Public hearing draws mixed response to Leavenworth substation proposal

LEAVENWORTH — A proposal by Chelan County Public Utility District to rebuild and expand an electrical substation on Chumstick Highway prompted a mix of support and concern from residents during a public hearing April 7.

Hearing Examiner Andy Kottkamp presided over the meeting, which addressed two related applications: a conditional use permit for a new substation at 222 Chumstick Highway and a request to remove a 1985 planned development overlay from the property.

Kottkamp said he will issue a written decision within 10 working days. The decision may be appealed within 21 days under the Land Use Petition Act.

City planning staff recommended approval of both requests, noting the project aligns with the city’s comprehensive plan and municipal code. Utility substations are an allowed use in the general commercial zoning district, and staff said the existing overlay is outdated and unnecessary.

The proposal calls for rebuilding the substation on a new one-acre footprint within the PUD’s nearly 12-acre site, directly south of the current facility. Plans include installing two 28 MVA transformers, along with associated switchgear, breakers and supporting infrastructure. Once complete, the existing substation would be demolished and operations shifted to the new facility.

Staff said the project is needed to address growing electricity demand in the Leavenworth area.

Public comments submitted ahead of the hearing and testimony during the meeting reflected a range of views. While many residents acknowledged the need for reliable power, they raised concerns about the project’s location, environmental impacts and long-term planning.

Some residents said the proposal should be evaluated in the context of broader system needs, including wildfire risk and future use of the PUD’s property. Others questioned how the project might affect drainage and flooding in the area, urging a more comprehensive review of stormwater design.

Concerns were also raised about potential health impacts, visual changes and the loss of mature vegetation. Residents emphasized the importance of preserving neighborhood character and green space, and some requested additional landscaping, screening or opportunities for community input on final design elements.

Several commenters also called for a more detailed alternatives analysis, asking the PUD to demonstrate that it had fully considered less impactful locations within its existing site.

Throughout the hearing, Kottkamp reminded participants that his role is to determine whether the proposal complies with applicable regulations, rather than to weigh broader policy questions.

After closing public testimony, he noted there were “a lot of things to look at and think about” and thanked residents for their participation.

The final decision will determine whether the project can move forward under the proposed conditions.