Laserfiche WebLink
I.2 <br /> 6.3 All fees collected under this ordinance shall be obligated or expended on public facilities <br /> that are addressed by an adopted capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan. <br /> If fees are earmarked for a specific project, and the City determines that it is not feasible to <br /> implement that project within six (6) years (or such other time period established pursuant to <br /> RCW 82.02.070(3) on public facilities intended to benefit the development activity for which the <br /> impact fees were paid, the fees may be expended or encumbered on a replacement project that <br /> provides similar or greater improvement to the transportation system. <br /> 6.4 The City Engineer or designee shall be the official responsible for preparing the annual <br /> reports required under RCW 82.02.070. <br /> 6.5 An applicant's commitment to specific performance to construct a transportation <br /> improvement, including any bonds or financial assurance associated with the improvement, shall <br /> not be considered a fee under this ordinance, regardless of whether a monetary value has been <br /> assigned to the improvement in the traffic analysis or other project review documents or <br /> agreements. <br /> 6.6 An applicant may appeal the City Traffic Engineer's determination of the impact fee <br /> required under this chapter by following the administrative appeal procedures for the underlying <br /> development approval. If there are no administrative appeal procedures for the underlying <br /> development approval, the appeal shall follow the administrative appeal procedures in EMC <br /> 15.20.010 for the appeal of minor administration decisions. <br /> Section 7: Application to projects currently underway <br /> the City. This chapter applies to a subsequent phase of a project for which an application for <br /> project level review of the subsequent phase has not been deemed complete as of the effective <br /> date of this ordinance. If a mitigation commitment has been made but has not been fully met by <br /> an applicant, the applicant is required to fulfill the commitment and, in addition, may be <br /> responsible for complying with the traffic study and mitigation requirements of this chapter. <br /> Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to contravene the authority of the Responsible Official <br /> to require or withdraw a SEPA threshold determination as provided in WAC 197-11-310 and <br /> 340(3)(a). <br /> Section 8: Projects in core area <br /> For projects within the core area, the fee shall be calculated by using fifty (50)seventy- <br /> five (75) percent of project trip generation using the ITE Trip General Manual„ If an applicant <br /> feels that this results in an overestimate of traffic from their site they have the option to hire a <br /> traffic engineer to justify a greater credit or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer based on <br /> reasonable trip generation assumptions and analysis of TDM measures. <br /> This fee to mitigateimpacts in the core area shall-be-phased-in-ever <br /> -3- <br /> 80 <br />