Spokane County planning staff say rural areas need about 6,200 housing units; residents say capacity questions remain

Spokane County planners told residents at a virtual open house that state-required housing allocations and federal and county studies indicate roughly 6,200 housing units will be needed in rural areas by 2046, and staff outlined rural land classifications and environmental constraints that will shape where that housing can go.

The housing tally comes from the Department of Commerce "Housing for All" planning tool and the county's use of Office of Financial Management population projections; planners said the tool accounts for an existing shortage of units and that the county is using a medium-growth scenario. "We're looking at 6,200 units in our rural area," said Scott Chesney of Spokane County Planning.

The figure was immediately disputed by public commenters who said the presentation mixed a needs analysis with capacity planning. Julia, identifying herself as a West Plains resident in the Palisades neighborhood, told planners: "This is a needs analysis. It's not a capacity analysis... you do not have a really finely tuned idea of what the existing conditions are out here." She urged the county to update critical-area maps, aquifer vulnerability mapping, and soil data before identifying where new housing can be placed.

Why it matters: local housing goals set under the Growth Management Act (GMA, RCW 36.70A) must be reconciled with environmental protections (including the State Environmental Policy Act, SEPA) and with the county's comprehensive plan goals. Planners said the rural lands element audit underway will restate vision and goals for rural areas and will feed into an environmental impact statement that examines alternatives and constraints.

Key details from the presentation included: the county is using the Department of Commerce's Housing for All allocation (which breaks need down by income bands), an estimated county median household income of about $73,000, and an explanation that the allocation anticipates demand across income bands (for example, the 50% AMI threshold was described at roughly $36,000 and 80% AMI at roughly $60,000). Planners also said that rural zoning includes a range of designations — rural traditional (about 1 dwelling unit / 10 acres), rural conservation (1 / 20 acres), urban reserve, and rural activity centers — and that finding sites consistent with those density rules to accommodate thousands of units will be difficult.

Public commenters raised alternatives and process issues. Julia and others pointed to large amounts of vacant commercial and industrial square footage (for example, retail and mall space) and asked the county to prioritize reuse and infill in areas that already have infrastructure (water, sewer, roads) before expanding into rural lands. Planners acknowledged that the Commerce-derived number is a needs tally and said capacity analysis (where housing could realistically be sited) remains to be done and will factor in critical-area constraints, infrastructure availability, and concurrency with service providers.

Planners also described concurrency and the linkage of services to growth: transportation, water and sewer, schools and fire districts — all of which will be studied in the environmental review and in six‑year capital plans when applicable. Scott Chesney said the county is pursuing updates to its critical-areas ordinance and related mapping, and promised more information at upcoming planning commission meetings and a county website posting of the slide deck.

The meeting record shows several residents urged a slower, more data-driven approach: updating groundwater and contamination (PFAS and other pollutants) mapping on the West Plains; mapping of soils and aquifer pathways; and clearer capacity mapping that distinguishes vacant rural parcels from land used for grazing, infiltration, and rural lifestyles. Planners said the rural element chapter audit and the EIS process are intended to incorporate that information.

Looking ahead: county staff said the planning commission will continue the urban growth area (UGA) discussion at a separate meeting and that subsequent sessions will dig deeper into resource lands (agriculture) and critical areas. The rural lands element audit and EIS will be the vehicles for reconciling housing needs with environmental limits and infrastructure capacity.

Ending: No formal decisions or votes were taken at the open house; staff described the session as an informational step in a multi‑year comprehensive-plan update and invited public follow-up and submission of materials.