Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Uga topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New housing rules force Spokane County to re-check land capacity; alternatives will test zoning, UGA swaps
Summary
Consultants told attendees the county must now plan housing capacity by income band, not just overall units, and that this change requires reassessing future land use maps, urban growth area (UGA) boundaries and zoning. Scoping comments will inform alternatives that test different ways to meet housing, jobs and population targets.
Spokane County consultants told a public webinar that recent Growth Management Act changes mean the county must plan and show capacity for housing by income band, and that requirement is a principal reason the county is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as part of its 2026 comprehensive plan update.
The consultants said the shift from planning only for overall housing or population to planning by income band requires a detailed re-evaluation of the future land use map, urban growth areas (UGAs) and zoning capacity. That work will examine whether UGAs need boundary adjustments, whether targeted rezones are required, and how much realistic development capacity exists inside current urban growth boundaries.
Consultants described the overall growth assumptions the county is using for unincorporated areas: "the county over the next 20 years ... will be planning for approximately 35,000 more people, 23,000 more housing units, and 10,000 new jobs." (presenters said these are planning targets used to develop alternatives). The team said alternatives developed this summer will examine different ways of accommodating that growth, including changes in allowable heights, permitted uses, and zoning that increase capacity, and that alternatives must still meet statutory obligations under the Growth Management Act.
Presenters said some likely changes to UGAs may take the form of swaps (replacing one area with another) rather than net acreage expansion; they noted the county's working hypothesis is that total UGA acreage could shrink while being better positioned to direct growth to appropriate locations. The team emphasized alignment with cities and with capital facilities and utilities planning as alternatives are formed.
What the EIS alternatives will test: consultants listed the kinds of development and regulatory shifts that will be examined across alternatives: rezones or density increases, changes to height or dimensional standards, zoning to support different housing types by income band, and adjustments to urban growth area boundaries or swaps. They said alternatives are intended to provide a range of options so the county can analyze environmental impacts, identify mitigation and then select a preferred path.
Public comment role: presenters asked that scoping comments flag the environmental topics and geographic areas the public and agencies want analyzed; the consulting team said they will use those scoping inputs when drafting the alternatives this summer and refining the DEIS later in the year.
Less critical detail: the consultants noted there will be a five-year check-in process after plan adoption to compare actual growth to planned capacity and that market factors are applied in land quantity analyses because not every parcel that has theoretical capacity will actually develop during the planning period.
