Spokane County planning staff presented a status update and the first parcel‑level evaluation under the environmental‑impact‑statement (EIS) work for the 2026 comprehensive‑plan update at the Oct. 2 Planning Commission meeting. The presentation described two growth “bookend” alternatives, explained the mapping and eligibility criteria used for potential urban growth area (UGA) expansions, and opened the floor for extended public comment from landowners and neighborhood representatives.

Planning staff described the EIS approach as testing two bookend alternatives — a “no action/infill” end and a second alternative that emphasizes place‑making and blended neighborhood development — to provide a defensible range of outcomes for the Board of County Commissioners. Scott Chesney, who led the county presentation, told commissioners: “This is another beginning step, but it's the middle of a long journey.” He summarized required housing allocations the county must plan for and emphasized that the Growth Management Act (GMA) and implementing Washington Administrative Code (WAC) criteria constrain how the county may expand its UGAs.

Staff explained the first round of parcel screening used seven practical criteria, including adjacency to the existing UGA, proximity to sewer and water, and a working minimum parcel size (initially 10 acres). Chesney said the map is interactive on the county website and represents a first cut; he repeatedly emphasized that combinations of adjacent parcels and additional field‑level checks (for example, whether a sewer stub actually exists) will refine the results.

The presentation highlighted related legal and implementation constraints. Chesney cited a recent Mercer Island hearings‑board decision that found the city’s comprehensive‑plan approach did not show feasible implementation for required lower‑income housing bands; the board required a demonstrable financing or implementation mechanism rather than leaving the work entirely to market forces. Chesney said that ruling “adds a twist” and will force counties to be more rigorous about how plans translate into implementable actions.

A large portion of the meeting was public comment from landowners and neighborhood representatives asking that specific parcels be included in the EIS study area. At least a dozen speakers said their parcels meet the stated screening criteria: examples included letters of interest from 92 landowners, and several speakers provided parcel numbers and technical materials in writing. Speakers asked staff to recheck sewer proximity, treat combined parcels as a single assemblage when appropriate, and reconsider whether a 10‑acre minimum should be reduced to 5 acres to add more eligible sites. Several landowners also volunteered conceptual plans for mixed‑use neighborhoods they said would accommodate multiple income bands.

Commissioners asked technical questions about how parcel scoring and utility‑provider willingness would be incorporated. Staff answered that utility districts and other service providers will be consulted; developers typically install infrastructure but the county must assess whether systemwide capacity (interceptors, treatment plants, schools) can absorb proposed growth under its capital‑facilities planning. Chesney also acknowledged environmental constraints — notably West Plains aquifer issues, paleo channels and PFAS contamination in certain parts of the county — and said those factors will be addressed as the critical‑areas ordinance and EIS work proceed in parallel.

The meeting closed with scheduling and process notes: four community open houses are set for mid‑October in different parts of the county; staff invited written materials from landowners and said the mapping and criteria will be refined in subsequent runs.

Votes at a glance: During this meeting commissioners approved the minutes of the Sept. 11 meeting. Commissioner Clyde Hasey moved to adopt the minutes; Commissioner Pete Rainer seconded. The commission voted unanimously in favor (aye: Commissioners Camporelli, Hasey, Rainer and Poe).