Concurrency Provisions

Introduction
Reference Sources
General Concurrency Information
City and County Ordinane Provisions
Related Concurrency Documents

Introduction

Concurrency refers to the timely provision of public facilities and services relative to the demand for them. To maintain concurrency means that adequate public facilities are in place to serve new development as it occurs. The Growth Management Act (GMA) gives special attention to concurrency for transportation.

The GMA requires that transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate development impacts need to be made concurrently with land development. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). “Concurrent with the development” is defined by the GMA to mean that any needed "improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years." RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). Local governments have flexibility regarding how to apply concurrency within their plans, regulations, and permit systems.

As part of the requirement to develop a comprehensive plan, jurisdictions are required to establish level-of-service standards (LOS) for arterials, transit service, and other facilities. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a). Once a jurisdiction sets an LOS, it is used to determine whether the impacts of a proposed development can be met through existing capacity and/or to decide what level of additional facilities will be required. Transportation is the only area of concurrency that specifies denial of development. However, local jurisdictions must have a program to correct existing deficiencies and bring existing transportation facilities and services up to locally adopted standards. A developer may not be required to pay for improvements to correct existing deficiencies.

Growth management administrative regulations encourage local jurisdictions to define in their comprehensive plans other types of public facilities for which concurrency is required. These may include parks and recreational facilities, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, and schools. WAC 365-195-070(3).

Reference Sources

Statutes and Administrative Regulations

RCW 36.70A.020(12) - Planning goals
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) - Comprehensive plans - Mandatory elements
WAC 365-195-070(3) - Interpretations
WAC 365-195-510 - Concurrency
WAC 365-195-835 - Concurrency Regulations
Concurrency Laws, Puget Sound Regional Council

Selected Court and Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions

City of Bellevue v. E. Bellevue Cmty. Mun. Corp., 119 Wn. App. 405 (2003), review denied, 152 Wn.2d 1004, 101 P.3d 865 (2004) - Affirms the Growth Management Hearings Board's conclusion that the Bellevue ordinance, which exempted shopping center redevelopment from transportation concurrency requirements, failed to conform to the GMA's concurrency requirements, and is invalid
McVittie v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB Case No. 01-3-0002, Final Decision and Order, July 25, 2001 - Addresses transportation concurrency
Taxpayers for Responsible Government v. City of Oak Harbor, WWGMHB No. 96-2-002, Final Decision and Order, July 1996 - Local governments must consider what facilities and services (in addition to transportation) are necessary to support development, but also have discretion about what facilities are subject to concurrency.
Wilma v. Stevens County, () EWGMHB Case No. 06-1-0009c, Final Decision and Order, March 12, 2007 - Finding that the County needs a policy in its comprehensive plan to provide for concurrency and providing general discussion on concurrency.

General Concurrency Information

Assessing the Effectiveness of Transportation Concurrency, Puget Sound Regional Council - Links to PSRC reports and other concurrency resources
Concurrency and GMA, Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
Concurrency Study, University of Washington, 2007
“Developing Transportation Concurrency Methodology to Support Urban Infill,” PowerPoint presentation, Bellingham Planning Academy, May 2008
Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study, University of Washington - A two-year assessment of how concurrency is managed in the four Eastside cities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, and Issaquah
“Growth Management in Washington State: transportation concurrency, induced growth, and Endangered Species Act indirect effects,” () Brian Bigler, in Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, 2004
Washington State Department of Transportation, State-owned Transportation Facilities Concurrency Analysis, 2006

City and County Ordinance Provisions

Bellevue City Code Chapter 14.10 - Traffic Standards Code
Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 13.70 - Transportation Concurrency Management Ordinance
Clark County Code Chapter 40.350.020 - Transportation Concurrency Management
Gig Harbor Municipal Code Chapters 19.10 - Concurrency Management System and Chapter 19.14 - Concurrency and Impact Fee Program Definitions ( 265 KB)
Kent Municipal Code Chapter 12.11 - Concurrency Management
King County Code Chapter 21A.28 - Development Standards - Adequacy of Public Facilities and Services ( 337 KB)
Lacey Municipal Code Chapter 14.21 - Transportation Mitigation and Concurrency
Monroe Municipal Code Chapter 20.06 - Concurrency Management System
Puyallup Municipal Code Chapter 21.18 - Concurrency Management
Sammamish Ordinance No. O2006-208
Seattle Land Use Code Chapter 23.52 - Transportation Concurrency Project Review System
Spokane Municipal Code, Chapter 17D.010 - Concurrency Certification
Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 - Concurrency Management System ( 3.25 MB)
Thurston County Code Chapter 17.10 - Transportation Facilities Concurrency Management System
Tumwater Municipal Code Chapter 15.48 - Transportation Concurrency Requirements
Yelm Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 - Concurrency Management
Zillah Municipal Code Chapter 17.10 - Transportation Concurrency Review ()