Traffic Mitigation Agreement
B. An existing traffic analysis can be adopted or used by the city to determine an applicant`s responsibility for traffic improvement, in accordance with project review procedures and SEPA for use and confidence in existing environmental documents. C. Basic traffic and growth factor. The basic transportation for traffic analysis includes existing traffic, plus traffic generated by each project in the study area that has been pre-audited under the SEPA, any project currently being considered by the city and any additional traffic that is reasonably foreseeable, as the urban transport engineer deems appropriate. This additional traffic may include journeys generated in other jurisdictions. The applicant may request the use of a specific growth factor if an analysis allows the applicant to demonstrate that such a growth factor is appropriate for the location of the project and is not inconsistent with the overall plan (including SEPA or any other traffic analysis in support of the overall plan). The urban transportation engineer may require that another background growth factor be used when site-specific information supports another factor. In the absence of area-specific information, a base factor of 4% per year is used to project available traffic over the required horizon year. 3. Projects proposed as “considered measures” in accordance with Section 18.40.180 (C) provided that: (a) the environmental assessment at the project level confirms that transport production is within the limits set for the specific planned action, as provided for in Chapter 15.16 of WAC 197-11-172, and (b) measures to strengthen the elements of action are being implemented. 3.
Where the municipal engineer and the appropriate official find that it is not possible to create or maintain a level of service of “D” or better, the applicant is required to take all practical measures to mitigate the effects on the facilities, including all practical traffic improvements and CT measures. The city will decide on a case-by-case basis whether the resulting level of performance is acceptable. The City maintains a list of intersections where “E” or “F” service has been found to be acceptable and determines the lowest acceptable level of service for each of these intersections. If the negative effects on performance levels are likely to be significant, a detailed alternative analysis is required (see Section E of this section). The city may recommend alternatives or modifications to the proposed project or reject the project if the city finds that appropriate mitigation measures are not sufficient to mitigate the impact of the project. The applicant may enter into contractual and financing agreements, including late-due enterprises, development agreements or other agreements, in all forms satisfactory to the city, legally binding and enforceable for the applicant.