Credit given shall not exceed the amount of impact fee revenue allocated by the City towards that portion of the system improvement constructed by the developer. The decision whether or not to accept the proposed system improvement(s) for credit against transportation impact fee obligations shall be at the sole discretion of the Administrator.

(5) Supplemental mitigation credit, and credit granted pursuant to subsection (4) above shall be subject to the following requirements:

(a) After determining the amount of impact fees a developer is required to pay towards particular impact fee projects, the Administrator shall provide the developer with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit a developer shall receive for dedication and/or construction of a supplemental mitigation project. The Administrator shall further state the reason for the credit, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The developer must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating his agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate and return such signed document to the Administrator before credit will be given. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 days shall nullify the credit.

(b) Credit against impact fees otherwise due will not be provided until:

(i) The construction is completed and accepted by the City of Redmond, or a jurisdiction which has an interlocal agreement with the City under the terms of this section, or the State, whichever is applicable;

(ii) Acceptable financial security is received and approved by the Administrator of the City of Redmond, when applicable; and

(iii) All design, construction, inspection, testing, financial security, and acceptance procedures are in strict compliance with the then current City of Redmond design and construction standards, when applicable.

(c) Credit may be provided before completion of specified transportation facilities if adequate assurances are given by the applicant that the standards set out in subsection (5)(b) will be met and if the fee payer posts security as provided below for the costs of such construction. The Administrator shall determi