HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinances - 2016-15 - Amending GEWA Comprehensive Plan Policy C-20 in Chapter 3 Land Use, adding North End Subarea Plan to Comprehensive Plan - 10/10/2016City of East Wenatchee, Washington
Ordinance No. 2016-15
An Ordinance of the City of East Wenatchee amending the Greater East Wenatchee
Area Comprehensive Plan Policy C-20 in Chapter 3 Land Use and adding the North
End Subarea Plan as an element of that comprehensive plan.
Una Ordenanza de la Ciudad de East Wenatchee se modifica el Plan de Politica
Integral de Greater East Wenatchee zona C-20 en el Capitulo 3 Uso de la Tierra y
afiadiendo el Plan Subarea North End como un elemento de ese plan integral.
1. Alternate format.
1.1. Para leer este documento en otro formato (espafiol, Braille, leer en voz alta,
etc.), p6ngase en contacto con el vendedor de la ciudad al
alternatformat@east-wenatchee.com, al (509) 884-9515 o al 711 (TTY).
1.2. To read this document in an alternate format (Spanish, Braille, read aloud,
etc.), please contact the City Clerk at alternateformat@east-wenatchee.com,
at (509) 884-9515, or at 711 (TTY).
2. Recitals.
2.1. The City of East Wenatchee ("City") is a non-charter code City duly
incorporated and operating under the laws of the State of Washington; and
2.2. The City has adopted the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan
(GEWA) pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW Chapter
36. 70A, which covers all properties within the City Limits and the
unincorporated areas of Douglas County located within the East Wenatchee
Urban Growth Area, which was found to be consistent with the adopted
GMA plans of adjoining jurisdictions.
2.3. The East Wenatchee and Douglas County Planning Commissions conducted
a duly advertised public hearing on September 6, 2016. The Planning
Commissions entered into the record the files on the proposed amendment,
accepted public testimony, and deliberated the merits of the proposal. As a
result of the deliberations, the proposal was amended. The vote of the
Douglas County Planning Commission was unanimously in favor (6 to O).
The vote of the City Planning Commission was unanimously in favor (5-0).
2.4. On October 10, 2016, the City Council of East Wenatchee ("City Council")
and the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners (County
Commissioners) held a public workshop to review the record of the planning
commissions' public hearing.
2.5. On October 10, 2016, the City Council and the County Commissioners held a
public hearing to consider the planning commissions' recommendation and
accept public testimony regarding the proposed comprehensive plan
amendments.
2.6. Notice of all public hearings and public meetings on this matter have been
published in accordance with state and to local laws and regulations.
2. 7. The City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City and its
citizens to amend the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan
and adopt the North End Subarea Plan.
2.8. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments are a component of the
North End Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance.
3. Authority.
3.1. RCW 35A.11.020 and RCW 35A.12.190 authorize the City Council to adopt
ordinances of all kinds to regulate its municipal affairs and appropriate to
the good government of the City.
3.2.RCW 35A.63 and RCW 36.70A authorize the City to adopt or amend
comprehensive plans.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
4. Purpose. Establish a subarea plan with a conceptual development framework
and capital facilities plan to guide future development within the North End
planning area to create a prosperous center for jobs, tourism, and recreation
at the North End of East Wenatchee in conjunction with the Planned Action
Ordinance for the area.
5. Amendment 1. The City Council adds the North End Subarea Plan as an
element of the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan as set
forth in Exhibit A to this Ordinance.
6. Amendment 2. The City Council amends Policy C-20 in Chapter 3 -Land Use
of the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan to read:
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-15
Page 2of7
C-20 The General Commercial area designated on the upper bench
area, east of Empire Street, west of State Route 28 (Sunset Highway)
and north of 35th Street NE is intended to develop as a master
planned project.
a ) A total of 80 acres is designated for this general commercial
district, of which 60 ac:res would be specifically fo:r comme:rcial land
ttSeS. 1A.L 20 -ac:re a:rea , gene:rally located aAlong the southern perimeter
of the site , is identified as a transition area-that would incorporate
landscaping and open space consistent with the North End Master
Site (Subarea) Plan. The purpose of the transition area is to buffer
this commercial area from the less intensive development
surrounding the area.
b) Design features for the master plan for projects in this General
Commercial area would include landscaping, transition buffer,
linkages to the trail system, open space, design consistency between
adjacent buildings, establishment of an interior road network, and
orientation of buildings for access from the interior road system.
c) Direct access to the SR 28 by individual uses would be prohibited.
7. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The City Council adopts the
Recitals stated above as well as the findings of fact and conclusion oflaw as
set forth below.
7 .1. Findings of Fact:
7 .1.1. The City of East Wenatchee is subject to the requirements of the
Growth Management Act (GMA).
7 .1.2. The City of East Wenatchee has adopted a Comprehensive Plan
complying with the GMA and is amending the Comprehensive Plan
and associated Greater East Wenatchee Area Plan with the addition
of the North End Master Site Plan considered a Subarea Plan under
GMA.
7 .1.3. The North End Master Site Plan focuses growth in upland areas
east of the Apple Capital Loop Trail and Rocky Reach trails, avoids
environmentally and culturally sensitive shoreline areas, and
promotes a range of land uses and infrastructure investments
intended to enhance the employment and tourism opportunities of
the UGA consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and
associated Greater East Wenatchee Area Plan.
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-15
Page 3 of 7
7.1.4. East Wenatchee is adopting design guidelines within the North
End Master Site Plan to ensure compatible development consistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and associated Greater
East Wenatchee Area Plan.
7.1.5. Douglas County, in coordination with the City of East
Wenatchee, has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement
analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the North End
Master Site Plan and identified mitigation measures that would be
implemented through a Planned Action Ordinance consistent with
RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164, -168, and -172.
7 .1.6. Douglas County, in coordination with the City of East
Wenatchee, initiated a sixty-day review under RCW Chapter 36. 70A
on June 2, 2016.
7.1.7. Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee have provided
several opportunities for meaningful public involvement and has
considered all comments received; and, as appropriate, has modified
the subarea plan or mitigation measures in response to comments.
7 .2. Conclusions of Law:
7 .2.1. The City hereby finds that the proposed amendments to the text
of the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan are
consistent with the procedural requirements of the GMA in RCW
36.70A.
7 .2.2. The proposal has been processed in compliance with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the State Environmental
Policy Act, RCW 43.21C.
7 .2.3. The proposed text amendments are consistent with and
implement the goals and policies in the Greater East Wenatchee
Area Comprehensive Plan and the Douglas County Regional Policy
Plan.
7.2.4. Proper legal requirements of RCW 36.70A.106 and EWMC Title
19 were met and the community was given the opportunity to
comment on the proposal at a duly noticed public hearing.
8. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction declares any provision in this
Ordinance to be contrary to law, such declaration shall not affect the validity
of the other provisions of this Ordinance.
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-15
Page 4of7
9. Publication. The City Council directs the City Clerk to publish a summary of
this Ordinance. The summary shall consist of the title of this Ordinance. The
City Council directs the City Clerk to publish a copy of this Ordinance on the
City's website.
10. Submittal of Notice of Adoption. In accordance with RCW 36. 70A.106, this
Ordinance shall be transmitted by the Comm unity Development Director to
the Washington State Department of Commerce within 10 days of adoption.
11. Effective Date. This Ordinance becomes effective five days after the date its
summary is published.
Passed by the City Council of East Wenatchee, at a regular meeting thereof on this
10th day of October, 2016.
The City of East Wenatchee,
Washington
By ~/nhtc~
Sandra McCourt, Mayor Pro Tempore
Authenticated:
~~ft!JL/
Dana Barnard, City Clerk
App;?Ld as to form only: ~
Devin Poulson, City Attorney
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-15
Page 5 of 7
10-10-2016
10-10-2016
10-18-2016 I DI~ u-11&
A:0-23-2016 J o/ 00 J&
Summary of
City of East Wenatchee, Washington
Ordinance No. 2016-15
On the 10th day of October, 2016, the City Council of the City of East Wenatchee,
Washington approved Ordinance No. 2016-15, the main point of which may be
summarized by its title as follows:
An Ordinance of the City of East Wenatchee amending the Greater East Wenatchee
Area Comprehensive Plan Policy C-20 in Chapter 3 Land Use and adding the North
End Subarea Plan as an element of that comprehensive plan.
Una Ordenanza de la Ciudad de East Wenatchee se modifica el Plan de Politica
Integral de Greater East Wenatchee zona C-20 en el Capitulo 3 Uso de la Tierra y
afiadiendo el Plan Subarea North End como un elemento de ese plan integral.
The full text of this Ordinance is available at www.east-wenatchee.com.
Dated this 12th day of October, 2016.
Dana Barnard, City Clerk
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-15
Page 6 of 7
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-15
Page 7of7
EXHIBIT A
Subarea Plan
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN
A Subarea Plan Implementing the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan
October 2016
Prepared on behalf of Port of Douglas County in collaboration with Douglas County and City of East Wenatchee
NORTH END STUDY AREA - CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN
Date: May, 2016
Source: BERK, 2016; MAKERS, 2015;Transpo 2016; Douglas County Assessor, 2015
!(
!(
!#
!#
!#
!#Public or
Private
Institution
Wine
Village
Resort
Hospitality
Office/Business
Business
Park
Retail/
Business
Park
Commercial
Recreation
BLUE GRAD
E
R
D
NW FIR AVE3
5
T
H
ST
NENEBLUERIDGEDRUS 2
US 2/97
35TH ST NW
34TH ST NWNWEMPIREAVE
NW DAVID AVE41ST ST NW
NW 38TH ST
SUNSETHWY(SR28)GOLDCREST ST
NW 39TH ST
3
7
T
H
S
T
NW
NWCASCADEAVEBLUEROCK DR NEQUAILRUNTRAILALFRED PLKNOBH
IL
L
D
R
4 0 T H C I R NEHOLCOMBLNOLDS STATION BRIDGE RD
¯0 500 1,000
Feet
Study Area
Existing Roads
! !Trail
!#Proposed Roundabout
!(Future Roundabout
Proposed Road Extension
Future Road Extension
Development Areas by Land Use Intensity
High-Intensity Land Uses
Medium-Intensity Land Uses
Low-Intensity Land Uses
Park and Trail Areas
Ordinance 2016-15 Exhibit A
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN
A Subarea Plan Implementing the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan
City of East Wenatchee Ordinance 2016-15
Douglas County Ordinance TLS 16-08-37B
October 2016
Prepared for:
Port of Douglas County
In collaboration with:
Douglas County
City of East Wenatchee
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
BergerABAM
Cultural Resource Consultants
MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design
Transpo Group
Final | October 2016 I
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 About this Plan ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 About the North End .................................................................................................................. 1-2
Growth Projections ............................................................................................................................. 1-3
Natural and Built Environment Conditions ......................................................................................... 1-5
2.0 Vision and Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Vision Statement ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Guiding Principles ...................................................................................................................... 2-1
3.0 Plan Concepts and Actions ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Landscape Analysis..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Design Principles ........................................................................................................................ 3-3
Buffers and Transitions ....................................................................................................................... 3-7
Nonmotorized Connections ................................................................................................................ 3-7
3.3 Preferred Concept ...................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.4 Master Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 3-10
Land Use Concept ............................................................................................................................. 3-10
Growth Range ................................................................................................................................... 3-13
Land Use Location Options ............................................................................................................... 3-15
Public Spaces .................................................................................................................................... 3-15
Transportation & Utility Network Options ....................................................................................... 3-17
Development Phasing Options ......................................................................................................... 3-24
4.0 Implementation Action Plan .......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Funding Plan ............................................................................................................................... 4-1
Road and Utility Improvements .......................................................................................................... 4-2
Infrastructure and Land Values .......................................................................................................... 4-3
Phasing ................................................................................................................................................ 4-8
Funding Options.................................................................................................................................. 4-8
Strategies and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 4-13
4.2 Planned Action Permitting and Standards ............................................................................... 4-17
4.3 Continued Organizational Cooperation ................................................................................... 4-18
5.0 Property Owner and Public Involvement ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Workshops ................................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Planned Action EIS Public Review .............................................................................................. 5-8
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 II
5.3 Legislative Hearings.................................................................................................................... 5-9
6.0 Background .................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Market Study .............................................................................................................................. 6-1
Regional Market Analysis.................................................................................................................... 6-1
Land Use Competitive Assessment ..................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2 Comparable Development Areas ............................................................................................... 6-5
North End Growth Range and Example Areas .................................................................................... 6-5
Hospitality Rooms ............................................................................................................................... 6-7
Exhibits
Exhibit 1.1-1. North End Study Area .......................................................................................................... 1-1
Exhibit 1.2-1. Region and Study Area Map ................................................................................................ 1-2
Exhibit 1.2-2. 2015-2035 Population Projections ...................................................................................... 1-3
Exhibit 1.2-3. North Central Washington: Industry Employment Projections 2013-2023 ........................ 1-4
Exhibit 1.2-4. Use Feasibility and Impact ................................................................................................... 1-5
Exhibit 1.2-5. Existing Conditions Report Summary .................................................................................. 1-5
Exhibit 1.2-6. Natural Environment Features ............................................................................................ 1-8
Exhibit 1.2-7. Utility Features ..................................................................................................................... 1-9
Exhibit 1.2-8. Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................... 1-10
Exhibit 1.2-9. Zoning and Shoreline Designations ................................................................................... 1-11
Exhibit 3.1-1. Site Observation Photos ...................................................................................................... 3-1
Exhibit 3.1-2. Landscape Analysis Overview .............................................................................................. 3-3
Exhibit 3.2-1. Design Principles .................................................................................................................. 3-4
Exhibit 3.3-1. Rendered Concept Plan ....................................................................................................... 3-9
Exhibit 3.4-1. Future Land Use by Intensity and Category ....................................................................... 3-10
Exhibit 3.4-2. Conceptual Land Use Plan ................................................................................................. 3-11
Exhibit 3.4-3. Examples of Proposed Development by Land Use Concept Plan Category....................... 3-12
Exhibit 3.4-4. Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................................... 3-13
Exhibit 3.4-5. Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................................... 3-14
Exhibit 3.4-6. Land Use Sub-Options ........................................................................................................ 3-16
Exhibit 3.4-7. Proposed Transportation Improvements – North End ...................................................... 3-18
Exhibit 3.4-8. Transportation Costs.......................................................................................................... 3-19
Exhibit 3.4-9. North End Utility Costs....................................................................................................... 3-20
Exhibit 3.4-10. Proposed Sewer and Water Plan ..................................................................................... 3-22
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 III
Exhibit 3.4-11. Proposed Private Stormwater Plan.................................................................................. 3-23
Exhibit 4.1-1. Stakeholder Agencies and Roles .......................................................................................... 4-1
Exhibit 4.1-2. Conceptual Road Network Cost Estimates, 2016$ .............................................................. 4-2
Exhibit 4.1-3. Utilities Costs ....................................................................................................................... 4-3
Exhibit 4.1-4. Preliminary per Trip Costs – Pending Balance of Public and Private Shares ....................... 4-3
Exhibit 4.1-5. Costs of Improvements, 2016$ ............................................................................................ 4-4
Exhibit 4.1-6. Land Value per Square Foot, 2015$ ..................................................................................... 4-5
Exhibit 4.1-7. Washington State Department of Transportation Share of Land in Study Area ................. 4-6
Exhibit 4.1-8. Washington State Department of Transportation Ownership in Study Area...................... 4-7
Exhibit 4.1-9. Funding Sources Evaluation ............................................................................................... 4-13
Exhibit 4.2-1. Planned Action Process ...................................................................................................... 4-17
Exhibit 4.3-1. Framework for Stakeholder Action .................................................................................... 4-18
Exhibit 5.1-1. Healthy Lifestyle Business and Recreation Center .............................................................. 5-2
Exhibit 5.1-2. Destination Shore Village ..................................................................................................... 5-3
Exhibit 5.1-3. Wenatchi (Historic) Landing................................................................................................. 5-4
Exhibit 5.1-4. Preliminary EIS Alternative Handout – December 2015 ...................................................... 5-5
Exhibit 5.1-5. Community Meeting – July 2016 ......................................................................................... 5-6
Exhibit 5.1-6. Community Meeting Planned Action Handout .................................................................... 5-7
Exhibit 6.1-1.Competitiveness and Impact Matrix ..................................................................................... 6-3
Exhibit 6.1-2. Competitiveness and Economic Development Impact Matrix ............................................ 6-3
Exhibit 6.1-3. Reference Site Table ............................................................................................................ 6-4
Exhibit 6.2-1. North End Growth Alternatives ........................................................................................... 6-5
Exhibit 6.2-2. North End and Other Chelan-Douglas Areas and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) .......................... 6-5
Exhibit 6.2-3. Example Comparison Areas – Chelan and Douglas Counties .............................................. 6-6
Exhibit 6.2-4. Hospitality Rooms – Wenatchee and East Wenatchee ....................................................... 6-8
Appendix
A. Adopted Planned Action Ordinance
B. Street Standards: Typical Street Sections for Public Roads
C. Alignment Options: 35th Street NW-NW Empire Avenue to NW Cascade Avenue
Final | October 2016 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 About this Plan
The North End Master Site Plan presents a unified and flexible blueprint
to create a regional job center and tourist recreation destination at the
north end of the East Wenatchee Urban Growth Area (UGA). It serves
as a subarea plan under the Growth Management Act. This plan
includes a common development and design concept, capital
improvement program, funding plan, and other implementation
strategies for the 317-acre North End illustrated in Exhibit 1.1-1. The
document also profiles the public involvement process, reviews
alternatives considered, and summarizes the background information
identified in the Existing Conditions Report.
A key implementation tool for this Master Site Plan is a Planned Action
Ordinance that establishes a streamlined environmental review and
permitting process for future development.
Development of the North End Master Site Plan has taken place during
2015 and 2016. The process included multiple stakeholder workshops, creation of land use and
transportation options, an environmental scoping process, an Existing Conditions Report, a Planned
Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Ordinance, and this Master Site Plan.
Exhibit 1.1-1. North End Study Area
Source: Port of Douglas County 2015
North End Facts
Location: Lands north and south of Odabashian Bridge along the Columbia River in East Wenatchee’s northern Urban Growth Area
Area: 317 gross acres (283 parcel acres, 34 acres right-of-way)
Columbia River Frontage: 1.24 miles
Zoning: Waterfront Mixed Use and General Commercial
Highways: US 2/97, SR 28
Major Arterials and Collectors: NW Empire Avenue, NW Cascade Avenue, 35th Street NW, 38th Street NW
Recreation Features: Apple Capital Loop Trail, Rocky Reach Trail
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-2
1.2 About the North End
The North End Study Area encompasses approximately 317 acres and is located adjacent to the east
approach to the Odabashian Bridge in East Wenatchee’s northern UGA. See Exhibit 1.2-1.
The North End Study Area is
unique in its large parcel
ownership along the Columbia
River within the UGA. Zoning is a
mix of Waterfront Mixed Use and
General Commercial, which allow
a range of high value uses.
Private ownership accounts for
just over half (57.7%) of the land
area, and public ownership
comprises the remaining 42.3%.
Public property owners include
the Washington State
Department of Transportation
(WSDOT), Douglas County, Chelan
County Public Utility District
(PUD), and the East Wenatchee
Water District.
The study area contains a County-
owned segment of the Apple
Capital Loop Trail, as well as the
newly opened Rocky Reach Trail,
which provides a bicycle and
pedestrian connection north to
Lincoln Rock State Park. WSDOT
owns land for planned
interchange improvements where
US 2 meets US 97. It is likely some
WSDOT land will be surplused for
other purposes upon completion
of the interchange design.
The study area has limited
infrastructure for transportation,
stormwater, and sanitary sewer.
Much of the study area is
currently vacant, although some
land contains orchards and
residential homes.
This plan demonstrates how a coordinated vision and design, capital improvements, and continued
cooperation among property owners, utility providers, and the Port, County, and City governments can
achieve a thriving job center with tourism and recreation destinations.
Exhibit 1.2-1. Region and Study Area Map
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-3
Growth Projections
The Study Area lies within the East Wenatchee UGA, an area slated to take the largest share of
population in Douglas County between 2015 and 2035. The increased population would create a
demand for commercial businesses and recreation, and may attract future employers and employees in
job centers such as the one planned in the North End.
Exhibit 1.2-2. 2015-2035 Population Projections
Source: Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan, Ordinance 2015-017, March 2015
The Wenatchee Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes all of Chelan and Douglas Counties,
and the larger North Central Washington area, which includes Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant and
Okanogan Counties, are both growing faster in terms of employment than the state as a whole, with
generally positive growth rates projected in the near term (2013-2023):
The Wenatchee MSA's economy has posted year-over-year nonfarm employment
increases for 41 months (from June 2012 through October 2015) and the pace of this
expansion has been faster locally than statewide for at least the past twelve months. The
Employment Security Department’s ten-year industry employment projections are for a
1.7 percent average annual growth rate from 2013-2023 for the five-county North
Central WDA (i.e., Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant and Okanogan) and for a 1.8 percent
growth rate for Washington State.
There is one negative economic event on the horizon which could throw a “monkey
wrench” into these local employment projections. Chelan County will soon lose one of its
highest paying businesses - Alcoa’s aluminum smelter in Malaga.
~Washington State Employment Security Department, May 2015
For the North Central Washington Area, projections through 2023 show growth in several industries that
are proposed for the North End Master Site Plan: Business services, health services, leisure and
hospitality, and retail trade.
5,513
6,620
28,212
36,175
7,471
9,462
41,196
52,257
2015
Population US Census
2035 Population Projection,
Douglas County Comprehensive
Plan
Other Urban Growth Areas East Wenatchee Urban Growth Area Rural
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-4
Exhibit 1.2-3. North Central Washington: Industry Employment Projections 2013-2023
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department, May 2015
A 2014 Market Analysis prepared by BERK Consulting studied economic strengths in the Chelan-Douglas
region, prepared a peer region assessment, and conducted interviews with local developers, economic
development representatives, and industry experts. That study identified the following strengths and
opportunities of the North End:
The study area is well positioned for growth due to a variety of assets, including regional highway
access, high visibility, and natural amenities (e.g. views of the Cascades, waterfront location).
The large size of the study area allows multiple uses and project phases.
In the near-term, regional retail and office uses are most market-feasible. Mixed-use multi-family
residential and recreation/tourism-related uses also show potential.
Development of a resort or institution of higher education generated interest, but those uses are
longer-term, aspirational opportunities that would require a greater level of public-private
partnership to achieve. Business/entrepreneur incubators that provide space for startups and other
small businesses were also identified as a long-term, aspirational use that could benefit from
regional agri-tourism.
The 2014 study found the economic impacts of different uses over the long-term vary in terms of their
ability to bring investment to the local area from outside the local economy and create jobs. Exhibit
1.2-4 outlines a framework for the feasibility and economic/social impact of different uses.
0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%
NATURAL RESOURCES and MINING
FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
INFORMATION
TRANSPORTATION, WAREHOUSING AND UTILITIES
OTHER SERVICES
RETAIL TRADE
MANUFACTURING
GOVERNMENT
LEISURE and HOSPITALITY
WHOLESALE TRADE
EDUCATION and HEALTH SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL and BUSINESS SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION
North Central Washington Industry Employment Projections
Average Annual Growth Rates
AAGR 2018-2023 AAGR 2013-2018
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-5
Exhibit 1.2-4. Use Feasibility and Impact
Source: BERK, 2013
Because of concerns that short-term development may not match the long-term vision, demand, and
desired synergy between uses, this Master Site Plan has been created to provide a common vision,
investment strategy, and phasing options. See Chapter 6 for additional market summary information.
Natural and Built Environment Conditions
The 2016 Existing Conditions Report studied the natural and built environment. The report is
summarized in Exhibit 1.2-5; selected maps are shown in Exhibit 1.2-6. Much of the North End Study
Area is undeveloped or sparsely developed, but the area is served by regional trails and has some
transportation access. Fish and wildlife habitat areas include the Columbia River and shrub-steppe
habitat, and some steep slopes are found in the study area. The study area is zoned for intensive mixed
and commercial uses. Sewer and water plans address the study area, though the planned capital
investment requires funding and implementation.
Exhibit 1.2-5. Existing Conditions Report Summary
Topic / Summary Natural and Built Environment Description
Land Use
Most land is vacant,
recreational, agricultural,
or residential
A large percentage of land in the study area (57.7%), located primarily on the western half of
the site extending to the shoreline of the Columbia River, is undeveloped or recreational. Other
predominant land uses within the study area include residential (24.6%) and agricultural use
including orchards (17.6%).
Zoning
There are two zoning
designations in the study
area.
According to the Greater East Wenatchee Planning Area Zoning Map, Waterfront Mixed Use
(57.8%) and General Commercial (42.2%) are the two zoning designations in the study area.
Natural Environment
Slopes and the Columbia
River shoreline are
prominent natural
features. Habitats include
riparian, wetlands, and
shrub-steppe.
The study area contains areas of steep slopes in north-south bands, primarily south of US 2/97
and along the shoreline and publicly-owned land. Riparian habitats are associated with the
Columbia River and an unnamed tributary. Riparian vegetation is characterized by cottonwood,
ash, and willows. A wetland area along the Columbia River may extend into the northern tip of
the study area. Shrub-steppe habitats are present throughout the study area and characterized
by bitterbrush, sagebrush and rabbitbrush. Rock/talus slopes and cliffs are located between the
recreational trail and the Columbia River. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
documents regular concentration habitat for bald eagles and mule deer in the study area.
High University Ag Tourism
Medium Resort
Business Incubator
Sports Facility
Hotel/Accommodations
Office
Low Residential Retail Power Center
Challenging Potential Well Positioned
FeasibilityImpact
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-6
Topic / Summary Natural and Built Environment Description
Surface Water Quality
Water quality meets
standards.
All surface waters are classified as Class A – Excellent, waters of the state, according to WAC
173-201a. None of the waters in the study area are listed on any 303(d) impaired water quality
list. However, other portions of the Columbia River are listed as a 303(d) impaired water.
Groundwater
Groundwater resources
are found at shallow
depths.
Groundwater resources are connected, through alluvial deposits, with the Columbia River at
shallow depths. Most water used in the watershed comes from wells along the banks of the
Columbia River and likely originates from the river.
Floodplain
Outside the 100-year
floodplain.
Based on flood insurance rate maps developed by FEMA, the 100-year floodplain is contained
within the banks of the Columbia River. The study area is located in what the Flood Insurance
Rate maps refer to as Zone B, which is defined as the area between the 100- and 500-year
floodplains, or where flooding during the 100-year event occurs with depths less than one foot.
The unnamed tributary runs east to west with a floodplain within the channel located adjacent
to the Columbia River and extends to the east.
Police Service The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office oversees police protection in the study area. The Sheriff’s
Office currently employs approximately 0.83 commissioned officers per 1,000 residents. The
East Wenatchee Police Department (EWPD) currently employs approximately 1.9 officers per
1,000 residents, and EWPD would serve the UGA upon annexation.
Fire Services The study area is within Douglas County Fire District No.2. The closest District 2 fire station to
the study area is the headquarters in downtown East Wenatchee, approximately four miles
south of the study area. Chelan County Fire District 1 maintains a fire station (Station 11) at the
US 2/US 97 interchange in Sunnyslope, approximately 1.5 miles west of the study area. The two
districts maintain a mutual aid agreement in the event of emergencies.
School Services The study area is within the Eastmont School District. Children that live in or near the study
area would attend Cascade Elementary, Sterling Intermediate, Eastmont Junior High School,
and Eastmont High School.
Parks and Trails
The area has significant
regional trails.
The Eastmont Metropolitan Parks District (EMPD) provides park and recreational facilities and
services to the study area. The most significant recreational amenity within the study area is
the Apple Capital Loop Trail, extending for about two miles in the study area. Though owned by
Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee, the trail is maintained by EMPD. The Rocky
Reach Trail, which opened in the summer of 2015, provides a northern extension of the trail
system to Lincoln Rock State Park, approximately six miles north of the study area, and is
located on property owned by Washington State Department of Transportation and Chelan
County PUD.
Shoreline Access
There is no formal public
access to the river.
Despite its close proximity to the Columbia River, there are no formal boat launches or public
access sites within the study area. However, review of recent Google Earth satellite imagery
data suggests that portions of the study area shoreline south of the Odabashian bridge are
used informally for boating access.
Water Service
Water service is available
and planned. Future
improvements are
needed as development
occurs.
The East Wenatchee Water District (EWWD) serves the entire UGA. The North End study area is
included in the Baker Flats Utility Local Improvement District, which was established in 2010 by
the EWWD. The primary water transmission and storage system in this 800-acre area was
constructed to improve supply and storage facilities to meet urban level of service standards.
Additional improvements to the local distribution system may be necessary to meet specific
water demands and required fire flow based upon the actual development and associated
water system improvements.
Irrigation The Wenatchee Reclamation District delivers irrigation water through a system of ditches and
ditch banks in the east portion of the study area.
Sewer Service
Sewer service is not
presently available to the
study area, though
planning has occurred.
The Douglas County Sewer District provides sanitary sewer service within the City of East
Wenatchee and adjacent urban areas, but not in the study area.
The Douglas County Sewer District comprehensive plan laid out a plan for the extension of
sewer north of US2/97 within the study area during the subarea planning period. The sewer
district intends to design an extension along NW Empire Avenue from 29th Street to 35th Street
in the near term as funding is available, and plans to continue improvements along NW Empire
Avenue to US2/97 during the planning period. See Section 3.4 for more information about
needed improvements.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-7
Topic / Summary Natural and Built Environment Description
Stormwater Service The City of East Wenatchee and Douglas County have each established stormwater utilities,
which are administered jointly. The function of the utilities is to plan for flooding within their
service areas, and to develop and implement stormwater program elements required to
maintain compliance with the Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. The boundary generally follows that of the
Federal Urbanized Area. Stormwater in urban areas is generally managed by private
stormwater retention and detention systems in each development and by larger downstream
retention systems constructed by the combined Greater East Wenatchee – Storm Water Utility.
The study area contains several culverts and drainage channels for conveyance of local
stormwater flows.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-8
Exhibit 1.2-6. Natural Environment Features
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-9
Exhibit 1.2-7. Utility Features
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-10
Exhibit 1.2-8. Existing Land Use
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-11
Exhibit 1.2-9. Zoning and Shoreline Designations
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
INTRODUCTION
Final | October 2016 1-12
This page intentionally blank
Final | October 2016 2-1
2.0 VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
2.1 Vision Statement
The North End’s best future is to:
Establish a prosperous center for job-creating industry and a tourist and recreation
destination at the North End of East Wenatchee.
2.2 Guiding Principles
The Vision is further defined by following Guiding Principles that helped to shape this Master Site Plan:
Facilitate private investment in the study
area and create public/private partnerships to
guide infrastructure planning and phasing.
Sewer and transportation investments are
needed to support further economic
development. A joint effort between private
and public landowners, special districts, and
the City and County will be needed to ensure
efficient and effective infrastructure.
Establish a Planned Action for the study
area to provide streamlined SEPA review and
regulatory certainty for developers.
A Planned Action Ordinance allows
development to proceed consistent with
ordinance standards and mitigation. This
reduces the expense and time of permitting
since the environmental review has been
completed in advance.
Spur economic development through job
growth.
Recognizing its waterfront location, large
properties, and access to regional
transportation facilities, the study area has
been planned as an employment center and
tourism destination.
Explore opportunities for a wide variety of
mixed-use waterfront development types.
The Master Site Plan and zoning allow a range
of regional commercial, tourism, employment
and recreation uses. Small amounts of
multifamily residential that support other
uses (e.g. mixed use wine village or tourism)
may be allowed.
Take advantage of the study area’s location
and create a vibrant, attractive place.
The study area has extensive shoreline along
the Columbia River and expansive views. A
regional trail and road network serves large
properties available for master planned
development near the Odabashian Bridge.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Final | October 2016 2-2
This page intentionally blank
Final | October 2016 3-1
3.0 PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
3.1 Landscape Analysis
A landscape analysis of the North End was conducted based on site visit notes and observances, aerial
and site images, and geographic information to identify and describe the natural characteristics of the
area. The intent of the landscape analysis was to:
Identify defining landscape elements that can be used to help unify future development of the site;
Respond to the site opportunities and immediate context, yet allow flexibility for future
development; and
Provide a stronger sense of identity for this area that is based on the character of the surrounding
landscape.
Observations include distinct vegetation, topography, and views – see the photo series below.
Exhibit 3.1-1. Site Observation Photos
VEGETATION PATTERNS
SIGNIFICANT VIEWS
PATTERN OF BENCHES AND STEEP SLOPES DOWN TO SHORELINE
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-2
AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE
INFLUENCE OF IRRIGATION
PROMINENCE OF TALL TREES IN OPEN SPACE
SENSE OF OPEN SPACE AND SKY
NATURAL CHARACTER AND VEGETATION ALONG SHORELINE
Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, 2015
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-3
The results of the landscape analysis show a pattern of benches and steep slopes to the Columbia River,
views to the west, extended shoreline natural areas, a continued agricultural context, and heavy traffic
and secondary traffic arterials with limited local east-west connections.
Exhibit 3.1-2. Landscape Analysis Overview
Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, 2015
3.2 Design Principles
Universal urban design principles can be used to ensure development fits the site and advances its
opportunities and strengths. The intent of urban design is not to dictate a specific form, but rather to
influence development so that it is connected to the site’s natural features and generates an authentic
sense of place. Though not detailed design standards, the following Urban Design Principles, illustrated
in Exhibit 3.2-1, provide a framework for ensuring that future development is consistent with the vision
of this plan.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-4
Exhibit 3.2-1. Design Principles
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-5
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-6
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-7
Buffers and Transitions
General Commercial (GC) Buffer
The current Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan requires future development in the
study area to provide a 20-acre buffer along the southern edge of the General Commercial designation,
located north of 35th Street NE and between NW Empire Avenue and SR 28, to protect adjacent
residential uses to the south (Policy C-20). The policy does not specify the mechanism for implementing
this requirement, how the burden should be divided among property owners, or the precise landscaping
characteristics of the buffer zone. Accordingly, this Subarea Plan intends to address how this policy can
be implemented to protect adjacent residential areas and achieve the vision of this Subarea Plan for the
North End as an employment and tourist recreation center.
In the portions of the study area zoned General Commercial, future development under the subarea
plan shall provide a 50-foot transition buffer along the southern boundary of the study area. The buffer
area should include Type I landscaping screening along any property line that abuts residential zoning,
consistent with Section 20.40.030 of the Douglas County Code or Section 17.72.080 of the East
Wenatchee Municipal Code depending on the agency with jurisdiction. The landscaped area may be
used for any of the following features:
Stormwater detention, infiltration, or conveyance ponds or swales;
Bicycle and pedestrian trail features that form part of an on-site non-motorized circulation system;
Programmed open space, including lawn or park areas, gardens, and orchards; or
Passive open space, including native vegetation protection or habitat enhancement.
Transitional Standards
To reduce adverse visual effects where higher-intensity development abuts lower-intensity
development, all development under the North End Master Site Plan located on property that abuts a
residential zone, but which is not covered by the General Commercial buffer requirement established
above, shall apply two or more of the following transition design standards.
Within 50 feet of residential zoning, limit building heights to 35 feet;
Provide a Type I landscaping buffer, as defined by Section 20.40.030 of the Douglas County Code or
Section 17.72.080 of the East Wenatchee Municipal Code, along any property boundary that abuts a
residential zone;
Provide a decorative screening wall or fence, at least 6 feet in height, along any property boundary
that abuts a residential zone;
Where a rear-yard setback abuts a residential zone, increase the standard setback distance to 50
feet; or
Where a property boundary that abuts a residential zone is characterized by significant mature
native vegetation, preserve such vegetation and implement a building setback of at least 20 feet.
Nonmotorized Connections
All public streets shall be designed to incorporate sidewalks consistent with County and City street
standards. Some street standards show a range of sidewalk widths. Where pedestrian activity is
anticipated to be greatest, wider sidewalks should be implemented.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-8
Arterial or collector streets shall accommodate bicycles consistent with adopted County and City road
standards and adopted bicycle reginal guidelines. See Appendix C for typical cross sections.
Properties abutting the Apple Capital Loop Trail or Rocky Reach Trail or their spurs shall be consistent
with the Douglas County Loop Trail Overlay including standards for fencing, trail access, landscaping, and
setbacks from the trail.
The following on-site pedestrian walkway standards shall be met by each development:
1. A comprehensive system of pedestrian walkways shall link together all site entrances, building
entries, parking facilities, and common outdoor spaces with the sidewalk system in the public right-
of-way.
2. Pedestrian walkways shall be reinforced with pedestrian-scale lighting, bollard lighting, landscaping,
accent lighting, signage, or a combination thereof to aid in pedestrian way-finding.
3. Each parcel shall provide pedestrian walkways that provide for connections from public rights of
way through the subject property to the regional trail system that, when connected with other
properties, will facilitate east-west travel to and from the regional trail system. For every 1,320 feet
of street frontage, on average, a pathway to the regional trail system shall be provided. The
walkway must connect with walkways located on other properties established in accordance with
this condition. Distances may vary from exactly 1,320 feet to accommodate linking adjacent
developments on a case-by-case basis.
3.3 Preferred Concept
The Port of Douglas County, Douglas County, and the City of East Wenatchee sponsored workshops with
stakeholders, including property owners and service providers, to develop concepts and illustrate
different mixes and location of uses to meet the vision and guiding principles.
A preferred concept representing combinations of ideas from multiple workshops is illustrated below.
This concept was refined after public workshops. See Section 5.0 for more details on the workshops and
plans developed by stakeholders.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-9
Exhibit 3.3-1. Rendered Concept Plan
Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, 2015
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-10
Source: BERK Consulting, May 2015
3.4 Master Site Plan
Land Use Concept
The vision of the North End focuses on an employment center and leveraging the natural setting for
tourism and recreation. The land use concept illustrated in Exhibit 3.4-1 and Exhibit 3.4-2 implements
that vision. The land use concept provides for a resort and office park on the western lower bench, as
well as a mixed-use wine village that would include retail, tasting rooms, and other agriculture tourism.
A mix of hospitality, office, business park, institutional uses, retail and commercial recreation would be
located on the upper bench.
Exhibit 3.4-1. Future Land Use by Intensity and Category
Source: BERK Consulting 2016
High-Intensity
Land Use
42%
Low-Intensity Land
Use
16%
Medium-Intensity
Land Use
42%
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-11
Exhibit 3.4-2. Conceptual Land Use Plan
Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design 2016, BERK Consulting 2016
The land use concept would support a range of building types as illustrated in Exhibit 3.4-3.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-12
Exhibit 3.4-3. Examples of Proposed Development by Land Use Concept Plan Category
Source Makers 2016
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-13
Growth Range
If development occurred with a similar building intensity as shown in Exhibit 3.3-1. Rendered Concept,
and according to the pattern of Exhibit 3.4-2. Conceptual Land Use Plan, the expected intensity could be
about 4.5 million square feet of building space. See Exhibit 3.4-4. Growth estimates also reflect the input
of stakeholders participating in the charrette.
Exhibit 3.4-4. Preferred Alternative
Note: Wine Village square footage includes 441,292 square feet of below grade parking. Excluding parking, the square footage
estimate for non-residential space is 522,342. Residential space is 327,522 square feet.
Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design 2016, BERK Consulting 2016
With the building space identified above, the Preferred Alternative could accommodate about 4.5
million square feet of building space, including 227 dwelling units, 544 hotel units, and 7,490 jobs. See
Exhibit 3.4-5.
See Chapter 6, Section 6.2 for more comparisons of development intensity in the region.
Land Use Acres
Approx.
Building
Footprint
(sq. ft.)
Max
Number of
Floors per
Building
Approx. Total
Square Feet FAR (Gross)
Resort 34.2 126,807 2-3 341,123 0.23
Mixed Use Wine Village 43.6 614,824 1-3 1,291,156 0.68
Office/Business 19.4 314,358 3 943,074 1.11
Hospitality 14.9 77,118 5 385,589 0.33
Public/Private Institution 43.0 178,934 3 536,803 0.29
Retail/Business Park 11.9 154,236 2-3 385,589 0.33
Business Park 16.9 314,358 2 628,716 0.85
Commercial Recreation 24.3 87,564 1 87,564 0.08
Totals 208.2 1,868,199 4,599,614
Land Use Concept
The proposed land use concept for the North End study area, developed jointly by the Port, County,
City, and local landowners, would primarily consist of a mix of tourist, hospitality, and recreation
uses, anchored by a major public or private institution, such as a hospital, medical research and
development facility, or higher education campus. Tourism uses would include a wine village,
including retail and tasting rooms, in the southern half of the study area and a resort in the portion of
the study area north of the bridge. Commercial recreation, such as a soccer complex or minor league
baseball park, would be located at the eastern Gateway to the study area. Office uses would also be
included to provide stable, high-paying employment.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PLAN CONCEPTS AND ACTIONS
Final | October 2016 3-14
Exhibit 3.4-5. Preferred Alternative
Notes: Jobs are estimated based on typical rates of employees per square feet of building space—with 250-500 square feet per employee for office, institution, retail, and hospitality/resort
uses, and 750 square feet per employee for business park uses. Resort cabins and hospitality rooms are sized based on examples from other similar developments (Cave B and
Salish Lodge). Wine Village development is based on property owner concepts. Commercial-Recreation jobs based on examples from Everett Aqua-Sox and Starfire Sports facilities.
Source: BERK Consulting, 2016
Full Intensity Alternative
Land Use Acres Dwellings
Dwellings
(sq. ft.)
Resort /
Hospitality
Units
Business Park
or Winery
(sq. ft.)
Office
(sq. ft.)
Institutional
(sq. ft.)
Resort/
Hospitality
(sq. ft.)
Retail
(sq. ft.)
Commercial
Recreation
(sq. ft.)
Under-building
Parking (sq. ft.)
Approx.
Jobs
Resort 34.2 48 341,123 680
Mixed Use Wine Village 43.6 227 327,522 110 48,155 207,502 93,300 173,385 441,292 1,410
Office/Business 19.4 - 471,537 471,537 2,360
Hospitality 14.9 386 385,589 770
Public/Private Institution 43.0 - 536,803 1,070
Retail/Business Park 11.9 - 289,192 96,397 480
Business Park 16.9 - 628,716 630
Commercial Recreation 24.3 - 87,564 90
208.2 227 327,522 544 1,437,600 679,039 536,803 820,012 269,782 87,564 441,292 7,490
Full Intensity
Final | October 2016 3-15
Land Use Location Options
The Land Use Plan identifies a desired land use pattern, but economic development trends and property
owner preferences may result in a different pattern. To allow flexibility, land use “sub-options” were
studied in the Master Site Plan and Planned Action. These sub-options vary the location of commercial
recreation, hospitality, and public/private institutional uses. See Exhibit 3.4-6.
Public Spaces
The Apple Capital Loop Trail and Rocky Reach Trail are the primary public spaces in the study area. The
Columbia River shoreline is under public ownership, but not accessible at this time through formal
improvements.
Streetscapes with non-motorized access and viewpoints present opportunities to create public spaces.
Design Principles address the use of streetscape improvements, integration of agricultural landscape
themes, and respect of site topography to create attractive spaces in the public realm.
Onsite public or common space is also required in the Greater East Wenatchee UGA Design Guidelines,
applicable to commercial, mixed use and multiple family development such as that proposed in
Hospitality, Retail, and Wine Village Areas, including:
Commercial or Mixed Use Development: Public space shall provide a minimum of two square feet of
space per 100 square feet of gross building area.
Multiple Family Developments, Over Ten Units: Provide usable common outdoor spaces, with at least
four features such as picnic and play areas, sport courts, open lawn and other features.
Final | October 2016 3-16
Exhibit 3.4-6. Land Use Sub-Options
Source: BERK Consulting, 2016
Final | October 2016 3-17
Transportation & Utility Network Options
Transportation
Transportation system improvements intended to support the North End Master Site Plan are described
in this section.
NW Empire Ave Roadway Extension Phase 1 – Construct a new roadway to extend NW Empire Ave
north from Goldcrest St NW under US2/97 and connect to 38th Street NW.
35th Street NW Expansion – Construct new segment of 35th Street NW to connect from NW
Cascade Ave to NW Empire Ave.
38th Street NW Expansion – Construct new segment of 38th Street NW to connect from NW
Cascade Ave to NW Empire Ave.
Intersection Upgrades at 35th Street NW / Sunset Highway – Install traffic signal or roundabout.
Intersection Upgrades at 38th Street NW / Sunset Highway – Install traffic signal or roundabout.
The improvements above were identified in the Chelan-Douglas Transportation Council Long Range
Transportation Plan for completion during the period 2016-2027.
Alternative Improvements Proposed By This Plan
In consultation with partner agencies, the transportation analysis conducted for this Plan resulted in
three proposed alternatives to the above Transportation 2040 Plan improvements.
Cascade Interchange: A half interchange was analyzed and was found to meet the demands of the
North End under either studied alternative, and would be significantly less expensive than a full
interchange. The features of the ramps and interchange would also include a signal or roundabout
added at Empire Ave and US 2 ramps.
Intersection Upgrades at 35th Street NW / Sunset Highway: Install a roundabout (instead of the
traffic signal)
Intersection Upgrades at 38th Street NW / Sunset Highway: Install a roundabout (instead of the
traffic signal)
Alternatives are intended to restrict left turn traffic movements between the intersections. The
roundabouts in the alternative would mitigate the restriction on left-turn movements by
accommodating U-turns at the roundabouts. Roundabouts enhance safety by removing left-turning
conflicts and reducing accidents.
Additionally, improvements internal to the site include roundabouts at intersections along Empire
Avenue at both of the Cascade Interchange ramps, and at the intersection of 35th Street NW/NW
Empire Avenue. The 35th Street NW/Empire Avenue roundabout could also accommodate access to the
proposed Wine Village.
As 35th Street crosses the Public or Private Institution property there are several options for the road
alignment. See Appendix B for the full range of options.
Future improvements could include an extension of Empire Avenue north of 38th Street and connecting
back to Sunset Highway. Exhibit 3.4-7 illustrates both the Transportation 2040 Plan improvements and
the above alternatives.
Final | October 2016 3-18
Exhibit 3.4-7. Proposed Transportation Improvements – North End
Source: Douglas County Public Works, The Transpo Group, BERK Consulting 2016
The cost of the improvements is shown in Exhibit 3.4-8.
Final | October 2016 3-19
Exhibit 3.4-8. Transportation Costs
Transportation Improvement
Description
Estimated Cost (Douglas
County 2016$)
1 East Bound Off Ramp $8,319,700
2 West Bound On Ramp $2,934,300
3* RAB @ 35th Street $890,800
4* RAB @ 38th Street $1,426,500
5 RAB @ Off Ramp $1,056,900
6 RAB @ On Ramp $979,900
7* 38th Street Extension $2,179,600
8* 35th Street Extension $1,939,800
9* Empire Ave- Goldcrest -38th $5,697,300
10 Empire Ave- 38th – Cascade $5,822,200
11* RAB @ SR 28 & 35th $1,310,000
12* RAB @ SR 28 & 38th $1,310,000
Total $33,867,000
Note: * Included in Phase 1 of Regional Transportation Plan for years 2016-2027. Projects 11 and 12 were considered as
intersections with signal improvements; in the table above these are proposed as roundabouts. Other projects are unscheduled
and considered “vision” projects in the regional plan.
Legend: RAB = roundabouts
Source: Douglas County 2016
Sewer, Water, and Stormwater Utilities
An integrated infrastructure plan is proposed to clarify the scope and sizing of anticipated on-site
utilities. The infrastructure plan includes phasing alternatives and planning level concept costs to assist
stakeholders in identifying appropriate and required infrastructure extensions. The locations of the
infrastructure elements are general in nature and are intended so that site-specific designs can be
completed without substantial revision. The preferred sewer and water infrastructure plan is shown in
Exhibit 3.4-10, and the stormwater plan is shown in Exhibit 3.4-11. Each major utility is described below:
Sanitary Sewer: An extension of sanitary sewer will be required north along Empire as the primary
backbone to serve the proposed North End Master Site Plan. The lower tier of the study area,
including the Wine Village, will need a local pump station with discharge to the sewer main in Empire
Avenue. Gravity sewer service is capable of serving all of the area on the upper tier, including the
institutional, commercial recreation, and hospitality areas. The furthest northeast portions of the
study area can also be served by gravity sewer, but will require crossing the US2/97 highway. It is
recommended that the crossing occur in one of two of the existing grade separated structures. The
resort area located on the furthest north portion of the study area will require a pump station for
sewer service. However, the size and scope of the pump station can be minimized by extending
gravity sewer along Empire Avenue north of US2/97.
Stormwater: Management of stormwater from the developed study area, including water quality
treatment and on-site detention, will need to occur primarily on each individual parcel. There is an
opportunity in the southern portion of the study area to use a regional system of interconnected
stormwater features. Exhibit 3.4-11 shows a conceptual regional stormwater facility location;
however, the relationship of a regional stormwater facility and sewer and road facilities would be
Final | October 2016 3-20
determined during design. It is the intention of this plan that the regional stormwater pond be
constructed on private property, but it may be necessary to relocate or reconfigure the parking area
for the Apple Capital Loop Trail on the adjacent WSDOT property. If developed, this private
stormwater system would need to be installed and maintained by property owners. All public
stormwater associated with roads and public places will be collected, treated, and infiltrated within
public rights-of-way, separately from stormwater generated by private property.
Although the Columbia River is a flow control exempt water body and discharges of treated
stormwater to the Columbia could be facilitated entirely through man-made conveyances, the local
community’s long-term goal is to eliminate stormwater discharges to the Columbia River. Therefore,
construction impacts and the permitting process associated with new outfalls to the Columbia River
are not included in the Environmental Impact Statement. Such shoreline-area conveyances would
require additional evaluation and permitting actions. For these reasons, the stormwater plan
proposed would require infiltration and/or evaporation to discharge of stormwater from the site.
Discharges to the existing unnamed tributary south of US2/97 would not be authorized through
Douglas County; therefore, stormwater will need to be managed on-site.
Drinking Water: Local service distribution lines will be necessary to extend water service to the
individual properties. The transmission system in place for the area will not require upgrades to serve
development proposed under the North End Master Site Plan. Water system distribution lines will
primarily be located within proposed road networks to minimize additional land disturbance and ease
maintenance and operations of the water system.
Irrigation Water: Specific plan features were not identified for extension and service of individual
properties from the irrigation district. However, individual properties would be permitted to
coordinate on their individual needs to obtain irrigation water. Specific design criteria for landscaping
in the North End Study Area favors native plants, which would not generate much demand for
irrigation water. Irrigation demand may be high for specific uses, such as commercial recreation,
especially if developed as a sports field or stadium type use.
Estimated costs for water and sewer infrastructure are below in Exhibit 3.4-9.
Exhibit 3.4-9. North End Utility Costs
Project
Identifier Description Cost
Sanitary Sewer
GS-1 Empire Avenue trunk (Goldcrest ST NW to 29th Avenue existing)
3,620 LF 15” gravity main @ $360/LF $1,303,200
GS-2 Empire Avenue trunk (extending north from Goldcrest St NW)
860 LF 12” gravity main @ $350/LF $301,000
GS-3 Empire Avenue trunk (extending south from Olds Station Bridge Rd)
850 LF 10” gravity main @ $340/LF $289,000
GS-4 Empire Avenue trunk (Olds Station Bridge Rd to Resort)
1,500 LF 8” gravity main @ $330/LF $525,000
GS-5 Wine Village trunk (future road to pump station)
1,600 LF 10” gravity main @ $340/LF $544,000
GS-6 Southeast Business Park collector sewer (future road to pump station)
500 LF 8” gravity main @ $330/LF $165,000
GS-7 35th St NW collector sewer (NW Empire Avenue to NW Cascade Ave)
1,360 LF 8” gravity main @ $330/LF $448,800
GS-8 Olds Station Bridge Rd collector sewer (NW Empire Avenue to US2/97)
1,900 LF 8” gravity main @ $330/LF $627,000
GS-9 Cascade Avenue & US2/97 Crossing $125,000
Final | October 2016 3-21
Project
Identifier Description Cost
250 LF 8” gravity main @ $500/LF
PS-1 400 gpm Wine Village Pump Station $750,000
1,300 LF 6” forcemain @ $80/LF $104,000
PS-2 50 gpm Resort Pump Station $350,000
1,200 LF 3” forcemain @ $60/LF $72,000
Sanitary Sewer Subtotal: $5,604,000
Domestic Water
WL-1 Wine Village Loop (Empire Avenue to Fir Street)
2,800 LF 12” diameter water main @ $150/LF $420,000
Construction Cost Subtotal: 6,024,000
State Sales Tax @ 8.2%: 494,000
Recommended Contingency @ 15%: $904,100
Total Subarea Construction costs: $7,422,000
Engineering and Permitting @ 20%: $1,205,000
Total Project Delivery Costs: $8,627,000
Source: BergerABAM 2016
Notes:
1. These are public works costs - ~10-15% higher than private developer costs.
2. These costs include full asphalt street restoration that may not be applicable depending upon construction sequencing ~15-
20%
Final | October 2016 3-22
Exhibit 3.4-10. Proposed Sewer and Water Plan
Note: Sewer and stormwater systems may be co-located facilities, but final placement and alignments will be based upon actual
development plans.
Sources: Land Use: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, BERK Consulting 2016; Utility Plan BergerABAM 2016
Final | October 2016 3-23
Exhibit 3.4-11. Proposed Private Stormwater Plan
Note: Sewer and stormwater systems may be co-located facilities, but final placement and alignments will be based upon actual
development plans.
Sources: Land Use: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, BERK Consulting 2016; Utility Plan BergerABAM 2016
Final | October 2016 3-24
Development Phasing Options
Absent the transportation and utility infrastructure it is unlikely that the desired growth and land use
pattern could be accommodated. Installation of the planned transportation and utility improvements is
necessary for the achievement of the Preferred Alternative, and when installed will allow for
achievement of the whole growth program.
Because existing utilities are limited to the eastern and southern portion of the study area and
installation of new utilities would require additional capital costs, the phasing plan explores the
possibility that the development would occur in phases from east to west and south to north. The upper
bench (located in the east) would develop first in this option with the lowest terrace developing last.
However, the lower bench (west) where the Wine Village is tentatively sited could also develop first in
the phasing plan as the utility services for water could be relatively easily extended to serve the area.
Sanitary sewer in the lower bench is served by its own pump station discharging to the gravity main,
which is to be extended in Empire Avenue.
Development of the Resort and areas north of US 2/97 would most efficiently occur last, allowing for the
most logical extension of sanitary sewer to serve the study area.
Interim development or very low intensity uses may qualify for the use of temporary on-site sewage
systems. However, it would be required that on-site piping, and required off-site development of
utilities be included such that when sewer service becomes available, the septic systems be abandoned
and development be connected to the public system. Connection to the public system will be required
as a condition of development.
Final | October 2016 4-1
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
4.1 Funding Plan
As identified in Section 3.4, there are significant infrastructure needs related in particular to road
network improvements and sanitary sewer, and a disparate group of Stakeholder Agencies with a stake
in that development (and therefore, the development of this infrastructure). Stakeholder Agencies and
roles for infrastructure development are shown in Exhibit 4.1-1 below.
Exhibit 4.1-1. Stakeholder Agencies and Roles
Stakeholder Agency Infrastructure Role Regulation Role
City of East Wenatchee Land Use
Douglas County Roads Land Use, Roads
Douglas County Sewer District Sewer Sewer
Port of Douglas County
Washington Department of Transportation Access Access
Chelan Douglas Transportation Council Roads
East Wenatchee Water District Water Water
Greater East Wenatchee Stormwater Utility Stormwater Stormwater
Source: North End Area Market Study, April 2014
The North End Area Market Study: Market Strategy and Implementation Plan, BERK, April 2014
(hereafter referred to as the North End Area Market Study) first articulated the challenges and solutions
to developing and funding this infrastructure:
Challenges:
Each partner jurisdiction has its own responsibilities and policies, which don’t always align with
other partners.
Each organization has different funding sources and challenges, yet many infrastructure
improvements need to occur at the same time to realize cost efficiencies.
The costs and risks of making the initial infrastructure improvements needed are not distributed
equally among the different organizations.
There is a risk of development not materializing to justify investment in infrastructure.
Solutions:
Ensure that development in the study area is sufficiently valuable to justify the level of investment
that is required to provide the necessary infrastructure improvements.
An integrated approach to funding infrastructure should be pursued.
Determine what share of infrastructure improvements might be supportable by private
development through the increased value of the land.
Consider interlocal agreements to pursue joint funding opportunities.
To alleviate these challenges, the North End Area Market Study suggested that Stakeholder Agencies
coalesce around one capital strategy for funding the infrastructure required to develop this site. This
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-2
capital strategy would be developed based on high-level cost estimates, with clearly identified long-term
objectives and realistic funding sources of sufficient magnitude to accomplish these infrastructure
improvements within a 10-year planning horizon.
This Master Site Plan fulfills the direction of the North End Area Market Study 2014 by identifying a
coordinated land use strategy and associated infrastructure investments. To implement the plan, the
Planned Action Ordinance and other county and city regulations would require future development in
the study area to connect to the utility systems. In addition, the planned action ordinance would
incentivize development to be consistent with the Master Site Plan land use concept, given that the
Comprehensive Plan and implementing zoning allow a broader range of uses and are not under
amendment.
Road and Utility Improvements
The total cost of road improvements needed to provide access and a network spine for the site is an
estimated $33.8 million. However, these improvements can be built as individual segments as the area
builds out; conceptual road network cost estimates are shown in Exhibit 4.1-2. Also, some of the
roadway improvements will have benefit to travel beyond those trips coming from or going to
development within the subarea. To account for these general benefits, site share of each roadway
improvement was developed to allocate total cost to the study area. The share is intended to be a
conservative estimate and is based on a review of overall travel patterns and projections of growth in
through-trips that would use elements of the new roadway network. After accounting for these general
beneficiaries and a small state funding commitment, there is a net cost of $29.5 million allocated to the
uses in the subarea.
Exhibit 4.1-2. Conceptual Road Network Cost Estimates, 2016$
Transportation Improvement
Description
Estimated
Cost (Douglas
County 2016$)
Secured
Funds as of
2016
Proportionate
Share*
Study Area
Costs
1 East Bound Off Ramp $8,319,700 80% $ 6,655,760
2 West Bound On Ramp $2,934,300 80% $ 2,347,440
3 RAB @ 35th Street $890,800 100% $ 890,800
4 RAB @ 38th Street $1,426,500 100% $1,426,500
5 RAB @ Off Ramp $1,056,900 80% $ 845,520
6 RAB @ On Ramp $979,900 80% $783,920
7 38th Street Extension $2,179,600 100% $2,179,600
8 35th Street Extension $1,939,800 $1,172,075 96% $737,016
9 Empire Ave- Goldcrest -38th $5,697,300 90% $ 5,127,570
10 Empire Ave- 38th – Cascade $5,822,200 100% $5,822,200
11 RAB @ SR 28 & 35th $1,310,000 100% $1,310,000
12 RAB @ SR 28 & 38th $1,310,000 100% $1,310,000
Total $33,867,000 $1,172,075 $29,436,326
Note: *Share of cost based on percentage of Project Area Trips, Available Funds, Regional Need. Other improvements such as
internal circulation within the Wine Village and a roundabout at the intersection of 35th/NW Empire/Wine Village circulation
road may be constructed as part of development requirements.
Legend: RAB = Roundabout
Source: Douglas County, Transpo Group, BERK Consulting 2016
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-3
As shown in Exhibit 4.1-3, there are more than $8 million in utility infrastructure needs, in addition to
projected transportation needs. The largest share of utility costs is related to extension of sanitary sewer
improvements through the site, which is estimated to be $8.0 million. This does include the cost of
extending a sewer main up Empire Avenue to the south edge of the study area (shown as Project GS-1 in
Exhibit 3.4-9), which will be needed before the main can be extended. The table below includes a
proportional assignment of contingency and engineering costs detailed in Exhibit 3.4-9.
Exhibit 4.1-3. Utilities Costs
Utility Cost 2016$
Water $601,500
Sewer $8,025,500
Total $8,627,000
Source: Berger/ABAM 2016
Infrastructure and Land Values
Major infrastructure improvements that open up new developable areas present a particularly
challenging funding issue for public service providers. The large up-front investments will have long-
term benefits if and when the area is developed. Even when the future development potential is
expected to generate sufficient tax and fee revenue to support the necessary level of investment, there
is still the risk associated with the upfront capital spending and the fact that the new revenues will be
generated over many years and subject to the inherent uncertainties of market demand. For the North
End Area, development cannot proceed without an estimated $33.8 million over ten years to improve
roads and $8.6 million to improve sanitary sewer and domestic water.
Based on the value of the uses that might locate in this area and projected demand, it is likely that
development will be able to support a portion of these infrastructure improvements through the
Planned Action Ordinance mitigation (e.g. mitigation fees similar to impact fees). Stakeholder Agencies
will have to be thoughtful about the share of these infrastructure improvements that could be funded
by development and the share that would be covered by public sources, particularly where the
improvements would benefit the broader road and sewer system for the community as a whole.
For transportation costs, County and City decision makers considered full costs, the share of trips
generated in the study area, the general economic benefit of the future development, and determined a
mitigation fee. The resulting fee is based on the costs of improvements excluding the ramps and
associated roundabouts, and a further policy discount of 25%; the fee would equal $3,144 per trip. The
share not covered by mitigation fees will require the use of public sources, and will be the subject of
further evaluation including funding options described later in this chapter.
Exhibit 4.1-4. Preliminary per Trip Costs – Pending Balance of Public and Private Shares
Scenario Cost Basis Per Trip
Full Costs $33,867,000 $7,549
Study Area Share of Full Cost $29,436,326 $6,562
Study Area Share of Full Cost Minus SR2/97 Ramps and associated roundabouts $18,803,686 $4,192
Study Area Share W/O ramps – 75% – ADOPTED FEE $14,102,765 $3,144
Full Intensity Trips: 4,486
Source: Douglas County, The Transpo Group, BERK Consulting 2016
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-4
There is concern among property owners and potential development interests that attempting to
allocate a substantial share of the cost of infrastructure improvements to private development could
make development infeasible or significantly delay activity until the market can support this level of
investment.
To provide some context for these concerns, a simple comparative analysis of land costs and values was
developed to illustrate how “fully-burdened” land in the study area might fit into the broader market
area. The infrastructure costs used to develop the “fully burdened” land is presented in Exhibit 4.1-5,
and includes a conceptual allocation of cost based on the relative property share of benefits from each
improvement.
Exhibit 4.1-5. Costs of Improvements, 2016$
Utilities Roads Total
Costs ($2016) $8,627,000 $33,867,000 $42,494,000
Share Attributable to North End Subarea 100% 86.9% 90%
Allocation of cost to North End Subarea $8,627,000 $29,436,326 $38,063,326
Source: Transpo, BergerABAM; BERK Consulting, 2016
These costs are then added to the current value of land in the study area to create a “fully burdened”
cost of land with full transportation and sewer service available. This cost-basis land value can then be
compared with land values for other commercial development areas in the Chelan-Douglas region. The
feasibility issue can then be informed by the implied relative cost to acquire land for development
purposes in the study area versus alternative development sites elsewhere in the region.
Exhibit 4.1-6 presents the results of this analysis, which shows that even assuming that 90% of the
transportation and utility infrastructure costs are added to the land value, the total land cost of land in
the area falls within the bounds of other commercial land elsewhere in the area. For example, the $5.61
cost per square foot of land would be substantially lower than land values in downtown Chelan and
around the Wenatchee Valley Mall. It would place the site at a slightly higher average land value than
the current overall average for land in downtown Wenatchee and substantially more than land in Olds
Station.
What this analysis suggests is that adding the cost of infrastructure to the very low land values in the
current study area does not push the development economics beyond the current market conditions
experienced in other areas. The key feasibility issue is where the prospective North End development
fits in relation to the markets served in these other areas.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-5
Exhibit 4.1-6. Land Value per Square Foot, 2015$
Source: Douglas County Assessor’s Office, 2016; Chelan County Assessor’s Office, 2016; BERK Consulting, 2016.
Note: For the purposes of this analysis, the market value of land as determined by the County Assessor is used as the current land
value base for the commercial areas evaluated. Individual property values can vary significantly within these areas based on
zoning and other property features, such as water access. By using averages for the entire commercial districts, the analysis offers
a general comparison across the range of uses allowed.
Since the value of land is based on the expected value of the real estate use that might locate on a piece
of property, there is a direct relationship between rents or sale prices and what someone is willing to
pay to acquire a development site. For example, if average rents, condominium values and hotel rates in
the study area were expected to be 75% to 80% of current market conditions in downtown Chelan, then
there would appear to be a reasonable market opportunity in the study area. The $5.61 cost of land in
the study area would compare roughly to a land value of $8.20 per square foot (75% of downtown
Chelan values), leaving a market risk cushion of $2.60 per square foot.
Alternatively, if the perception is that the study area rents, condo values and hotel rates were more
likely be comparable to the averages for downtown Wenatchee, then under current market conditions,
land in the subarea would be at a 12% premium. In this scenario, with newer development it may be
possible to support this premium, but there would be no market cushion to mitigate risks.
It should be noted that this is a simple threshold analysis of potential market considerations and not a
detailed development pro-forma analysis designed to assess specific feasibility of any particular
development opportunity in the North End study area. The reality is that different uses will present
different economic opportunities. As a result, the potential contribution to infrastructure costs will
depend on the development activity that emerges and will not likely be the same for every parcel.
However, the analysis does confirm that, while there is a significant investment required, there is also a
significant gap between the current value of property in the study and the value of other commercial
property in the area.
The gap in the current value of the property and other commercial property in the area means there is
an opportunity for property owners to be “equity partners” in attracting development opportunities.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-6
Whether a current landowner is considering the option of developing their property or looking to sell at
some point in the future, they stand to benefit from the investments in infrastructure that will open up
the North End to development. Since the value of their property cannot be fully “unlocked” until the
area is ready for development, the sooner that this can happen, the greater the potential gain.
While this land value dynamic is a typical aspect of greenfield development, the fact that a large amount
of land is publicly-owned creates a unique opportunity to capture some of the incremental land value as
a means of recovering some of the initial public investment. WSDOT owns approximately 43% of the
entire planning area and 21% of the land that comprises the various development areas, including about
26 acres of the Resort area (75%), and 13 acres of the Wine Village (30%), as well as smaller shares
associated with the Business Park and Office areas; see Exhibit 4.1-7 and Exhibit 4.1-8.
Exhibit 4.1-7. Washington State Department of Transportation Share of Land in Study Area
Development Area Total
Acres
LU
Intensity
WA Owned
Acres
WA Owned
Percent
Resort 34.16 Low 25.62 75%
Wine Village 43.58 High 13.27 30%
Business Park 16.94 Medium 3.16 19%
Office/Business 19.45 Medium 1.88 10%
Commercial Recreation 24.33 Medium 0.36 1%
Hospitality 14.91 Medium 0.02 0.1%
Public or Private Institution 42.99 High 0 0%
Retail/Business Park 11.86 Medium 0 0%
Total 208.21 44.31 21%
Source: Douglas County Assessor 2015; BERK Consulting 2016
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-7
Exhibit 4.1-8. Washington State Department of Transportation Ownership in Study Area
Source: Douglas County Assessor; BERK Consulting, 2016
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-8
Phasing
The North End Area Market Study suggested that these infrastructure improvements be accomplished
within a ten-year planning horizon. If this development could be phased equally over ten years, it would
amount to approximately $3 million a year. This is a sizeable amount of funds, but it is realistic that the
Stakeholder Agencies, buttressed by mitigation contributions, could fund these improvements in cash.
This would be beneficial, as financing projects increases their overall costs due to debt service costs. For
the purposes of this strategy, this analysis assumes that these infrastructure improvements would be
funded with cash on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Funding Options
In addition to the public agency and value capture and reinvestment, Stakeholder Agencies will have to
blend funding sources to pay for infrastructure improvements. Traditional funding sources include
existing local capital revenues, state and federal competitive grants and legislative allocations, and
mitigation. Stakeholder Agencies should also consider specialized funding options like community
revitalization financing, community facility districts, Local Improvement Districts, Utility Local
Improvement Districts, or Road Improvement Districts, and latecomer agreements.
A list of funding options appears below. Following that, evaluation criteria and a matrix provide an
assessment of feasibility, suitability and order of magnitude estimates relative to the funding required.
Additional Opportunities to Capture Contributions from New Development
One of the broader community benefits that will accrue from the successful development of the North
End area is the general tax benefits that will be generated by the construction spending and from
ongoing activity from the uses that will locate in the area. These tax benefits can be used to directly fund
some portion of the public investment in the site or to more broadly justify public investment based on
the fact that the new activity will contribute to the greater good by supporting other municipal
functions. Tax revenues will be generated from the following:
Sales Tax Generated on Development. Sales tax is generated from the taxable sales of goods
occurring within the County’s boundaries. Sales tax impacts from potential site development will be
generated in two ways:
• The initial construction of the development will generate sales tax for the full cost of supplies,
material, and labor used in construction.
• Retail and hotel development will generate significant ongoing sales and use tax revenues.
Property Tax Generated on Development. When new construction is built, the County can add that
assessed value (AV) to its tax rolls and collect revenues on it. In this way, AV from new construction
is the only way for a jurisdiction to increase its property tax base and revenues beyond the 1% per
year cap on the property tax levy.
• Utility Tax Generated on Development. Utility taxes and franchise fees are charged against
total utility revenues and revenue from utility taxes that flows to the general fund scales in
proportion with the quantity of utilities purchased by the site’s future tenants.
• The development on the site would be served by Stakeholder Agencies, and therefore
would generate utility tax revenue for the City of East Wenatchee, if annexed, based on the
total utility billing generated by the site’s occupants.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-9
In addition to the general tax benefits described above, there are funding mechanisms that provide
opportunities to more directly tap the value increase in the land to support infrastructure development
for the North End properties. The following is a brief summary of these options:
Community Facility Districts. Allow jurisdictions (including cities and counties) to finance
infrastructure improvement through establishing a special assessment district for a variety of
improvements including water, sewer, roads, storm drainage, sidewalks, and other forms of
infrastructure. The formation of a district requires 100% of property owners within the district to
sign a petition to form the district.
Road Improvement Districts (RID). Levy a special assessment on properties that would benefit from
roadway improvements to pay for those improvements. This mechanism can be particularly
effective when: (1) there are significant and demonstrable benefits to the property values
associated with the road improvements; and, (2) there are relatively few large property owners
within the assessment area and they see the benefit of participating in the RID.
Utility Local Improvement Districts (ULID). Use existing County and special district authority to
establish a ULID for the purpose of constructing or reconstructing sewer or water systems and to
levy a special assessment to pay in whole the cost of any improvements.
Finally, there are mechanisms that provide opportunities to address some of the equity balancing issues
associated with allocating some of the funding responsibility to future development. Since the actual
ability to support a portion of infrastructure development will vary based on the use, it may be desirable
to have options to reduce the cost burden on development. The following is a brief summary of these
options:
Latecomer Agreements. Funding agreements that allow property owners who have paid for capital
improvements to recover a portion of the costs from other property owners in the area who later
develop property that will benefit from those improvements. This approach reflects the reality that
it is difficult to phase some of these infrastructure investments which can result in the early
participants carrying a larger financial burden to get the project off the ground. Latecomers
agreements would offer a mechanism for the early commitments to recover some of their
investment.
Negotiated Development Fee Rebate. Allows jurisdictions to levy relatively higher impact fees with
the promise that a portion of those fees will be refunded from the increment of general tax
revenues generated by the construction and ongoing activity on the site.
Community Contributions
As discussed previously, the successful development of the North End area will result in general tax
revenue and economic benefits. As a result, there is an appropriate role for public funding to build the
infrastructure necessary to generate these broader community benefits. The following is a brief
discussion of the mechanisms available to local jurisdictions seeking to generate public funding to
support infrastructure development in the area.
Property Tax Levy Lid Lift. The Road Levy is a property tax collected by the County specifically for
transportation funding and accounts for a large portion of the County’s transportation funds. If the
transportation needs were of sufficiently high priority, the County could target Road Levy Funds to
contribute toward a share of the transportation needs of the area.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-10
• Since the passage of I-747, the revenues from this levy have been declining because the 1%
allowed increase does not keep pace with inflation (which hovers around 3%), or population
growth. One tool that counties can, and increasingly are, using to combat this is a levy lid lift. To
do this, a county asks its voters to “lift” the 1% levy limit on annual levy increases so the district
can collect a higher levy amount, up to the maximum rate limit amount for that jurisdiction.
Districts have certain statutory maximum rates but many of these districts have seen their levy
rate reduced year after year to avoid levying more than 1% additional revenue as property
valuations increase. A levy lid lift lets them increase rates up to the statutory maximum rate.
Increased Utility Rates. Utilities, like those serving the site, are enterprise agencies, and thus are
authorized to increase their rates to sufficiently fund costs, including the cost to build and support
infrastructure development in their respective service areas. The degree to which elements of the
infrastructure needs would provide benefits to the overall utility enterprise then there would be a
justification for a general capital investment supported by all rate payers.
Sewer and Water Connection Fees. Service providers are authorized to levy connection fees to
developers and property owners connecting to sewer and water services for the first time. Those
fees must be commensurate with the cost of the connection and can be designed to recover costs of
infrastructure which disproportionally benefit specific users to mitigate rate impact to existing rate
payers.
Grants and loans. There are state and federal grant and revolving loan programs, which could
provide some funding from outside the region. These programs are extremely competitive;
however, any grant funding that could be made available would significantly improve the funding
and economic feasibility of the North End development, since these funds would reduce the amount
that needs to come from development and local public sources.
• The Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) provides loans and grants to local
governments and federally recognized tribes for public infrastructure, which supports private
business growth and expansion, with the exception of retail development or gambling.
Programs address planning and implementation; this Master Site Plan and associated Planned
Action are funded in part by a CERB grant. Regarding implementation, eligible projects relevant
to the North End include domestic and industrial water, stormwater, wastewater, and others.
Jurisdictions in rural counties such as Douglas County are eligible for Prospective Development
awards where an economic feasibility study demonstrates that the project will “lead to the
creation of a significant number of permanent jobs or generate significant private capital
investment” and where applicants demonstrate “the need for CERB assistance and that no other
timely source of funds is available at a reasonably similar rate.” 1
Legislative allocation. In addition to the grant programs, some infrastructure funding is allocated
through the state budget process. Since there are investments required for state transportation
facilities, a contribution through the state budget would have the same benefits as a grant. As with
grants, these discretionary funds are limited, subject to state appropriation, and very competitive.
1 Department of Commerce. 2016. Funding Programs. Available:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/commissions/CommunityEconomicRevitalizationBoard/Pages/CERB-
Traditional-Programs.aspx. Accessed: May 23, 2016.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-11
• A variation on the state funding options is to position the project to be eligible for Local
Revitalization Financing (LRF). This is a state economic development program designed to
provide a tax-increment financing mechanism for local projects which will have measurable
fiscal benefits. Under this program, there is a state match for local contributions to fund debt
service related to infrastructure development. The match is capped, but provides a meaningful
new source of funding. The legislature has not funded any new awards for several years, so this
approach would require new budget authority to expand the program beyond the current list of
projects that have been awarded.
Community Revitalization Financing. A form of tax increment financing from local property taxes
generated within the area authorized by Chapter 39.89 RCW. The law authorizes counties, cities,
towns, and port districts to create tax increment areas within their boundaries where community
revitalization projects and programs are financed by diverting a portion of the regular property taxes
imposed by local governments within the tax increment area. The law allows local governments
raise revenue to finance public improvements that are designed to “encourage economic growth
and development in geographic areas characterized by high levels of unemployment and stagnate
employment and income growth.” Use of the funds is expected to “encourage private development
within the increment area and to increase the fair market value of real property within the
increment area.” The law requires there be a signed, written agreement among taxing districts, a
public hearing, and adoption of an ordinance. The agreement indicates that taxing districts in the
aggregate will levy at least 75 percent of the regular property tax within the increment area.
Transportation Benefit District (TBD). Funding districts that may be established for the construction
and operation of improvements to roadways within their jurisdiction. TBDs have two available
funding mechanisms:
• Sales and Use Tax (RCW 82.14.0455). TBDs can levy up to a 0.2% local sales and use tax with
voter approval. This tax must be authorized by voters, and may not be in effect longer than 10
years unless reauthorized by voters.
• Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) (RCWs 81.100 and 81.104). TBDs can levy up to a $100 fee for
each new vehicle weighing less than 6,000 pounds registered in its jurisdiction. Initially, $20 of
this fee can be leveraged without a public vote. After two years that amount increases to $40,
and later to $50.
Depending on how a TBD is created, this approach could be viewed as a general source of
transportation funding or a target source more along the lines of the LID and RID options
discussed earlier. A large TBD would be able to fund a range of improvements throughout the
area, including potentially contributing toward the transportation needs in the North End area.
A smaller, more targeted area could be considered if there was a desire to more closely align the
boundaries with a specific geography and target a much narrower list of improvements.
In 2013, the East Wenatchee Transportation Benefit District was created by the City of East
Wenatchee and authorized the $20 vehicle license fee. It applies only in the city limits at this
time. In 2015, the legislature increased the allowable nonvoted vehicle license fee up to a $50
maximum. However, a TBD may only impose a nonvoted vehicle license fee above $20 as
follows:
• Up to $40, but only if a $20 fee has been in effect for at least 24 months.
• Up to $50, but only if a $40 fee has been in effect for at least 24 months. Any nonvoted
fee higher than $40 is subject to potential referendum.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-12
If Douglas County were to consider forming a countywide TBD and impose a nonvoted license
fee, it would need to distribute the revenues to each city in the county by interlocal agreement,
which must be approved by 60% of the cities representing 75% of the city population. If the
cities are unwilling to participate, then a district that includes the unincorporated areas only
may impose the nonvoted license fees. Therefore, options could include:
• Form a countywide TBD, which would require an interlocal agreement whereby the
issue of overlapping boundaries could be addressed.
• Form an unincorporated TBD that would include more than half the total county
population and where the County could impose a fee only in these areas. The challenge
is that much of this population is spread out widely and may create a challenge to
identifying a suitable list of improvements that would appeal to these residents.
License fees beyond $50 are allowed, but these must be approved by a simple majority of
voters and cannot exceed $100.
Industrial Development District. To address lack of infrastructure and utilization of the area among
other marginal conditions, the Port of Douglas County may establish an Industrial Development
District (IDD) through Chapter 53.25 RCW. The IDD will allow the Port to realize redevelopment and
development through public investment in marginal lands such as assisting with land assembly and
making infrastructure improvements in areas where there are multiple ownerships and difficulty in
achieving economic development through the private market alone. The legislation allows levying
and collecting assessments as well as acquiring land and improving land through infrastructure and
service investments. Ports also have the authority to levy a property tax of up to $0.45 per $1,000 of
assessed value for up to six years. The subarea plan has a mix of employment uses, including
business park and wineries which may have production and distribution activities. The Port is
allowed to exercise the power granted to it by general laws within the IDD, and thus the law may
not strictly limit non-industrial uses. Among its powers, an IDD is allowed “to develop and improve
the lands within such industrial development district to make the same suitable and available for
industrial uses and purposes (RCW 53.25.100)”
Evaluation
Each of the potential funding sources is screened according to these criteria:
Feasibility/Eligibility. Estimates how realistic each funding option is and identifies any unique
features of eligibility, which would require particular stakeholder agency involvement.
Suitability. Identifies the extent to which each funding source would generate funding timed to
meet these infrastructure costs.
Order of Magnitude. Estimates the order of magnitude of these funding options relative to the $33
million funding need.
Maximize Partnerships/Leverage Existing Funding. The funding source would support continued or
new partnerships among local agencies serving the North End, or leverage existing funding sources
in place.
Because Stakeholder Agencies intend to require mitigation to support a portion of these infrastructure
needs and because area residents will benefit from development in the long term, criteria around
alignment of each funding source payee to the appropriate beneficiary is not included.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-13
There is an inherent tension between funding these projects and funding Stakeholder Agencies’ existing,
already heavily prioritized Capital and Transportation Improvement Projects. Many of these funding
options could be used to fund those other existing projects. Stakeholder Agencies will want to
coordinate to ensure all partners are levying funding options that allow them to contribute their fair
share to this project.
Exhibit 4.1-9. Funding Sources Evaluation
Funding Source
Feasibility /
Eligibility Suitability
Order of
Magnitude
Partnerships /
Leverage
Funding
Existing Source
Additional sales tax generated by
development
Additional property tax generated
by development
Additional utility tax generated by
development
Road Levy Funds
Increased Utility Rates
Targeted Connection Fees
Grant and Loan Programs
CERB Grants and Loans
Legislative Allocation
New Source
Community Revitalization Financing
Community Facility Districts
Local Improvement Districts
Late-comer Agreements
Impact Fee Rebate
Transportation Benefit District
(TBD)
Industrial Development District
(IDD)
Legend
Positive Neutral Negative
Strategies and Recommendations
Local governments must balance their budgets. Decreases in revenues must be offset with service cuts
or increases in taxes. The limitation on property taxes in 2001 forced Washington State local
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-14
governments to embrace new models of fiscal sustainability. Over the last decade, revenue growth
driven by construction, business activity and consumer spending has generally been insufficient to meet
the growing demands on local government for services and infrastructure investment.
With a challenging local tax structure, cities and counties must define with their residents the elements
of the “social contract”: balancing the community’s desire and/or need for public services and the
tolerance for local tax burdens. In this environment, how local governments manage and promote
growth and development will have a significant impact on how this balance might be achieved.
When new development happens, it generates both one-time and ongoing revenues. The new
development may also result in new costs in the form of increased demands for municipal services.
However, when there are opportunities to create high-value commercial and residential development
that can add to the local tax base, there is the potential to bend the revenue curve in their favor. In
these instances, the entire community will benefit from the new development as the incremental tax
revenues help to offset some of the underlying fiscal sustainability challenges facing local jurisdictions.
The implication for elected officials and residents is that either a greater amount of public services can
be supported -- since revenues are growing faster than costs -- or constituent tax burdens can be
lowered without compromising services. In addition, lower effective tax burdens also allow residents to
bear greater amounts of voted tax burdens for specific public benefits and infrastructure.
Why Take Action?
The Stakeholder Agencies face a wide range of important needs such as public safety, environmental
health, social services, transportation, jobs, housing, and utilities, among others. The list of public
investment needs always exceeds the limited financial and staff resources available to tackle these
challenges.
The greater Wenatchee area is a significant commercial and recreational hub in the Chelan-Douglas
region, whose built environment offers a crucial component of the region’s fiscal, economic,
environmental, and social health. Identifying, managing and investing in growth opportunities will
influence a number of important public priorities, including:
Economic Opportunity. The range of employment opportunities and the real wage gains of
employees.
Constituent Tax Burdens. Efficient land use and public services and high-value development
opportunities can keep tax burdens lower than they would otherwise be.
Productive and Efficient Returns on Infrastructure. Infrastructure is by nature a capacity building
asset. Effectively leveraging infrastructure capacity and targeting new investments to open up
economic opportunities are integral to supporting private investment in the community.
Strategy for Public Action
The Stakeholder Agencies essentially have four basic tools available to influence development and grow
the region’s tax base for the benefit of all residents. They can:
Control, regulate, and tax land use,
Invest in infrastructure (parks, transportation, utilities, etc.),
Deliver essential public services (public safety, recreation, etc.), and
Acquire and sell land for the purpose of promoting desirable development.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-15
The North End Subarea provides a significant opportunity to invest in a high value location for the
benefit of the entire community. However, bringing this area into a fully productive state will require
substantial up-front investments in transportation and sewer capacity to make the property developable
to its highest and best use.
As discussed previously, the general conclusion of the threshold land value analysis suggests that there
is some ability for the property in the subarea to absorb at least a portion of the infrastructure costs
necessary to make the area developable. The actual share that could be allocated to the land will
depend entirely on the ultimate uses that are developed and how these uses are valued in the market at
the time of development.
Given this uncertainty, it is proposed that a flexible and multi-pronged approach be taken to address
funding for the infrastructure development plan. As with most large-scale infrastructure development
plans, the key will be to bring a variety of funding mechanisms into play to avoid over reliance on any
one source of funds, reasonably align funding responsibility with project beneficiaries and synch funding
with timing of development.
The key to moving this program of infrastructure development is to work simultaneously on multiple
fronts to put a diverse and equitable funding package together. There are major elements of this
approach: (1) attracting non-local funding; (2) using value-capture mechanisms to tap some of the
incremental value that will be added to the land in the subarea; and, (3) locally-generated capital
funding. Each of these is briefly discussed below:
State and/or federal funding. Given the broad community and economic development benefits that
will be generated by successful development in the subarea and the multi-jurisdictional nature of
the project, there is a good case to be made for attracting some state and federal funding to the
area. Funding from external sources, such as state and federal grant programs, is a dollar that does
not need to be generated from the value of development or limited local capital funds. Currently
there is only a small share of state funding assumed.
While these sources of funding are extremely competitive and, in many cases, program funding has
been cut back, project stakeholders should still actively pursue state and federal funding. To
maximize the potential for success, the following state and federal strategies should be pursued:
• State and federal grants. Identify and pursue grant funding opportunities, such as state TIB
programs, where project elements are particularly competitive.
• Infrastructure loan programs. Loan programs, such as the state Public Works Trust Fund, can be
a low cost alternative to leverage expected future increases in local tax revenues from
development.
• State transportation funding. Continue to work with legislative representatives to try and
attract state transportation funding for project elements that will benefit the overall state
highway system in the US 2/97 and SR 28 corridors.
• Economic development funding. Pursue economic development funding such as Economic
Opportunity Grants awarded through the federal Community Development Block Grant program
and Community Economic Revitalization Board funding programs administered by the
Washington State Department of Commerce.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-16
• State LRF funding. There are very limited ways for local governments to use tax increment
financing for infrastructure development in Washington. One mechanism that has been created
to partially fill this void is the Local Revitalization Fund program which awards grants to eligible
projects with demonstrable local and state economic development benefits. Since this program
has not been funded for several years, the key challenge will be to work with state legislative
representatives to create new award opportunities through the state budget process.
Mechanisms that tap value increase in subarea property. The following are likely to be the most
appropriate value-capture mechanisms available to support the infrastructure program.
• LID/ULID. The most direct mechanism to generate targeted capital funding would be to create
an LID or ULID to fund some portion of the infrastructure through a special levy that is assessed
based on the incremental value added to the land from the development of the infrastructure.
• Utility connection fees. A special utility connection fee could be developed to partially fund the
sewer extension costs. The connection fee would be assessed at the time of new development
and would generate an income stream that could be used to repay revenue bonds issued to
support the capital program. Based on sewer district evaluation of funding sources, increased
general facility charge revenue is not favorably considered to repay debt, since the timing and
amount of growth is uncertain and could vary.
• Impact or mitigation fees. Through the Planned Action, future development could be assessed a
mitigation fee for their share of certain infrastructure elements. The fees would be based on the
relative contribution to the need for the infrastructure and designed to recover a portion of the
overall funding.
Local infrastructure funding. The third leg of the funding stool is locally-generated capital funding.
As with the state and federal sources, local capital funding is limited and there are many competing
needs; however, given the local tax benefits from successful development of the subarea, there is a
clear local interest in supporting the infrastructure program. Successful development of the subarea
will result in increased tax and fee revenues that can support future infrastructure funding.
Stakeholder Agencies could consider the following sources of local capital funding:
• County road levy. A portion of the transportation improvements might be appropriately funded
through the Douglas County road levy. As the property develops, the assessed value will
increase, generating additional road levy revenues in the future.
• General utility funding. General water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure funding could be
allocated to the subarea on the rationale that, once developed, the new uses in the area will
become utility ratepayers and generate revenues that will benefit future infrastructure
development and/or reduce the burden on existing ratepayers to fund ongoing utility
operations.
• Real estate excise tax (REET). The project will likely generate REET revenues over time,
therefore a strategy to use REET funding to support the project will return some of those funds
back to the REET account for future investment elsewhere in the region.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-17
• Transportation Benefit District (TBD). The City-approved TBD applies to the East-Wenatchee
city limits at this time. The TBD boundaries may not be changed without further public hearings.
A TBD can include territory in another jurisdiction (e.g. county or port district) through an
interlocal agreement. Douglas County may establish a TBD as described earlier in this chapter.
Alternatively, the City may extend its TBD to the study by interlocal agreement with the County.
Last, the City may extend it following a public hearing to the North End if annexed.
• Industrial Development District. Through Chapter 53.25 RCW the Port can levy and collect
assessments as well as acquire and improve land through infrastructure and service
investments. See prior discussion.
4.2 Planned Action Permitting and Standards
A Planned Action is a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) tool used by local governments throughout
Washington State to coordinate development and impact analysis for a designated subarea. A planned
action provides more detailed environmental analysis during an area-wide planning stage rather than at
the permit review stage. Designating a planned action streamlines environmental review for
development proposals consistent with an adopted Planned Action Ordinance and associated
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) mitigation measures. Planned actions would be allowed if they
meet or exceed proposed land use and environmental performance standards. In sum, a Planned Action:
Defines allowed types and amount of future development (e.g., housing units, vehicle trips) and
analyzes potential impacts in an associated EIS.
Shifts environmental review to the planning stages to streamline permit review.
Means future proposals would not need additional SEPA review when consistent with the Planned
Action EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. However, proposals still go through permit review.
Can help facilitate private and public investment in the study area.
The Planned Action Process is summarized in Exhibit 4.2-1.
Exhibit 4.2-1. Planned Action Process
The North End EIS studies the application of a Planned Action to the North End. A proposed Planned
Action Ordinance is included in the Appendix of this Final Master Site Plan. It would be adopted both by
Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee.
The Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) includes the following sections:
Findings of fact
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
Final | October 2016 4-18
Boundary of the planned action area – the North End
Procedures and mitigation:
Criteria for evaluating and determining projects as planned action projects
Environmental thresholds
Planned Action EIS mitigation measures that apply to new development
Planned Action Final EIS (when completed)
The EIS and Planned Action identify a reasonably conservative development level and associated
mitigation to allow the agencies and developers to understand clearly the mitigation requirements at
the studied growth levels. Provided the Planned Action mitigation requirements can be met and the
conclusions of the EIS remain valid, it is possible that greater growth than the Full Intensity Alternative
can be accomplished. The Planned Action Ordinance includes flexible thresholds to ensure that
development can occur and fit within the environmental review – for example, using a trip bank and
concurrency process plus sewer system capacity or other thresholds rather than solely relying on
development square footages.
The Planned Action allows a facilitated SEPA process. If a developer wishes to go beyond the bounds of
the analysis the Planned Action EIS and associated mitigation, the EIS may be partially used and
supplemented.
4.3 Continued Organizational Cooperation
The 2014 North End Area Market Strategy included a Market Strategy and Implementation Plan
promoting a coordinated stakeholder process to develop the infrastructure improvements to support
the development of the study area. The Port of Douglas County has served as the facilitator and
coordination of the multi-agency stakeholder process. Continued cooperation towards the vision of the
North End Master Site Plan is necessary to ensure implementation. See the general stages that require
sustained stakeholder involvement and support. This Master Site Plan is designed to fulfill a portion of
the Groundwork stage through planning and stakeholder coordination, as well as conceptual design. The
plan serves as a blueprint for initial and ongoing infrastructure investments.
Exhibit 4.3-1. Framework for Stakeholder Action
Groundwork
Political Support
Planning
Stakeholder
Coordination
Design and
Engineering
Initial
Investments
Roads
Sewer
Extensions
Supporting
Growth
Additional Roads
Additional
Utilities
Final | October 2016 5-1
5.0 PROPERTY OWNER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
5.1 Workshops
In May 2015, an interactive design workshop was held with project stakeholders – property owners,
utility service providers, County and City planners and engineers, and others. The purpose was to gather
project stakeholders for a group discussion regarding potential future development and to identify a
range of development options and assess the opportunities and constraints of each. Stakeholders broke
up into small groups on alternatives to brainstorm visions for growth. Results of the three group
exercises are illustrated below. The schemes were refined and integrated into the proposed land use
plan included in Chapter 3.
Final | October 2016 5-2
Exhibit 5.1-1. Healthy Lifestyle Business and Recreation Center
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PROPERTY OWNER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Final | October 2016 5-3
Exhibit 5.1-2. Destination Shore Village
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PROPERTY OWNER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Final | October 2016 5-4
Exhibit 5.1-3. Wenatchi (Historic) Landing
Final | October 2016 5-5
In fall 2015, the Port sent a stakeholder newsletter to share the results of the design workshop.
In December 2015, a joint meeting was held of the Douglas County and East Wenatchee Planning
Commissions to present a preliminary land use concept and alternative growth estimates reflecting
integration of the May 2015 workshop input and additional site planning work by the technical team.
That same day, a stakeholder workshop was held to provide the same concepts for feedback.
Exhibit 5.1-4. Preliminary EIS Alternative Handout – December 2015
Source: BERK Consulting and Makers 2015
Again in February 2016, the Port sponsored a meeting with stakeholders to discuss updated growth
estimates and infrastructure and site development conditions.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PROPERTY OWNER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Final | October 2016 5-6
Douglas County hosted a Community Meeting in July 2016 to share the draft plan. In accordance with
SEPA, this meeting also presented the draft planned action ordinance intended to streamline the
environmental review process for future development. Several dozen people attended the meeting, and
attendees commented on bird species and lights, roads and traffic, compatibility with residential areas
to the south, drainage, and other topics. The plan addresses buffers and transition standards. Road
design will follow County and City standards, and the road network is intended to facilitate
transportation within the North End and avoid pass through traffic on adjacent neighborhoods. Future
road designs and alignments will be subject to public review. The Planned Action includes the mitigation
measures to address natural environment, land use compatibility, transportation levels of service, and
utilities standards.
Exhibit 5.1-5. Community Meeting – July 2016
Source: BERK Consulting 2016
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PROPERTY OWNER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Final | October 2016 5-7
Exhibit 5.1-6. Community Meeting Planned Action Handout
Source: BERK Consulting 2016
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PROPERTY OWNER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Final | October 2016 5-8
5.2 Planned Action EIS Public Review
An EIS provides information and evaluation of alternative plans prior to local government action, such as
the adoption of the subarea plan. An EIS is prepared in three steps, designed to gather public
comments:
Scoping period to request written comments on what topics or alternatives should be covered in the
EIS;
Draft EIS with a 30-day written comment period on the analysis; and
Final EIS with responses to comments.
Douglas County issued a Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice on August 6, 2015. A 30-day
scoping comment period closed on September 7, 2015. Comments primarily addressed cultural
resources, and it was added as a topic in the EIS. Comments also expressed preferences for retaining the
environmental character of the shoreline, and that alternatives avoid activities in the shoreline
jurisdiction.
A Draft EIS was issued June 2, 2016 with a 30-day comment period concluding July 1, 2016. The
September 2016 Final EIS includes responses to public comments received during the Draft EIS comment
period.
Scoping
30-day comment
period -what should
be covered in EIS?
Draft EIS
30-day comment period
Stakeholder Workshop
Final EIS
Responses to
Comments on Draft
EIS
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
PROPERTY OWNER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Final | October 2016 5-9
5.3 Legislative Hearings
A Subarea Plan is an optional element under the Growth Management Act intended to clarify,
supplement, or implement jurisdiction-wide comprehensive plan policies. The North End Master Site
Plan is considered a Subarea Plan implementing the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan.
The North End Master Site Plan does not change the designated land use or zoning of Waterfront Mixed
Use and General Commercial. Rather it provides a conceptual site plan and capital improvement
strategy that give more direction to future development given the wide possibilities of uses in the
current zones.
The approval process for the Subarea Plan and Planned Action includes:
County and City Planning Commission Workshops
County and City Planning Commission Hearing
Board of County Commissioner/City Council Adoption
The meetings are scheduled through September 2016.
Project-related meetings and comment periods were advertised on the County and Port’s project
webpages:
Douglas County: http://www.douglascountywa.net/departments/tls/projects/nemp/.
Port of Douglas County: http://www.portofdouglas.org/index.php/projects/north-end-master-plan-
feasibility-study
Final | October 2016 6-1
6.0 BACKGROUND
This section provides summary information on comparable areas and market studies.
6.1 Market Study
The North End Area Market Study completed in spring 2014 addressed the following components:
Regional Market Analysis. An overview of the study area and then the strengths and weaknesses of
the regional economy, compares the Wenatchee Valley’s economic performance to other peer
regions, and focuses on implications for land uses in the study area.
Land Use Competitive Assessment. Assesses the competitiveness of five land use and development
opportunities identified in the market analysis to determine the most feasible and realistic option(s)
for developing the North End study area.
A summary of each component is presented below.
Regional Market Analysis
Overall, the region is in the midst of a long transition to an increasingly service based economy, as
reflected in the growth of regional GDP. The implication of this for investment in new structures will be
an increased demand for retail and office space over time. Development trends from the past decade
bear this out as the region has seen significant investment in the construction of new retail space. In
addition, it has also experienced the remodel and reuse of existing commercial buildings (likely geared
toward industrial/manufacturing) to more service based orientations, which is reflected in the
commercial building permit data. Other findings include:
Agriculture is one of the region’s primary economic strengths. This sector also supports the
wholesale trade sector through the food production industry in the region. Agriculture represents a
potential growth area through agriculture tourism and value added production, such as wineries.
East Wenatchee and Wenatchee are a regional retail center, but it is leaking retail sales for certain
retail categories to other areas. Overall, demand will likely continue to increase if the region’s
population continues to grow. Given the region’s orientation towards tourism, there is an
opportunity to capture more spending in experiential retail and other personal and food service
options.
Retail and commercial uses are shifting from Wenatchee to East Wenatchee where land is cheaper,
more larger parcels are available, and sales taxes are lower.
Tourism and recreation is an important, but not currently a sizable component of the local economy.
Besides agriculture, it likely represents the best opportunity for bringing additional growth and
investment to the region.
Health care is a growing sector, and is likely a response to population increases, especially among
seniors and retirees in the region. The Central Washington Hospital recently expanded its current
facility and will likely not be looking for additional space in the near future.
Commercial professional services are not currently a large source of demand for new construction,
but do show growth potential as the region continues to shift to a more service based economy.
Total residential building permits in the two counties in 2010 and 2011 were the lowest of any year
since 1996. The vast majority of permits since 2009 have been for single-family housing.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
BACKGROUND
Final | October 2016 6-2
Manufacturing is not a large driver of the local economy.
Based on a review of peer regions and regional economic strengths, the assessment found that near
term opportunities for the North End include tourism and recreation, retail, residential, and office.
Longer-term opportunities include tourism/recreation in the form of a destination resort and
commercial recreation with a regional sports facility, and educational institution, and live/work or
business incubator space. See Exhibit 1.2-4 for a summary of use competitiveness and impact.
Some of the concepts in the Final North End Master Site Plan are based on these findings by promoting
agri-tourism and hospitality such as the Wine Village and Resort. Components such as Office and Public
and Private Institution address services. Business Park space can be flexible space for production (food,
wine), office, or other businesses.
Land Use Competitive Assessment
Sites within the study area are well positioned for development due to solid market fundamentals for
the region. The area has many natural amenities including a riverfront location, access to recreational
trails, and stunning views. The area is well served by regional transportation facilities and is easily visible
via the western entrance to the region on US 2/97.
The site features many large properties under single ownerships. As a result, property assemblage
should pose less of a hurdle to future development.
In addition, the Washington Department of Transportation owns a sizable portion of the west part of the
study area that it will be surplusing in the future. WSDOT has already transferred a 50-foot corridor
around the Apple Capital Recreation Loop Trail to Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee.
WSDOT is still determining how it will surplus the rest of the property, which could be used for
development.
Infrastructure issues notwithstanding, the area is mostly a greenfield opportunity and does not face
challenges that infill development often faces.
The study area is large. Examination of the uses profiled in this section suggests that no one use can use
all of the area. This places stronger emphasis on the need for a strong vision for the area that can be
codified in a land use strategy in order to enhance complementary uses throughout the area. Certain
uses will have strong site preferences on whether they want to orient to the water/views or towards
access to the regional transportation facilities.
Water and/or shoreline access will be an important aspect for tourism and specialty uses. Some uses,
particularly recreation and winery incubation, may require additional levels of public support. Exhibit
6.1-1 shows a comparison of each concept’s competitiveness and economic development impact.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
BACKGROUND
Final | October 2016 6-3
Exhibit 6.1-1.Competitiveness and Impact Matrix
Uses that are considered more highly feasible but with low to moderate impact in terms of jobs included
recreation and mixed use development Uses considered medium feasibility and impact in terms of jobs
included agri-tourism. Uses that would have more challenges in terms of feasibility but high impact
include tourism/resort and particularly an educational institution. See the Exhibit below for additional
summary assessment. Summary findings for each concept are outlined below.
Exhibit 6.1-2. Competitiveness and Economic Development Impact Matrix
Concept Summary
Mixed Use Concept Over the long-term most of the uses would be feasible.
Housing, some types of retail, and office may be feasible in the near-term.
The job impact of the commercial uses is mixed and most would not generate new economic
growth.
Recreation Concept Overall, the recreation uses are probably feasible, but they would likely require public financial
support, specifically the provision of land for the uses.
Recreation facilities would not create many full-time, year-round jobs, and the potential to attract
new visitor spending is uncertain.
Tourism Concept A winery incubator or development of a winery cluster are fairly feasible, but likely would require
public assistance.
Both a winery incubator and winery cluster would support the region’s growing agri-tourism and
its brand; job impacts these facilities would be modest, however.
Destination resort would be challenging due to infrastructure and access issues, as well as the
competitive landscape, regionally.
A resort concept would have to distinguish itself regionally and statewide to be successful and
attract visitors, but could build on many local tourism amenities and the region’s brand.
Higher Education
Institution Concept
Four-year institutions in central and southeast Washington have more than enough planned
capacity to meet the region s bachelor degree production goals.
Current State recommended expansion policies focus on growing existing facilities on clear
demand and focusing growth of new facilities and branch campuses in under-served areas, which
does not include Chelan or Douglas Counties.
Source: BERK Consulting 2016
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
BACKGROUND
Final | October 2016 6-4
Example developments referenced in the 2014 Market Study as well as others have been considered in
the North End growth alternatives via the project design workshop in 2015 are shown in Exhibit 6.1-3.
Exhibit 6.1-3. Reference Site Table
RESORT/HOSPITALITY
Resort/Lodge
Reference Site Location Acreage (approx.)
Salish Lodge Snoqualmie, WA 50
Cave B Quincy, WA 42
Rosario Resort Orcas Island, WA 8
Willows Lodge Lummi Island, WA 5
Golf Course1
Typical Urban Golf Course (18 hole) NA 115
Typical Resort Golf Course (18 hole) NA 180
Small/Medium Hotel Typical/Average Hotel size NA 2-3 (48,000 SF for Building)
WINE VILLAGES/WINE CENTER
Wine Village/ Wine
Centers
Reference Site Location Acreage (approx.)
Badger Mountain South South Richland, WA 40
Potential Mixed-Use Wine Village East Wenatchee 37.52
Woodinville Village Woodinville, WA 24.2
Red Mountain Wine Village. Prosser, WA 21
Shasta Wine Village Redding, WA 10
INSTITUTIONAL
Campus
Reference Site Location Acreage (approx.)
Walla Walla Community College Walla Walla, WA 100
South Seattle CC Seattle, WA 100
Edmonds Community College Edmonds, WA 50
Special Technical Center College Cellars at Walla Walla CC Walla Walla, WA 6 of Vineyards (plus 15,000 SF Indoor facilities)
Medical3
Chelan Community Hospital Chelan, WA 6
Peace Health Medical Center Vancouver, WA 14
ATHLETIC/RECREATION
Professional Sports Facility
Reference Site Location Acreage (approx.)
Apple Sox (desired facility) NA 10 ac (for parking & stadium)4
Community/Family
Recreation Facility
SlideWaters Water Park Lake Chelan, WA 8 (includes parking)
Kasch Park Everett, WA 275
(8 ac for (3) soccer fields and 19 ac for (6)
baseball fields. Includes parking facilities.)
General Note: Proposed development types not shown in table (Office park, hospitality, Light Industrial Business Park) have varying size requirements, not as
specialized as those listed above.
Golf Course data per www.golfsmith.com and www.asgca.org
Potential development information per input from local stakeholder
Sizes of regional examples provided as a general guide. However, medical centers and facilities can vary widely in size.
Potential development information per input from stakeholder.
Reference information for site in Everett, WA, pending more specific feedback from local stakeholder.
Source: BERK 2013, MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design 2016
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
BACKGROUND
Final | October 2016 6-5
6.2 Comparable Development Areas
This section places the North End Master Site Plan growth alternatives into perspective in terms of total
growth, intensity, and share of regional hospitality uses.
North End Growth Range and Example Areas
The North End Draft EIS tested a range of uses and square footages as shown below; the Final EIS
identifies the Full Intensity Alternative as Preferred. The building area was based on early concept plans
shown in Chapter 3, reference example developments described in the market studies in Section 6.1, as
well as known development programs from the Wine Village property owners.
Exhibit 6.2-1. North End Growth Alternatives
Uses
Full Intensity
– Preferred
Moderate
Intensity
Dwellings 227 114
Dwelling Square Feet 327,522 163,761
Resort/Hospitality Rooms 544 272
Resort/Hospitality Square Feet 820,012 410,006
Business Park or Winery Square Feet 1,437,600 718,800
Office Square Feet 679,039 339,520
Institutional Square Feet 536,803 268,401
Retail Square Feet 269,782 134,891
Commercial Recreation 87,564 43,782
Under-building Parking 441,292 220,646
Total Square Feet 4,599,614 2,299,807
Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, BERK Consulting 2016
The North End Preferred Alternative is higher in terms of floor area ratio (FAR) than other example study
areas in Chelan and Douglas Counties. It would be an ambitious development program. It exceeds
Downtown Wenatchee’s FAR.
The North End Moderate Intensity alternative is about 0.25 FAR, slightly less than the Valley Mall area
and Chelan’s Downtown/Highway Corridor, but twice as much as Olds Station.
Exhibit 6.2-2. North End and Other Chelan-Douglas Areas and Floor Area Ratios (FAR)
Area Parcel Acres1 Building Square Feet FAR
Chelan Downtown & Corridor 83.09 1,064,357 0.29
Downtown Wenatchee 164.88 2,808,683 0.39
Olds Station 258.24 1,345,806 0.12
Valley Mall Area 75.97 967,039 0.29
North End2 208.21 4,158,322 0.46
Notes: Based on County Assessor Data
1 Excludes parks and undeveloped land as coded by Assessor. Excludes improved rights of way.
2 Based on Future Land Use Concept Map. Excludes under-building parking square feet in building area.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
BACKGROUND
Final | October 2016 6-6
Exhibit 6.2-3. Example Comparison Areas – Chelan and Douglas Counties
CHELAN DOWNTOWN AND HIGHWAY CORRIDOR
OLDS STATION
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
BACKGROUND
Final | October 2016 6-7
WENATCHEE DOWNTOWN
VALLEY MALL AREA
Hospitality Rooms
One of the goals in the North End Master Site Plan is to achieve a tourist destination. Resort and
hospitality rooms are proposed. The North End Preferred alternative would increase the current hotel
rooms in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee by 40% and would be a significant contributor to the local
supply of rooms.
NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN)
BACKGROUND
Final | October 2016 6-8
Exhibit 6.2-4. Hospitality Rooms – Wenatchee and East Wenatchee
Name of Establishment City & State Rooms
Avenue Motel Wenatchee, WA 38
Best Western Chieftain Inn Wenatchee, WA 77
Coast Wenatchee Center Hotel Wenatchee, WA 147
Comfort Inn Wenatchee Wenatchee, WA 81
Comfort Suites Wenatchee Wenatchee, WA 84
Econo Lodge Wenatchee Wenatchee, WA 37
Economy Inn Wenatchee, WA 42
Holiday Inn Express Wenatchee Wenatchee, WA 90
La Quinta Inns & Suites Wenatchee Wenatchee, WA 65
Lyles Motel Wenatchee, WA 22
Motel 6 Wenatchee Wenatchee, WA 58
Red Lion Hotel Wenatchee Wenatchee, WA 149
Springhill Suites Wenatchee Wenatchee, WA 109
Super 8 Wenatchee Wenatchee, WA 104
Travelodge Wenatchee Wenatchee, WA 48
Value Inn Wenatchee, WA 34
Inn @ The River East Wenatchee, WA 55
The Cedars Inn East Wenatchee, WA 94
Total 1,334
North End Proposed Full Intensity 544 (40%)
Source: STR, Wenatchee Valley Chamber of Commerce, January 2016
Appendix A: Adopted Planned Action Ordinance
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 5
Attachment B: Planned Action Designated
The North End “Planned Action” designation shall apply to the area shown in the map
below.
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 8
Attachment D – Environmental Thresholds
The following thresholds shall be used to determine if a site-specific development
proposed within the Planned Action Area was contemplated as a Planned Action Project
and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS:
A. QUALIFYING LAND USES.
1. Planned Action Categories: The following categories/types of land use are defined in
the North End Master Site Plan and can qualify as Planned Actions, when:
a. it is within the Planned Action Area as shown in Attachment B of this Ordinance;
and
b. it is within one or more of the land use categories in the Final EIS:
i. Resort/Hospitality
ii. Business Park
iii. Wine Village
iv. Office
v. Institutional
vi. Retail
vii. Commercial Recreation; and
c. it is listed in development regulations applicable to the zoning classifications
applied to properties within the Planned Action Area.
2. Stand-alone or Mixed Uses: A Planned Action Project may be a single Planned
Action land use or a combination of Planned Action land uses together in a mixed-use
development.
3. Accessory Uses: Planned Action land uses may include accessory uses.
4. Essential Public Facilities: A planned action must not include an essential public
facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200, unless the essential public facility is accessory
to or part of a development that is designated as a Planned Action Project under this
Ordinance.
5. A Planned Action Project is consistent with the general concept of the North End
Master Site Plan land use plan and upland of shoreline jurisdiction.
B. DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS:
1. Land Use: The following new land uses are contemplated by the Planned Action:
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 9
Table D-1. Comparison of Alternative Growth Levels
Uses
Preferred
Alternative
Dwellings
227
Dwelling Square Feet
327,522
Resort/Hospitality Rooms
544
Resort/Hospitality Square Feet
820,012
Business Park or Winery Square
Feet
1,437,600
Office Square Feet
679,039
Institutional Square Feet
536,803
Retail Square Feet
269,782
Commercial Recreation
87,564
Under-building Parking
441,292
Total Square Feet
4,599,614
Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, BERK Consulting 2016
2. Shifting development amounts between land uses in identified in Subsection B.1 is
permitted when the total build-out is less than the aggregate amount of development
reviewed in the Planned Action EIS; the traffic trips and downstream sewer capacity
thresholds are not exceeded; and, the development impacts identified in the Planned
Action EIS are mitigated consistent with Attachment E.
3. Further environmental review may be required pursuant to Attachment C, if any
individual Planned Action Project or combination of Planned Action Projects exceeds
the development thresholds specified in this Ordinance and/or alter the assumptions
and analysis in the Planned Action EIS.
C. TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLDS:
1. Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The number of new PM peak hour trips anticipated in the
Planned Action Area and reviewed in the Planned Action EIS for 2035 is as follows:
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 10
Table D-2. PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Alternative Primary Project Trips1
In Out Total
Full Intensity – Preferred 1,748 3,116 4,486
Source: Transpo Group 2016
Notes: 1 Primary Trips include all project trips to the new land uses once pass-
by trips have been eliminated.
2. Concurrency. All Planned Action Projects shall meet the transportation concurrency
requirements and the Level of Service (LOS) thresholds established in The Greater
East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan, which requires that “… as specified in the
Growth Management Act, new developments will be prohibited unless transportation
improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made
concurrent with the development. Such improvements and strategies must be in place
and or financially planned for within 6 years of development use.” The comprehensive
plan also states that the level of service threshold was set at LOS D, and that any
intersection operating at LOS E or F would be deficient.
3. Traffic Mitigation Fees.
a. Traffic mitigation fees shall be paid consistent with Attachment E. Such fees shall be
based on a PM peak hour per trip calculation consistent with Mitigation Measure 17 in in
Attachment E and the manual identified Attachment D, Section C.5.a below. The
mitigation fee shall be payable at the time of building permit issuance. For projects that
require longer-term construction periods prior to occupancy and impacts to the
transportation system, the County may allow for the mitigation fee to be paid prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits subject to a construction schedule and supporting
information provided to the satisfaction of the County.
b. Planned action project documentation shall be submitted as required in Attachment
D, Section C.4 below. Such project documentation shall consider each development's
direct impact on North End Master Site Plan transportation improvements.
c. The County shall earmark mitigation fee receipts and retain them in an interest-
bearing account, expending them on projects identified in the North End Master Site
Plan Exhibit 4.1 2. Conceptual Road Network Cost Estimates, 2016$ and listed below in
Table D-3.
Table D-3. Conceptual Road Network Cost Estimates, 2016$ Transportation Improvement
Description
Estimated
Cost
(Douglas
County
2016$)
Secured
Funds as
of 2016
Proportion
ate Share*
Study Area
Costs
1 East Bound Off Ramp $8,319,700 80% $
6,655,760
2 West Bound On Ramp $2,934,300 80% $
2,347,440
3 RAB @ 35th Street $890,800 100% $ 890,800
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 11
4 RAB @ 38th Street $1,426,500 100%
$1,426,500
5 RAB @ Off Ramp $1,056,900 80% $ 845,520
6 RAB @ On Ramp $979,900 80% $783,920
7 38th Street Extension $2,179,600 100%
$2,179,600
8 35th Street Extension $1,939,800 $1,172,0
75
96% $737,016
9 Empire Ave- Goldcrest -38th $5,697,300 90% $
5,127,570
10 Empire Ave- 38th – Cascade $5,822,200 100%
$5,822,200
11 RAB @ SR 28 & 35th $1,310,000 100% $1,310,000
12 RAB @ SR 28 & 38th $1,310,000 100% $1,310,000
Tot
al
$33,867,00
0
$1,172,0
75
$29,436,32
6
Note: *Share of cost based on percentage of Project Area Trips, Available Funds, Regional Need. Other improvements such as internal circulation within the Wine Village and a roundabout at the intersection of 35th/NW Empire/Wine Village circulation road may be constructed as part of development requirements. Legend: RAB = Roundabout
Source: Douglas County, Transpo Group, BERK Consulting 2016
d. The County shall provide a credit for the value of dedication or improvement to or
new construction of any system improvements provided by the developer per
subsection C.3.c above. The applicant shall be entitled to a credit for the value of the
land or actual costs of capital facility construction against the fee that would be
chargeable under the formula in Attachment E Mitigation Measure 17.
i. The dedication, improvement, or construction shall be conducted at suitable sites and
constructed at acceptable quality as determined by the County. Such improvement or
construction shall be completed, dedicated, or otherwise transferred to the County prior
to the determination and award of a credit.
ii. The value of a credit for right of way and easements shall be established on a case -
by-case basis by an appraiser selected by, or acceptable to the County. The appraiser
must be licensed in good standing by the State of Washington for the category of t he
property appraised. The appraisal shall be in accord with the most recent version of the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and shall be subject to review and
acceptance by County. The appraisal and review shall be at the expense of the
applicant.
e. The current owner of property on which traffic mitigation fees have been paid may
receive a refund of such fees if the mitigation fees have not been expended or
encumbered within 10 years of receipt of mitigation fees, unless the County has made a
written finding that extraordinary or compelling reasons exist to extend the time for
expending or encumbering the mitigation fees.
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 12
4. The Responsible SEPA Official or their designee shall require documentation by
Planned Action Project applicants demonstrating that the total trips identified in C.1 are
not exceeded, that the project meets the concurrency and intersection standards C.2,
and that the project has mitigated impacts consistent with Subsection C.3.
5. Discretion.
a. The Responsible SEPA Official or their designee shall have discretion to determine
incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers
(ITE) Trip Generation Manual (latest edition) as presented in Draft EIS Exhibit 3.4 7.Full
Intensity North End Master Site Plan Parcel Breakdown or an alternative manual
accepted by the County Engineer at his or her sole discretion, for each project permit
application proposed under this Planned Action.
b. The Responsible SEPA Official or their designee shall have discretion to condition
Planned Action Project applications to meet the provisions of this Planned Action
Ordinance and the City development regulations.
c. The Responsible SEPA Official or their designee shall have the discretion to adjust
the allocation of responsibility for required improvements between individual Planned
Action Projects based upon their identified impacts.
D. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
1. Planned Action Project applicants shall demonstrate consistency with the utility plans
of the North End Master Site Plan.
2. The following public services, infrastructure, and utilities can qualify as Planned
Actions as determined by the Responsible SEPA Official or their designee: onsite roads,
utilities, parks, trails, and similar facilities when developed consistent with the Planned
Action EIS mitigation measures, County, City, and special district design standards,
shoreline and critical area regulations, and the Douglas County Code and East
Wenatchee Municipal Code as applicable.
3. Planned Action Projects do not include stormwater conveyances or in-water out falls
to the Columbia River within the shoreline buffer.
4. Sewer: The downstream conveyance system has capacity for approximately 800 to
1,000 gallons per minute of peak hour flows, and shall not be exceeded individually or
cumulatively by Planned Action Projects. Provided that an applicant may fund offsite
improvements at the discretion of the service provider to mitigate impacts.
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 13
Attachment E – Final EIS Mitigation Measures
The Planned Action EIS has identified significant beneficial and adverse impacts that
are anticipated to occur with the future development of the Planned Action Area,
together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those significant adverse
impacts. Please see Final EIS Chapter 1 Summary for a description of impacts,
mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
The mitigation measures in this Attachment shall apply to Planned Action Project
applications that are consistent with the Alternative range reviewed in the Planned
Action EIS and which are located within the Planned Action Area (see Attachment B).
Where a mitigation measure includes the words “shall” or “will,” inclusion of that
measure in Planned Action Project application plans is mandatory in order to qualify as
a Planned Action Project. Where “should” or “would” appear, the mitigation measure
may be considered by the project applicant as a source of additional mitigation, as
feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as a Planned Action Project.
Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of
plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance
activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform.
Any and all references to decisions to be made or actions to be taken by the County
SEPA Responsible Official may also be perf ormed by the County SEPA Responsible
Official’s authorized designee.
Table E-1. Matrix of Mitigation Measures
# Topic Mitigation Measure
Natural Environment
1. Wetlands, Waters of
the United States,
Shoreline, and Critical
Areas
To be considered a planned action, proposed
development shall leave intact the riparian corridor,
Columbia River, and associated wetlands. Where
properties overlap these critical areas and
shorelines, such areas may be identified in a
conservation covenant or other preservation
mechanisms as part of subdivision or binding site
plan approval. The unnamed tributary would likely
be impacted from a new road extension. Once
impacts for construction of the arterial streets and
other infrastructure (i.e. utilities) are determined, the
remaining riparian corridor may be identified in a
conservation covenants or other preservation
mechanisms to protect the area in perpetuity. In any
case, The County or City shall apply shoreline and
critical area standards to protect regulated
environmental resources.
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 14
# Topic Mitigation Measure
2. Plants Upland vegetation removed during construction
shall be replaced to the extent feasible. Temporary
fencing shall be installed around areas of wetland,
intermittent drainage, and riparian habitat. Public
landscaped areas, stormwater bio-swales, and other
green space areas associated with the development
shall generally be planted with native grasses,
groundcovers, trees, and shrubs to the extent
feasible to maximize wildlife habitat and minimize
needed maintenance and excess water use.
To avoid the introduction of noxious weeds to the
project study area, no plants designated as “noxious
weeds” by the Washington State Noxious Weed
Control Board shall be used for landscaping.
Additionally, no mulch with the potential to contain
viable seeds from a designated noxious weed shall
be used in the study area.
3. Animals Mitigation measures include the avoidance of critical
areas and buffers to the greatest extent practicable.
If feasible, vegetation removal activities shall occur
outside of the nesting season (approximately March
through September) for migratory birds. No active
nests shall be disturbed without a permit or other
authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS).
Lighting shall optimize the use of downward directed
low-pressure sodium lighting to minimize lighting
effects on migratory birds. No strobe lights shall be
used except as required by Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulation.
If existing inactive migratory bird nests are removed
during construction, future project applicants shall
contact Douglas County and the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine if
additional perch poles should be installed along the
shoreline to replace lost nesting habitat.
If bald eagles or golden eagles are observed in the
immediate project area during the construction
period, the future project applicants shall contact the
USFWS and/or Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) to determine whether further
consultation is necessary.
4. Water Resources When site disturbance is greater than 1-acre
construction activities shall obtain a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Construction permit from the State of
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 15
# Topic Mitigation Measure
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). A
stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), shall
be prepared and approved by Ecology when site
disturbance is greater than 1-acre. The SWPPP
shall describe construction practices, stabilization
techniques, and structural BMPs that are to be
implemented to prevent erosion and minimize
sediment transport as outlined above.
In accordance with the NPDES General
Construction permit, a sampling and monitoring
program shall be developed and implemented to
assess the quality of surface water entering and
leaving the project study area during construction.
At a minimum, sampling sites shall include a
location above all proposed development and a
location downstream of all development. Analysis
shall include total suspended solids, oils, and
greases.
Permanent stormwater systems shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with Douglas County
Code and the Stormwater Manual for Eastern
Washington. Stormwater shall be collected, treated,
and managed on-site. Infiltration and other low
impact development (LID) strategies and techniques
for stormwater shall be implemented to the extent
feasible. Native planting shall be required for
disturbed soils within the study area to the extent
feasible.
Land and Shoreline
Use and Policies
5. Urban Design
Principles
Planned Actions shall demonstrate consistency with
the Greater East Wenatchee Urban Growth Area
Design Standards & Guidelines in effect at the time
of application and compatibility with the Master Site
Plan Exhibit 3.2-1. Design Principles.
6. General Commercial
Buffer
In the portions of the study area zoned General
Commercial, future development under the subarea
plan shall provide a 50-foot transition buffer along
the southern boundary of the study area. The buffer
area should include Type I landscaping screening
along any property line that abuts residential zoning,
consistent with Section 17.72.080 of the East
Wenatchee Municipal Code. The landscaped area
may be used for any of the following features:
Stormwater detention, infiltration, or conveyance ponds or swales;
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 16
# Topic Mitigation Measure
Bicycle and pedestrian trail features that form part of an on-site non-motorized circulation system;
Programmed open space, including lawn or park areas, gardens, and orchards; or
Passive open space, including native vegetation protection or habitat enhancement.
7. Transition Standards To reduce adverse visual effects where higher-
intensity development abuts lower-intensity
development, all development under the North End
Master Site Plan located on property that abuts a
residential zone, but which is not covered by the
General Commercial buffer requirement established
above, shall apply two or more of the following
transition design standards.
Within 50 feet of residential zoning, limit building heights to 35 feet;
Provide a Type I landscaping buffer, as defined by Section 17.72.080 of the East Wenatchee Municipal Code, along any property boundary that abuts a residential zone;
Provide a decorative screening wall or fence, at least 6 feet in height, along any property boundary that abuts a residential zone;
Where a rear-yard setback abuts a residential zone, increase the standard setback distance to 50 feet; or
Where a property boundary that abuts a residential zone is characterized by significant mature native vegetation, preserve such vegetation and implement a building setback of at least 20 feet.
8. Environmental Health /
Agricultural Use
Douglas County or the City of East Wenatchee as
appropriate shall require the following note on the
face of plats or binding site plans on planned action
properties with a history of agricultural use:
“Based on historical agricultural use of this land,
there is a possibility the soil contains residual
concentrations of pesticides. The Washington
State Department of Ecology recommends that the
soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and
arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these
contaminants are found at concentrations above
the MTCA cleanup levels, the Washington State
Department of Ecology recommends that potential
buyers be notified of their occurrence.”
This note shall not be required to be placed on the
final plat or binding site plan, if the soils are sampled
by a professional with adequate credentials to verify
that the site does not contain lead and arsenic and
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 17
# Topic Mitigation Measure
organochlorine pesticides at concentrations above
the MTCA cleanup levels.
Cultural Resources The following mitigation measures shall be
implemented to help avoid and manage significant
impacts to recorded and as-yet unrecorded cultural
resources within the North End Study Area:
9. Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee, as
appropriate, shall continue coordination of cultural
resource avoidance and mitigation programs for
future project-level development through formal
government-to-government consultation with the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and
the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Nation. During scoping, responses to this proposal
were received from representatives of both Tribes.
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
commented that the undertaking was within the
traditional territory of the Wenatchi Tribe, one of the
twelve tribes of the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation, and that a cultural resources
survey inclusive of subsurface testing be undertaken
and incorporated into the related EIS. The
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Nation commented that the study area is within
lands ceded by the Yakama people and is in
proximity to traditional food gathering area, hunting
and fishing sites, villages, and burials. They also
noted the antiquity of archaeology present in the
East Wenatchee area and the presence of known
archaeological sites within the development area. It
was requested that investigation place emphasis on
both archaeological sites and traditional cultural
properties. Tribes often are able to provide
additional information regarding cultural resources
not documented in published literature which can
help direct cultural resources investigations and
support compliance assessments to ensure that
cultural resources are not significantly impacted by
development activities.
10. Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee, as
appropriate, shall identify an approach to project
specific actions to ensure that recorded and
unrecorded cultural resources are not disturbed by
the proposed project plans through the application
of mitigation measures 11-14. The preliminary field
investigations conducted in this study were based
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 18
# Topic Mitigation Measure
on a conceptual design and provide a general
history of the study area and limited insight into the
subsurface conditions within tested areas proposed
to be developed.
11. To be considered a planned action, complete
avoidance of archaeological site 45DO173 and the
immediate adjacent area shall be accomplished due
to the presence of human burials.
12. Planned actions shall document and evaluate
historical significance of structures within the study
area that are over 50 years old prior to development
actions consistent with the State of Washington
Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation.
13. Douglas County or the City of East Wenatchee may
consider partnering with existing businesses or
agencies with a strong interest in history, and which
likely maintain good historical records of the project
location.
14. The following measures to avoid impacts to cultural
resources will be required of North End planned
actions by Douglas County or the City of East
Wenatchee as appropriate.
1. During the project permit review process, all
project permit applications under the Planned Action
shall be forwarded by the permitting jurisdiction to
the Colville Confederated Tribes and the
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Nation for comment. If either tribe expresses
concern regarding a permit application or requests
further consultation, the local government shall
initiate project-based consultation with the interested
tribe to identify an appropriate level of effort to
identify and avoid cultural resources.
2. Observers from the Tribe and/or State shall be
allowed to monitor development sites during
clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction.
3. Should any archaeological resources or human
remains be inadvertently discovered during
grading/construction, all work that would affect the
discovered resources must be stopped until the
proper authorities have been notified and
appropriate steps taken to protect the resources.
The Colville Confederated Tribes and the
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Nation shall also be immediately notified of the
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 19
# Topic Mitigation Measure
discovery. Development applicants will comply with
inadvertent discovery laws at RCWs 68.50.645,
27.44.055, and 68.60.055. Douglas County has
adopted an inadvertent discovery protocol that
outlines the measures to be implemented should an
unanticipated discovery occur. (See Table E-2)
4. Any archaeological or historic resources identified
will be evaluated in consultation with the Colville
Confederated Tribe, the Confederate Tribes and
Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Washington
State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation standards (DAHP 2015 or as thereafter
amended). If mitigation to cultural resources is
required, specific mitigation steps will be developed
through consultation with the aforementioned
parties.
5. In addition to the consultation that occurs with the
Tribes during project permit review process, prior to
any excavation, grading, or construction within the
Master Site Plan area below a depth of 40
centimeters below surface in the area between
Apple Capital Loop/Rocky Reach Trail and NW
Empire, and below a depth of 80 centimeters below
surface in the area east of NW Empire Ave, it shall
be the responsibility of the developer to notify the
Colville Confederated Tribes, Confederated Tribes
and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the State of
Washington by certified mail. It is understood that
no development is proposed west of the Apple
Capital Loop/Rocky Reach Trail under the Planned
Action, and the project will not physically impact
recorded archaeology. It is also understood that
archaeological site 45DO173 and the immediate
adjacent area will be completely avoided under the
Planned Action. State or Tribal personnel shall be
afforded the opportunity to observe clearing and
grubbing activities if deemed necessary per #2
above.
6. The above required notifications shall be made 15
days prior to any construction and/or placement of
utilities. Said notice shall indicate the type of
infrastructure, location, amount of excavation, depth,
and documentation on the manner in which
consideration is being given to cultural resource
discoveries.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any
approved operation on a development site, the
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 20
# Topic Mitigation Measure
developer must submit a site plan indicating the
location of all utilities, roads, and structures.
Transportation
15. Concurrency The Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive
Plan requires that “… as specified in the Growth
Management Act, new developments will be
prohibited unless transportation improvements or
strategies to accommodate the impacts of
development are made concurrent with the
development. Such improvements and strategies
must be in place and or financially planned for within
6 years of development use.” The Comprehensive
Plan also states that the level of service threshold
was set at LOS D, and that any intersection
operating at LOS E or F would be deficient.
Therefore, developers are responsible for roadway
improvements that bring intersection operations
within concurrency if their development would result
in enough induced traffic to cause any intersection
to operate above LOS D. All intersections analyzed
in the study do not fall below a level of service D
with noted improvements.
16. Transportation
Network
Transportation improvements identified in Master
Site Plan Section 3.4 as necessary to support
development of the North End at adopted level of
service standards shall be in place at the time of
development or within six years if improvements are
included in a six-year capital facility plan and
funding is secured.
17. Transportation
Mitigation Fee
Planned actions shall pay transportation trip
mitigation fees in effect at the time of application to
support implementation of the Master Site Plan
transportation improvements consistent with
Attachment D, subsection C.
Unless amended, or replaced with a transportation
impact fee, mitigation fees consistent with the
proportionate share of costs excluding the
interchange shall be applied to planned action
applications:
PM Peak Hour Trip Costs – Pending Balance of
Public and Private Shares
Scenario Cost Basis Per
Trip
Study Area Share W/O
ramps – 75%
$14,102,765 $3,144
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 21
# Topic Mitigation Measure
Full Intensity Trips PM
Peak Hour:
4,486
Source: Douglas County, The Transpo Group,
BERK Consulting 2016 (Motion made to approve
75% mitigation share by project applicant -
10/10/16 DCBCC)
18. Nonmotorized
Connections
All public streets shall be designed to incorporate
sidewalks consistent with County and City street
standards. Some street standards show a range of
sidewalk widths. Where pedestrian activity is
anticipated to be greatest, wider sidewalks should
be implemented.
Arterial or collector streets shall accommodate
bicycles consistent with adopted County and City
road standards and adopted bicycle reginal
guidelines.
Properties abutting the Apple Capital Loop Trail or
Rocky Reach Trail or their spurs shall be consistent
with the Douglas County Loop Trail Overlay
including standards for fencing, trail access,
landscaping, and setbacks from the trail.
The following on-site pedestrian walkway standards
shall be met by each development:
A comprehensive system of pedestrian walkways shall link together all site entrances, building entries, parking facilities, and common outdoor spaces with the sidewalk system in the public right-of-way.
Pedestrian walkways shall be reinforced with pedestrian-scale lighting, bollard lighting, landscaping, accent lighting, signage, or a combination thereof to aid in pedestrian way-finding.
Each parcel shall provide pedestrian walkways that provide for connections from public rights of way through the subject property to the regional trail system that, when connected with other properties, will facilitate east-west travel to and from the regional trail system. For every 1,320 feet of street frontage, on average, a pathway to the regional trail system shall be provided. The walkway must connect with walkways located on other properties established in accordance with this condition. Distances may vary from exactly 1,320 feet to accommodate linking adjacent developments on a case-by-case basis.
Public Services
19. Police Protection The County sheriff or City police department, as
appropriate, shall continue to monitor police
services and the Level of Service standard to
ensure that staffing levels and equipment needs
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 22
# Topic Mitigation Measure
align with changing demand. Existing Level of
Service is based on residential population, but the
North End site will have a significant amount of non-
residential activity. The County sheriff or City policy
department, as appropriate, shall be provided the
opportunity to review planned action development
applications and consider any specialized needs
that may be generated by the proposed mix of uses.
20. Fire Protection Fire and emergency medical services shall be
available concurrent with new development. Fire
service providers shall continue to monitor fire
protection services and the level of service standard
to ensure that staffing levels and equipment needs
align with the changing demand. In addition, the
County and City shall provide opportunities for the
fire district to review the proposed development
plans and consider any anticipated specialized
needs from the uses proposed.
21. Schools The School District shall monitor how the residential
development of North End fits into the phasing plan
and should keep track of future student enrollment
that may be generated from development of the site.
Capital planning by the District, as well as regular
updates of the County and City Comprehensive
Plans should allow for advanced planning prior to
growth. If residential uses are proposed with a
planned action, the County and City shall provide
opportunities for the school district to review the
proposed development plans and consider any
anticipated specialized needs from the uses
proposed.
22. Parks Planned actions shall be consistent with the
Eastmont Metropolitan Parks and Recreation District
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and the
County and City Comprehensive Plans regarding
parks and recreation levels of service.
On-site public common space is also required in the
Greater East Wenatchee UGA Design Guidelines,
applicable to commercial, mixed-use and multiple
family development such as that proposed in
Hospitality, Retail, and Wine Village Areas.
Utilities
23. For all development activities payment of system
development charges, and connection fees is
considered mitigation for use of source/supply, and
discharge capacities. Ongoing usage rates are
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 23
# Topic Mitigation Measure
intended for the additional maintenance and
operations costs associated with the extension of
the utility and use of the distribution and conveyance
systems. The SEPA Responsible Official may
condition development to pay its proportionate share
of utility costs identified in the North End Master Site
Plan.
Power, Gas and
Telecommunications
24. Co-location and
undergrounding of
power and
telecommunication
utilities
Planned actions shall co-locate power and
telecommunications facilities and underground such
utilities. Subdivisions are required to have utilities
underground per East Wenatchee Municipal Code
(Chapter 12.16).
25. Where it is not practical to underground
telecommunication facilities, appropriate
landscaping and stealth design shall be utilized by
planned action projects to minimize their visual
impacts on their surroundings.
Table E-2. Cultural Resources Inadvertent Discovery Plan
Description Protocol
Cultural Resources
Inadvertent
Discovery Protocol
Douglas County or the City of East Wenatchee shall
condition planned actions to be compliant with the following
inadvertent discovery protocols. In the event of the
inadvertent discovery of any resource covered by the
following protocols, the developer shall immediately notify the
city or county with jurisdiction over the site, who shall then
notify the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation as soon as possible.
If non-human archaeological materials are discovered:
Construction activities that may further disturb the discovered material shall cease, and the area of the find will be secured.
The discovery shall be reported to the city or county with jurisdiction over the site and to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) in the most expeditious manner possible. DAHP will then coordinate consultation with affected tribes regarding future preservation and excavation of the discovered materials.
If human skeletal remains are discovered:
If ground disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance.
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 24
Description Protocol
The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed.
The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic.
If the county medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) who will then take jurisdiction over the remains. The DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains.
Contacts Steven M. Clem, Douglas County Prosecuting Attorney/Coroner Phone: (509) 745-8535 Fax: (509) 745-8670 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 360 Waterville, WA 98858 Physical Address: 203 S. Rainier Street Waterville, WA 98858 sclem@co.douglas.wa.us Douglas County Sheriff's Office 110 N.E. 2nd Street Suite 200 East Wenatchee, WA 98802 (509) 884-0941 East Wenatchee Police Department 271 9th St. N.E. East Wenatchee, WA 98802 (509) 884-9511 Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, DAHP (360) 586-3534 Guy.Tasa@dahp.wa.gov
Ord TLS 16-09-37C 25
Attachment F – Final EIS
City of East Wenatchee, Washington
Ordinance No. 2016-16
An Ordinance of the City of East Wenatchee adopting a Planned Action Ordinance
for the North End Subarea Plan under the provisions of the State Environmental
Policy Act.
Una Ordenanza de la Ciudad de East Wenatchee adopci6n de una Ordenanza de
Planificaci6n de la Acci6n para el Plan Subarea North End en virtud de lo dispuesto
en la Ley de Politica Ambiental del Estado.
1. Alternate format.
1.1. Para leer este documento en otro formato (espafi.ol, Braille, leer en voz alta,
etc.), p6ngase en contacto con el vendedor de la ciudad al
alternatformat@east-wenatchee.com, al (509) 884-9515 o al 711 (TTY).
1.2. To read this document in an alternate format (Spanish, Braille, read aloud,
etc.), please contact the City Clerk at alternateformat@east·wenatchee.com,
at (509) 884-9515, or at 711 (TTY).
2. Recitals.
2.1. The City of East Wenatchee ("City") is a non-charter code City duly
incorporated and operating under the laws of the State of Washington; and
2.2. The City has adopted the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan
(GEWA) pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW Chapter
36.70A, which covers all properties within the City Limits and the
unincorporated areas of Douglas County located within the East Wenatchee
Urban Growth Area, which was found to be consistent with the adopted
GMA plans of adjoining jurisdictions.
2.3. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),1RCW 43.21C, and its
implementing regulations authorize counties and cities planning under the
Growth Management Act (GMA) to designate planned actions that have had
their significant impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact
statement (EIS) prepared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan, sub-
area plan or a master planned development; and
2.4. The Port of Douglas County collaborated with Douglas County and the City
of East Wenatchee to develop the North End Master Site Plan; and
2.5.Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee have adopted amendments
to the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan including the
adoption of the North End Master Site Plan as a subarea plan that envisions
an employment center and tourist destination; and
2.6. The designation of a project as a planned action streamlines subsequent
review of the project by eliminating the need for preparation of a threshold
determination or EIS; and
2. 7. Environmental impacts of the planned action have been identified and
adequately addressed in the North End Planned Action Final EIS adopted by
Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee on October 10, 2016, subject
to project review under WAC 197-11-172; and
2.8. Adopting a SEP A planned action for the North End Subarea of the East
Wenatchee Urban Growth Area (UGA) with appropriate standards and
procedures will help achieve permit processing efficiency and promote
environmental quality.
2.9. The East Wenatchee and Douglas County Planning Commissions conducted
a duly advertised public hearing on September 6, 2016. The Planning
Commissions entered into the record the files on the proposal, accepted
public testimony, and deliberated the merits of the proposal. The vote of the
Douglas County Planning Commission was unanimously in favor (6 to O).
The vote of the City Planning Commission was unanimously in favor (5-0).
2.10. On October 10, 2016, the City Council of East Wenatchee ("City
Council") and the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners (County
Commissioners) held a public workshop to review the record of the planning
commissions' public hearing.
2.11. On October 10, 2016, the City Council and the County Commissioners
held a public hearing to consider the planning commissions' recommendation
and accept public testimony regarding the proposed amendments.
2.12. Notice of all public hearings and public meetings on this matter have
been published in accordance with state and to local laws and regulations.
2.13. The City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City and its
citizens to adopt the Planned Action Ordinance for the North End Subarea.
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 2 of 22
3. Authority.
3.1. RCW 35A.11.020 and RCW 35A.12.190 authorize the City Council to adopt
ordinances of all kinds to regulate its municipal affairs and appropriate to
the good government of the City.
3.2.RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164, -168, and -172 authorize and govern
the establishment and application of a planned action designation.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
4. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to:
4.1. Combine environmental analysis with land use planning; and
4.2. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions in the North
End Sub area of the East Wenatchee Urban Growth Area as "planned
actions" consistent with state law including RCW 43.21C.440; and
4.3. Streamline and expedite the land use permit review process by relying
on completed and existing environmental analysis for the Planned
Action Area.
5. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The City Council adopts the
Recitals stated above as well as the findings of fact and conclusion oflaw as
set forth in Attachment A.
6. Designated Planned Action Area. The City Council designates the North End
Subarea shown in Attachment B as a Planned Action Area for purposes of
environmental review and permitting of designated Planned Action Projects
pursuant RCW 43.21C.440.
7. Procedures and Mitigation. The City Council adopts the following planned
action procedures and mitigation measures in order to approve a Planned
Action Project within the Planned Action Area.
7 .1. Upon designation by the SEP A Responsible Official or designee that
the development proposal within the planned action area qualifies as a
planned action pursuant to this ordinance, RCW 43.21C.440, and WAC
197-11-172, the project shall not be subject to a SEP A threshold
determination, an environmental impact statement (EIS), SEP A
appeal or any other additional review under SEP A. Attachment C
contains procedures and criteria for evaluating and determining
projects as planned action projects.
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 3 of 22
7 .2. Thresholds shall be used to determine if a site-specific development
proposed within the Planned Action Area was contemplated as a
Planned Action Project and has had its environmental impacts
evaluated in the Planned Action EIS consistent with Attachment D
Environmental Thresholds.
7.3. Planned Action Projects will not be subject to further procedural
review under SEP A. However, in order to qualify as planned actions,
these projects will have incorporated applicable mitigating measures
identified and analyzed in Attachment E Final EIS Mitigation
Measures. Additionally, projects will be subject to applicable local,
state and federal regulatory requirements. The planned action
designation shall not exempt a project from meeting the applicable
County/City code requirements apart from the SEP A process.
7.4. Land uses and activities described in the Planned Action EIS,
contained in Attachment F, subject to the thresholds described in
Attachment D of this Ordinance and the mitigation measures
contained in Attachment E of this Ordinance, are designated "Planned
Action Projects" pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440.
8. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance or any mitigation
measures imposed thereto, and any ordinance or regulation of the
County/City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control
9. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction declares any provision in this
Ordinance to be contrary to law, such declaration shall not affect the validity
of the other provisions of this Ordinance.
10. Publication. The City Council directs the City Clerk to publish a summary of
this Ordinance. The summary shall consist of the title of this Ordinance. The
City Council directs the City Clerk to publish a copy of this Ordinance on the
City's website.
11. Copy of Ordinance._ This ordinance will not be codified. A copy of the approved
SEPA planned action for the North End Subarea of the East Wenatchee UGA
shall be available to the public for inspection and copying at the East
Wenatchee Community Development Department.
12. Submittal of Notice of Adoption. In accordance with RCW 36. 70A.106, this
Ordinance shall be transmitted by the Community Development Director to
the Washington State Department of Commerce within 10 days of adoption.
13. Effective Date. This Ordinance becomes effective five days after the date its
summary is published.
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 4 of 22
Passed by the City Council of East Wenatchee, at a regular meeting thereof on this
10th day of October, 2016.
The City of East Wenatchee,
Washington
By ~.m.mc.~
Sandra McCourt, Mayor Pro Tempore
Authenticated:
A)ML~
Approved as to form only:
u~u
Devin Poulson, City Attorney
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 5 of 22
10-10-2016
10-10-2016
·lQ.-18-2016 I D{2s1/ fo
10-gg-2016 /0( 161 (Ip
Summary of
City of East Wenatchee, Washington
Ordinance No. 2016-16
On the 10th day of October, 2016, the City Council of the City of East Wenatchee,
Washington approved Ordinance No. 2016-16, the main point of which may be
summarized by its title as follows:
An Ordinance of the City of East Wenatchee adopting a Planned Action Ordinance
for the North End Subarea Plan under the provisions of the State Environmental
Policy Act.
Una Ordenanza de la Ciudad de East Wenatchee adopci6n de una Ordenanza de
Planificaci6n de la Acci6n para el Plan Subarea North End en virtud de lo dispuesto
en la Ley de Politica Ambiental del Estado.
The full text of this Ordinance is available at www.east-wenatchee.com.
Dated this 12th day of October, 2016.
Dana Barnard, City Clerk
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 6 of 22
1. The Recitals in the ordinance are adopted herein as Findings of the City Council.
2. The City is subject to the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA).
3. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA and is amending the
Comprehensive Plan and associated Greater East Wenatchee Area Plan with the addition of
the North End Master Site Plan considered a Subarea Plan under GMA. The City is adopting
design guidelines within the North End Master Site Plan to implement said Plans, including
this Ordinance.
4. The North End Planned Action EIS, Attachment F, and the environmental thresholds in
Attachment D identify the location, type, and amount of development that is contemplated
by the Planned Action. The Planned Action EIS adequately identifies and addresses the
probable significant environmental impacts associated with the type and amount of
development planned to occur in the designated Planned Action Area designated in
Attachment B.
5. The mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS, attached to this Ordinance as
Attachment E and incorporated herein by reference, together with adopted City
development regulations are adequate to mitigate significant adverse impacts from
development within the Planned Action Area.
6. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned Action will protect the
environment, benefit the public, and enhance economic development.
7. The City provided several opportunities for meaningful public involvement and review in the
North End Master Site Plan and Planned Action EIS processes, including a community
meeting consistent with RCW 43.21C.440; has considered all comments received; and, as
appropriate, has modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments.
8. Essential public facilities as defined in RCW 36.70A.200 are excluded from the Planned
Action as designated herein and are not eligible for review or permitting as Planned Action
Projects unless they are accessory to or part of a project that otherwise qualifies as a
Planned Action Project.
9. The designated Planned Action Area is located entirely within a UGA.
10. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS and
included in Attachment F will provide for adequate public services and facilities to serve the
proposed Planned Action Area.
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 7 of 22
Attachment B: Planned Action Designated
The North End "Planned Action" designation shall apply to the area shown in the map below.
NORTH END STUDY AREA AND PLANNED ACTION AREA
:~llBERK
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 8 of 22
Date: Augu5t, 2016
Source: Dou glas County As5essor, 2015
Applications submitted for qualification as a Planned Action Project shall be reviewed pursuant to the
following process:
A. Planned Action Designation. The planned action designation shall apply to the North End Subarea of
the City of East Wenatchee Urban Growth Area (UGA) depicted in Attachment B of this ordinance;
B. Environmental Document. A planned action designation for a site-specific application shall be based
on the environmental analysis and required mitigation measures contained in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement dated October 10, 2016, and enclosed as Attachment F.
C. Planned Action Qualifications.
1. The project is located within the Planned Action Area in Attachment B.
2. The planned action designation meets the environmental thresholds in Attachment D.
3. Elements of the Environment Analyzed in the Final EIS. A project that would result in a significant
change in impacts to any of the elements of the environment identified in environmental document
referenced in subsection B above would not qualify as a planned action.
4. Time Horizon. No time horizon has been identified for termination of the planned action designation.
The provisions of the planned action shall apply until or unless the City of East Wenatchee amends or
repeals the provisions; or if environmental conditions significantly change from those analyzed in the
Final EIS, the SEPA Responsible Official may determine that the planned action designation is no longer
applicable unless additional, supplementary environmental review is conducted, regardless of the date.
D. Planned Action Review Criteria
1. Uses and activities described in Attachment D may be designated planned actions pursuant to
RCW 43.21C.440.
2. The SEPA Responsible Official or designee is authorized to designate a project application as a
Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440, if the project meets all of the following conditions:
a. The project is not otherwise exempt from SEPA; and
b. The project is consistent with the Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan, Greater
East Wenatchee Area Plan, and the North End Master Site Plan, as applicable; and
c. The project falls within the planned action qualifications identified in Section C above; and
d. The SEPA Responsible Official or designee has determined that the project's adverse impacts
are able to be mitigated through the application and/or inclusion of mitigation measures
identified in Attachment E based on the Final EIS as well as other applicable local, state or
federal requirements and conditions which together constitute sufficient mitigation for the
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project; and
e. The project complies with all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 9 of 22
E. Planned Action Permit Process. The Responsible SEPA Official or their designee shall review projects
and determine whether they meet the criteria as planned actions under applicable local, state and
federal laws, regulations, codes and ordinances. The review procedure shall consist, at a minimum of
the following:
1. Development application will meet the requirements of the East Wenatchee Municipal Code and
shall be made on forms provided by the City. At a minimum Planned Action Project Applicants shall
submit a SEPA Checklist form and supporting documentation, provided on City required forms.
2. The Responsible SEPA Official or designee shall determine whether the application is complete as
provided in EWMC Title 19.
3. After the City receives and reviews a complete application, the SEPA Responsible Official or
designee shall determine, utilizing the criteria and procedures contained in Section D above and
WAC 197-11-172, whether the project qualifies as a planned action. If the project does qualify as a
planned action, the Responsible SEPA Official or designee shall mail or otherwise verifiably deliver
said determination to the applicant; the owner of the property as listed on the application; and
federally recognized tribal governments and agencies with jurisdiction over the Planned Action
Project, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. Following the determination, the project shall proceed in
accordance with the appropriate permit procedures, except that no additional SEPA review,
threshold determination or EIS will be required.
4. If a project is determined not to be a planned action, the Responsible SEPA Official or designee
shall issue a 11 Determination of Inconsistency" and shall mail or otherwise verifiably deliver said
determination to the applicant; the owner of the property as listed on the application; and federally
recognized tribal governments and agencies with jurisdiction over the Planned Action Project,
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. Based on the determination, the SEPA Responsible Official shall
prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with City SEPA procedures and state law. The notice
to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a
planned action.
5. Projects disqualified as a planned action may use or incorporate relevant elements of the
environmental review analysis in the Final EIS prepared for the Planned Action, as well as other
environmental review documents to assist in meeting SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible
Official may choose to limit the scope of the SEPA review to those issues and environmental impacts
not previously addressed in the EIS.
6. Public notice and review for qualified Planned Action Projects shall be tied to the underlying
project permit(s).
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 10 of 22
Attachment D -Environmental Thresholds
The following thresholds shall be used to determine if a site-specific development proposed within the
Planned Action Area was contemplated as a Planned Action Project and has had its environmental
impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS:
A. QUALIFYING LAND USES.
1. Planned Action Categories: The following categories/types of land use are defined in the North End
Master Site Plan and can qualify as Planned Actions, when:
a. it is within the Planned Action Area as shown in Attachment B of this Ordinance; and
b. it is within one or more of the land use categories in the Final EIS:
i. Resort/Hospitality
ii. Business Park
iii. Wine Village
iv. Office
v. Institutional
vi. Retail
vii. Commercial Recreation; and
c. it is listed in development regulations applicable to the zoning classifications applied to properties
within the Planned Action Area.
2. Stand-alone or Mixed Uses: A Planned Action Project may be a single Planned Action land use or a
combination of Planned Action land uses together in a mixed-use development.
3. Accessory Uses: Planned Action land uses may include accessory uses.
4. Essential Public Facilities: A planned action must not include an essential public facility as defined by
RCW 36.70A.200, unless the essential public facility is accessory to or part of a development that is
designated as a Planned Action Project under this Ordinance.
5. A Planned Action Project is consistent with the general concept of the North End Master Site Plan land
use plan and upland of shoreline jurisdiction.
B. DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS:
1. Land Use: The following new land uses are contemplated by the Planned Action:
Table D-1. Comparison of Alternative Growth Levels
Uses
Dwellings
Dwelling Square Feet
Resort/Hospitality Rooms
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 11of22
I
Preferred
Alternative
227
327 ,522
544
I
Preferred
Uses Alternative
Resort/Hospitality Square Feet 820,012
Business Park or Winery Square Feet 1,437 ,600
Office Square Feet 679,039
Institutional Square Feet 536 ,803
Retail Square Feet 269 ,782
Commercial Recreation 87,564
Under-building Parking 441,292
Total Square Feet 4,599,614
Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, BERK Consulting 2016
2. Shifting development amounts between land uses in identified in Subsection B.1 is permitted when
the total build -out is less than the aggregate amount of development reviewed in the Planned Action
EIS; the traffic trips and downstream sewer capacity thresholds are not exceeded; and, the development
impacts identified in the Planned Action EIS are mitigated consistent with Attachment E.
3. Further environmental review may be required pursuant to Attachment C, if any individual Planned
Action Project or combination of Planned Action Projects exceeds the development thresholds specified
in this Ordinance and/or alter the assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS.
C. TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLDS:
1. Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The number of new PM peak hour trips anticipated in the Planned Action
Area and reviewed in the Planned Action EIS for 2035 is as follows:
Table D-2. PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Full lntensi -Preferred 1,748 3, 116 4,486
Source: Transpo Group 2016
Notes: 1 Primary Trips include all project trips to the new land uses once pass-by trips have been eliminated.
2. Concurrency. All Planned Action Projects shall meet the transportation concurrency requirements
and the Level of Service (LOS) thresholds established in The Greater East Wenatchee Area
Comprehensive Plan, which requires that" ... as specified in the Growth Management Act, new
developments will be prohibited unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the
impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. Such improvements and strategies
must be in place and or financially planned for within 6 years of development use." The comprehensive
plan also states that the level of service threshold was set at LOS D, and that any intersection operating
at LOS E or F would be deficient.
3. Traffic Mitigation Fees.
a. Traffic mitigation fees shall be paid consistent with Attachment E. Such fees shall be based on a PM
peak hour per trip calculation consistent with Mitigation Measure 17 in in Attachment E and the manual
identified Attachment D, Section C.5.a below. The mitigation fee shall be payable at the time of building
permit issuance. For projects that require longer-term construction periods prior to occupancy and
impacts to the transportation system, the City may allow for the mitigation fee to be paid prior to the
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 12 of 22
issuance of occupancy permits subject to a construction schedule and supporting information provided
to the satisfaction of the City.
b. Planned action project documentation shall be submitted as required in Attachment D, Section C.4
below. Such project documentation shall consider each development's direct impact on North End
Master Site Plan transportation improvements.
c. The City shall earmark mitigation fee receipts and retain them in an interest-bearing account,
expending them on projects identified in the North End Master Site Plan Exhibit 4.1 2. Conceptual Road
Network Cost Estimates, 2016$ and listed below in Table D-3.
Table D-3. Conceptual Road Network Cost Estimates, 2016$
Transportation Improvement Estimated Cost Secured Proportionate
I
Study Area
Description (Douglas Funds as of Share* Costs
County 2016$) 2016
1 I East Bound Off Ramp $8,319,700 80% $ 6,655,760
2 West Bound On Ramp $2,934,300 1 80% $ 2,347,440
3 RAB @ 35th Street $890,800 ! 100% $ 890,800 ..
4 RAB @ 38th Street $1,426,500 I 100% $1,426,500 I
I
5 I RAB @ Off Ramp $1,056,900 : 80% $ 845,520
6 RAB@ On Ramp $979,900 1 80% $783,920
I I
7 I 38th Street Extension $2,179,600 100% $2,179,600
8 35th Street Extension $1,939,800 1 $1,172,075 96% $737,016
I
9 Empire Ave-Goldcrest -38th $5,697,300 90% $ 5,127,570
10 Empire Ave-38th -Cascade $5,822,200 I 100% $5,822,200
I
11 RAB @ SR 28 & 35th $1,310,000 I 100% $1,310,000 -
12 RAB @ SR 28 & 38th s1,310,ooo 1 100% $1,310,000
' Total $33,867,000 $1,172,075 $29,436,326
I -----Note: *Share of cost based on percentage of Project Area Trips, Available Funds, Regional Need. Other improvements such as
internal circulation within the Wine Village and a roundabout at the intersection of 35th/NW Empire/Wine Village circulation
road may be constructed as part of development requirements.
Legend: RAB= Roundabout
Source: Douglas County, Transpo Group, BERK Consulting 2016
d. The City shall provide a credit for the value of dedication or improvement to or new construction of
any system improvements provided by the developer per subsection C.3.c above. The applicant shall be
entitled to a credit for the value of the land or actual costs of capital facility construction against the fee
that would be chargeable under the formula in Attachment E Mitigation Measure 17.
i. The dedication, improvement, or construction shall be conducted at suitable sites and constructed at
acceptable quality as determined by the County/City. Such improvement or construction shall be
completed, dedicated, or otherwise transferred to the City prior to the determination and award of a
credit.
ii. The value of a credit for right of way and easements shall be established on a case-by-case basis by an
appraiser selected by, or acceptable to the City. The appraiser must be licensed in good standing by the
State of Washington for the category of the property appraised. The appraisal shall be in accord with the
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 13 of 22
most recent version of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and shall be subject to
review and acceptance by City. The appraisal and review shall be at the expense of the applicant.
e. The current owner of property on which traffic mitigation fees have been paid may receive a refund
of such fees if the mitigation fees have not been expended or encumbered within 10 years of receipt of
mitigation fees, unless the City has made a written finding that extraordinary or compelling reasons exist
to extend the time for expending or encumbering the mitigation fees.
4. The Responsible SEPA Official or their designee shall require documentation by Planned Action Project
applicants demonstrating that the total trips identified in C.1 are not exceeded, that the project meets
the concurrency and intersection standards C.2, and that the project has mitigated impacts consistent
with Subsection C.3.
5. Discretion.
a. The Responsible SEPA Official or their designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and
total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual
(latest edition) as presented in Draft EIS Exhibit 3.4 7. Full Intensity North End Master Site Plan Parcel
Breakdown or an alternative manual accepted by the City's Engineer at his or her sole discretion, for
each project permit application proposed under this Planned Action.
b. The Responsible SEPA Official or their designee shall have discretion to condition Planned Action
Project applications to meet the provisions of this Planned Action Ordinance and the City development
regulations.
c. The Responsible SEPA Official or their designee shall have the discretion to adjust the allocation of
responsibility for required improvements between individual Planned Action Projects based upon their
identified impacts.
0. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
1. Planned Action Project applicants shall demonstrate consistency with the utility plans of the North
End Master Site Plan.
2. The following public services, infrastructure, and utilities can qualify as Planned Actions as determined
by the Responsible SEPA Official or their designee: onsite roads, utilities, parks, trails, and similar
facilities when developed consistent with the Planned Action EIS mitigation measures, County, City, and
special district design standards, shoreline and critical area regulations, and the Douglas County Code
and East Wenatchee Municipal Code as applicable.
3. Planned Action Projects do not include stormwater conveyances or in-water out falls to the Columbia
River within the shoreline buffer.
4. Sewer: The downstream conveyance system has capacity for approximately 800 to 1,000 gallons per
minute of peak hour flows, and shall not be exceeded individually or cumulatively by Planned Action
Projects. Provided that an applicant may fund offsite improvements at the discretion of the service
provider to mitigate impacts.
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 14 of 22
I
Attachment E -Final EIS Mitigation Measures
The Planned Action EIS has identified significant beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to
occur with the future development of the Planned Action Area, together with a number of possible
measures to mitigate those significant adverse impacts. Please see Final EIS Chapter 1 Summary for a
description of impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts .
The mitigation measures in this Attachment shall apply to Planned Action Project applications that are
consistent with the Alternative range reviewed in the Planned Action EIS and which are located within
the Planned Action Area (see Attachment B).
Where a mitigation measure includes the words "shall" or "will," inclusion of that measure in Planned
Action Project application plans is mandatory in order to qualify as a Planned Action Project. Where
"should" or "would" appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a
source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as a Planned
Action Project. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of
plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc., are the
responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform.
Any and all references to decisions to be made or actions to be taken by the City's SEPA Responsible
Official may also be performed by the City's SEPA Responsible Official's authorized designee.
Table E-1. Matrix of Mitigation Measures
# Topic Mitigation Measure
Natural Environment I
1. Wetlands, Waters of the United To be cons idered a planned action, proposed development shall leave intact the
States , Shoreline , and Critical Areas riparian corridor , Columbia River, and associated wetlands. Where properties overlap
these critical areas and shorelines, such areas may be identified in a conservation
covenant or other preservation mechanisms as part of subdivision or binding site plan
approval. The unnamed tributary would likely be impacted from a new road extension .
Once impacts for construction of the arterial streets and other infrastructure (i.e.
utilities) are determined , the remaining riparian corridor may be identified in a
conservation covenants or other preservation mechanisms to protect the area in
perpetuity . In any case, The County or City shall apply shoreline and critical area
standards to protect regulated environmental resources .
2. Plants Upland vegetation removed during construct ion shall be replaced to the extent feasible .
1 Temporary fencing shall be installed around areas of wetland , intermittent drainage ,
and riparian habitat. Public landscaped areas, stormwater bio-swales, and .other ~reen
I
I
I
l-3.-+---An-im-als-
space areas associated with the development shall generally be planted with native
grasses , groundcovers, trees , and shrubs to the extent feasible to maximize wildlife
habitat and minimize needed maintenance and excess water use.
To avoid the introduction of noxious weeds to the project study area, no plants
designated as "noxious weeds " by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board
shall be used for landscaping. Additionally , no mulch with the potential to con tain viable
seeds from a designated noxious weed shall be used in the study area.
Mitigation measures include the avoidance of critical areas and buffers to the greatest J
extent practicable. If feasible, vegetation removal activities shall occur outside of the
nestin season a roximatel Ma rch throu h Se tember for migrato birds . No
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 15 of 22
r 4. Water Resources
I
Land and Shoreline Use and Policies
5. Urban Design Principles
6. General Commercial Buffer
7. Transition Standards
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 16 of 22
active nests shall be disturbed without a permit or other authorization from the U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Lighting shall optimize the use of downward directed low-pressure sodium lighting to
minimize lighting effects on migratory birds . No strobe lights shall be used except as
required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation.
If existing inactive migratory bird nests are removed during construction, future project
applicants shall contact Douglas County and the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife to determine if additional perch poles should be installed along the shoreline to
replace lost nesting habitat.
If bald eagles or golden eagles are observed in the immediate project area during the
construction period, the future project applicants shall contact the USFWS and/or
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to determine whether further
consultation is necessary.
When site disturbance is greater than 1-acre construction activities shall obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction permit
from the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). A stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP), shall be prepared and approved by Ecology when site
disturbance is greater than 1-acre. The SWPPP shall describe construction practices,
stabilization techniques, and structural BMPs that are to be implemented to prevent
erosion and minimize sediment transport as outlined above.
In accordance with the NPDES General Construction permit, a sampling and
1 monitoring program shall be developed and implemented to assess the quality of
surface water entering and leaving the project study area during construction. At a
minimum, sampling sites shall include a location above all proposed development and
a location downstream of all development. Analysis shall include total suspended
1 solids, oils, and greases .
I
Permanent stormwater systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
Douglas County Code and the Stormwater Manual for Eastern Washington . Stormwater
shall be collected, treated, and managed on-site . Infiltration and other low impact
I
development (LID) strategies and techniques for stormwater shall be implemented to
the extent feasible. Native planting shall be required for disturbed soils within the study
1 area to the extent feasible .
Planned Actions shall demonstrate consistency with the Greater East Wenatchee
Urban Growth Area Design Standards & Guidelines in effect at the time of application J
and compatibility with the Master Site Plan Exhibit 3.2 -1. Design Principles.
In the portions of the study area zoned General Commercial, future development under 1
the subarea plan shall provide a 50-foot transition buffer along the southern boundary
of the study area . The buffer area should include Type I landscaping screening along
any property line that abuts residential zoning, consistent with Section 20.40.030 of the
Douglas County Code or Section 17.72.080 of the East Wenatchee Municipal Code
depending on the agency with jurisdiction . The landscaped area may be used for any of
the following features:
Stormwater detention, infiltration , or conveyance ponds or swales;
Bicycle and pedestrian trail features that form part of an on-site non-motorized
circulation system;
Programmed open space, including lawn or park areas, gardens, and orchards; or
Passive open space, including native vegetation protection or habitat
enhancement.
To reduce adverse visual effects where higher-intensity development abuts lower-
intensity development, all development under the North End Master Site Plan located
on property that abuts a residential zone, but which is not covered by the General
Commercial buffer requirement established above, shall apply two or more of the
1 following transition design standards .
I • Within 50 feet of residential zoning , limit building heights to 35 feet; __J
# Topic j Mitigation Measure _
8. Environmental Health I Agricultural
Use
I
Cultural Resources
9.
10 .
r 11 1
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 17 of 22
Provide a Type I landscaping buffer, as defined by Section 20.40.030 of the
Douglas County Code or Section 17 .72.080 of the East Wenatchee Municipal
Code, along any property boundary that abuts a residential zone ;
Provide a decorative screening wall or fence , at least 6 feet in height , along any
property boundary that abuts a residential zone ;
Where a rear-yard setback abuts a residential zone, increase the standard
setback distance to 50 feet; or I
Where a property boundary that abuts a residential zone is characterized by I
significant mature native vegetation, preserve such vegetation and implement a
building setback of at least 20 feet.
Douglas County or the City of East Wenatchee as appropriate shall require the 1
following note on the face of plats or binding site plans on planned action properties
with a history of agricultural use:
"Based on historical agricultural use of this land , there is a possibility the soil
contains residual concentrations of pesticides . The Washington State Department of
Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic
and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at concentrations
above the MTCA cleanup levels, the Washington State Department of Ecology
recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence ."
This note shall not be required to be placed on the final plat or binding site plan , if the
soils are sampled by a professional with adequate credentials to verify that the site
does not contain lead and arsenic and organochlorine pesticides at concentrations
above the MTCA cleanup levels.
The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to help avoid and manage
significant impacts to recorded and as-yet unrecorded cultural resources within the
North End Study Area:
Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee, as appropriate , shall continue
coordination of cultural resource avoidance and mitigation programs for future project-
level development through formal government-to-government consultation with the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Confederated Tribes and
Bands of the Yakama Nation. During scoping , responses to this proposal were received ,
from representatives of both Tribes. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation commented that the undertaking was within the traditional territory of the
Wenatchi Tribe, one of the twelve tribes of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation , and that a cultural resources survey inclusive of subsurface testing be
undertaken and incorporated into the related EIS. The Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the Yakama Nation commented that the study area is within lands ceded by the
1 Yakama people and is in proximity to traditional food gathering area, hunting and
· fishing sites, villages , and burials . They also noted the antiqu ity of archaeology present ,
in the East Wenatchee area and the presence of known archaeological sites within the
development area. It was requested that investigation place emphasis on both
archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties. Tribes often are able to provide
additional information regarding cultural resources not documented in published
literature which can help direct cultural resources investigations and support
compliance assessments to ensure that cultural resources are not significantly
impacted by development activities.
Doug las County and the City of East Wenatchee , as appropriate, shall identify an
approach to project specific actions to ensure that recorded and unrecorded cultural
resources are not disturbed by the proposed project plans through the application of
mitigation measures 11-14. The preliminary field investigations conducted in this study
were based on a conceptual design and provide a general history of the study area and
limited insight into the subsurface conditions within tested areas proposed to be
developed .
To be considered a planned action , complete avoidance of archaeological site
45D0173 and the immed iate adjacent area shall be accomp lished due to the presence
of human burials.
# I Topic
12.
13.
14.
I
I
Transportation
15. Concurrency
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 18 of 22
I
I Mitigation Measure
Planned actions shall document and evaluate historical significance of structures within
the study area that are over 50 years old prior to development actions consistent with
the State of Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Douglas County or the City of East Wenatchee may consider partnering with existing
businesses or agencies with a strong interest in history, and which likely maintain good
historical records of the project location.
The following measures to avoid impacts to cultural resources will be required of North
End planned actions by Douglas County or the City of East Wenatchee as appropriate .
1. During the project permit review process, all project permit applications under the
Planned Action shall be forwarded by the permitting jurisdiction to the Colville
Confederated Tribes and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for
comment. If either tribe expresses concern regarding a permit application or requests
further consultation, the local government shall initiate project-based consultation with
the interested tribe to identify an appropriate level of effort to identify and avoid cultural
resources.
2. Observers from the Tribe and/or State shall be allowed to monitor development sites
during clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction.
3. Should any archaeological resources or human remains be inadvertently discovered
during grading/construction, all work that would affect the discovered resources must
be stopped until the proper authorities have been notified and appropriate steps taken
to protect the resources. The Colville Confederated Tribes and the Confederated Tribes
and Bands of the Yakama Nation shall also be immediately notified of the discovery.
Development applicants will comply with inadvertent discovery laws at RCWs
68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055. Douglas County has adopted an inadvertent
discovery protocol that outlines the measures to be implemented should an
unanticipated discovery occur. (See Table E-2)
4. Any archaeological or historic resources identified will be evaluated in consultation
with the Colville Confederated Tribe, the Confederate Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Nation, and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation standards (DAHP 2015 or as thereafter amended). If mitigation to cultural
resources is required, specific mitigation steps will be developed through consultation
with the aforementioned parties.
5. In addition to the consultation that occurs with the Tribes during project permit review
process, prior to any excavation, grading, or construction within the Master Site Plan
area below a depth of 40 centimeters below surface in the area between Apple Capital
I Loop/Rocky Reach Trail and NW Empire, and below a depth of 80 centimeters below
surface in the area east of NW Empire Ave, it shall be the responsibility of the t
developer to notify the Colville Confederated Tribes, Confederated Tribes and Bands of '
the Yakama Nation, and the State of Washington by certified mail regarding project
based consultation. It is understood that no development is proposed west of the Apple
Capital Loop/Rocky Reach Trail under the Planned Action, and the project will not
physically impact recorded archaeology. It is also understood that archaeological site
45D0173 and the immediate adjacent area will be completely avoided under fhe
Planned Action. State or Tribal personnel shall be afforded the opportunity to observe
clearing and grubbing activities if deemed necessary per #2 above .
6. The above required notifications shall be made 15 days prior to any construction
and/or placement of utilities. Said notice shall indicate the type of infrastructure,
location, amount of excavation, depth, and documentation on the manner in which
consideration is being given to cultural resource discoveries.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any approved operation on a
development site, the developer must submit a site plan indicating the location of all
utilities, roads, and structures.
The Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan requires that " ... as specified
in the Growth Management Act, new developments will be prohibited unless
transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development
are made concurrent with the development. Such improvements and strategies must I
# I Topic J Mitigation Measure
16. Transportation Network
17. Transportation Mitigation Fee
be in place and or financially planned for within 6 years of development use." The
Comprehensive Plan also states that the level of service threshold was set at LOS D,
and that any intersection operating at LOS E or F would be deficient. Therefore,
developers are responsible for roadway improvements that bring intersection
operations within concurrency if their development would result in enough induced
traffic to cause any intersection to operate above LOS D. All intersections analyzed in
the study do not fall below a level of service D with noted improvements.
Transportation improvements identified in Master Site Plan Section 3.4 as necessary to
support development of the North End at adopted level of service standards shall be in
place at the time of development or within six years if improvements are included in a
six-year capital facility plan and funding is secured .
Planned actions shall pay transportation trip mitigation fees in effect at the time of
application to support implementation of the Master Site Plan transportation
improvements consistent with Attachment D, subsection C.
Unless amended, or replaced with a transportation impact fee, mitigation fees
consistent with the proportionate share of costs excluding the interchange shall be
applied to planned action applications :
PM Peak Hour Trip Costs -Pending Balance of Public and Private Shares
Sc~nario _ _ --·--~o~t ~a ~~ _ ~e~ T!~P _ ___ j
Study Area Share W/O ramps -75% $14, 102, 765 $3, 144
Full Intensity Trips PM Peak Hour: 4,486 I
Source: Douglas County, The Transpo Group, BERK Consulting 2016
t--~~-+-~~~~~----~-~~~--11---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
18. Nonmotorized Connections
Public Services
19. Police Protection
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 19 of 22
All public streets shall be designed to incorporate sidewalks consistent with County and
City street standards. Some street standards show a range of sidewalk widths. Where
pedestrian activity is anticipated to be greatest, wider sidewalks should be
implemented.
Arterial or collector streets shall accommodate bicycles consistent with adopted County
and City road standards and adopted bicycle reginal guidelines.
Properties abutting the Apple Capital Loop Trail or Rocky Reach Trail or their spurs
shall be consistent with the Douglas County Loop Trail Overlay including standards for
fencing, trail access, landscaping, and setbacks from the trail.
The following on-site pedestrian walkway standards shall be met by each development:
• A comprehensive system of pedestrian walkways shall link together all site
entrances, building entries, parking facilities, and common outdoor spaces with
the sidewalk system in the public right-of-way.
• Pedestrian walkways shall be reinforced with pedestrian-scale lighting, bollard
lighting, landscaping, accent lighting, signage, or a combination thereof to aid in
pedestrian way-finding.
• Each parcel shall provide pedestrian walkways that provide for connections from
public rights of way through the subject property to the regional trail system that ,
when connected with other properties, will facilitate east-west travel to and from
the regional trail system. For every 1,320 feet of street frontage, on average, a
pathway to the regional trail system shall be provided. The walkway must connect
with walkways located on other properties established in accordance with this
condition. Distances may vary from exactly 1,320 feet to accommodate linking
adjacent developments on a case-by-case basis.
The County sheriff or City police department , as appropriate, shall continue to monitor
police services and the Level of Service standard to ensure that staffing levels and
equipment needs align with changing demand . Existing Level of Service is based on
residential population, but the North End site will have a significant amount of non-
residential activity. The County sheriff or City policy department, as appropriate , shall
be provided the opportunity to review planned action development applications and
consider any specialized needs that may be generated by the proposed mix of uses.
# Topic I Mitigation Measure
20. Fire Protection Fire and emergency medical services shall be available concurrent with new
development. Fire service providers shall continue to monitor fire protection services
and the level of service standard to ensure that staffing levels and equipment needs
I
align with the changing demand. In addition, the County and City shall provide
opportunities for the fire district to review the proposed development plans and
consider any anticipated specialized needs from the uses proposed. ·
!---; Schools The School District shall monitor how the residential development of North End I 21 .. the phasing plan and should keep track of future student enrollment that may
generated from development of the site. Capital planning by the District, as well as
regular updates of the County and City Comprehensive Plans should allow for
advanced planning prior to growth. If residential uses are proposed with a planned
action, the County and City shall provide opportunities for the school district to review
the proposed development plans and consider any anticipated specialized needs from
the uses proposed.
-
22., Parks Planned actions shall be consistent with the Eastmont Metropolitan Parks and
I Recreation District Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and the County and City
Comprehensive Plans regarding parks and recreation levels of service.
On-site public common space is also required in the Greater East Wenatchee UGA
Design Guidelines, applicable to commercial, mixed-use and multiple family
development such as that proposed in Hospitality, Retail, and Wine Village Areas.:
Utilities
23. For all development activities payment of system development charges, and
connection fees is considered mitigation for use of source/supply, and discharge
capacities. Ongoing usage rates are intended for the additional maintenance and
operations costs associated with the extension of the utility and use of the distribution
and conveyance systems. The SEPA Responsible Official may condition development
to pay its proportionate share of utility costs identified in the North End Master Site
Plan.
Power, Gas and Telecommunications
i 24. Co-location and undergrounding of Planned actions shall co-locate power and telecommunications facilities and
I power and telecommunication utilities underground such utilities. Subdivisions are required to have utilities underground per
i
L
25.
Cultural Resources Inadvertent
Discovery Protocol
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 20 of 22
East Wenatchee Municipal Code (Chapter 12.16) and Douglas County Code (Section
17.20 .040.D).
Where it is not practical to underground telecommunication facilities, appropriate
landscaping and stealth design shall be utilized by planned action projects to minimize
their visual impacts on their surroundings.
Table E-2. Cultural Resources Inadvertent Discovery Plan
Douglas County or the City of East Wenatchee shall condition planned actions to be compliant with
the following inadvertent discovery protocols. In the event of the inadvertent discovery of any
resource covered by the following protocols, the developer shall immediately notify the city or
county with jurisdiction over the site, who shall then notify the Confederated Tribes and Bands of
the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation as soon as possible.
I If non-human archaeological materials are discovered:
Construction activities that may further disturb the discovered material shall cease, and the
area of the find will be secured.
• The discovery shall be reported to the city or county with jurisdiction over the site and to the
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) in the most expeditious manner
possible. DAHP will then coordinate consultation with affected tribes regarding future
preservation and excavation of the discovered materials.
If human skeletal remains are discovered:
I
I
I
I
I
Description Protocol
Contacts
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 21of22
If ground disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of
construction, then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains.
The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance.
• The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the county medical
examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The
remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed.
The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal
remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic.
If the county medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they
will report that finding to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP)
who will then take jurisdiction over the remains. The DAHP will notify any appropriate
cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a
determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any
appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation
with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the
remains.
Steven M. Clem, Douglas County Prosecuting Attorney/Coroner ·
Phone: (509) 7 45-8535
Fax: (509) 745-8670
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 360
Waterville, WA 98858
Physical Address:
203 S. Rainier Street
Waterville, WA 98858
sclem@co .douglas.wa.us
Douglas County Sheriffs Office
110 N.E. 2nd Street Suite 200
East Wenatchee, WA 98802
(509) 884-0941
East Wenatchee Police Department
271 9th St. N.E.
1
East Wenatchee, WA 98802
(509) 884-9511 I
I ! Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, DAHP
I
(360) 586-3534
Guy.Tasa@dahp .wa .gov ~J
City of East Wenatchee
Ordinance 2016-16
Page 22 of 22
Appendix B: Street Standards – Typical Street Sections for Public Roads
Appendix C: Alignment Options – 35th Street NW-NW Empire Avenue to
NW Cascade Avenue