Commission reviews three 'net‑zero' UGA swap options under new state law; county sign‑off required

The Leavenworth Planning Commission heard a briefing on three draft Urban Growth Area (UGA) swap options on March 5 from Emily Weimer, a planning consultant with AHBL. The consultation used new state legislation that allows a "net‑zero" UGA swap during periodic review to exchange acreage while meeting statutory criteria.

Why it matters: Revising the UGA changes which unincorporated lands are slated for future urban services and higher density development, which affects utility planning, annexation potential and long‑term housing capacity.

What staff presented Emily Weimer (AHBL planning consultant) summarized three swap alternatives: - Option 1 (mid‑scale): roughly 130 acres involving a north addition area and two removal areas to the west and south; net acreage loss of about 7.3 acres. The addition parcels include larger lots and a city‑owned water reservoir; removal areas include designated forest lands and a wetland. - Option 2 (large): roughly 378 acres with a larger net loss (~72 acres). This adds a second northern addition and removes an extended western area characterized by forest, wetlands, erosion hazards and poor road access. - Option 3 (small): a pared‑down alternative of about 27 acres that minimizes critical‑area impacts and results in a net loss of about 7 acres.

Emily said the new statutory process requires evaluation against eight statutory criteria (the memo summarizes those criteria) and that, if the city selects an option, the county would make the final decision as part of its comprehensive plan periodic review.

Commissioner questions and public input - Tax and value concerns: Commissioner Simon Ferrer asked about the tax‑revenue implications of swapping high‑value riverfront parcels; commissioners noted that assessed value and utility feasibility (especially sewer) are relevant to whether particular parcels make sense to include. - Utilities and connectivity: Commissioners repeatedly raised sewer and water access as practical constraints. Staff said some proposed additions are closer to existing city services and would be candidates for infill or redevelopment; other removal areas are wetlands, forest lands or have poor road connectivity, so extending services there would be infeasible. - Local constraints and ownership: Multiple commissioners said private ownership patterns and recent investments (for example, a recent multi‑million dollar renovation on one orchard parcel) affect whether land is likely to be redeveloped. Commissioners recommended avoiding large, remote swaths that are unlikely to change and instead prioritizing parcels with logical road and utility connections.

Next steps Staff framed the three options as starting points. The planning commission will forward comments and a recommended option to the city council, which will make a local decision to pursue a swap; any approved swap must then be submitted to Chelan County for final approval through the county’s periodic review process. Staff expected follow‑up with the county and additional map refinements before council action.

Quotes "I am Emily Weimer from AHBL planning consultant. I'm here in our Tri Cities Pasco office," Emily Weimer said as she opened the presentation. "Has there been a, assessment on the tax implications of this?" Commissioner Simon Ferrer asked, noting that some parcels under consideration have high assessed values.

Ending Commissioners asked staff to refine options, removing or shrinking parcels clearly constrained by wetlands, erosion or ownership barriers and to return with a map that better aligns likely utility connectivity and redevelopment potential before council consideration. City staff and the consultant noted the county has the final legal authority for any UGA revision.