Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County, cities debate growth targets and housing allocations in comprehensive-plan workshop
Summary
Planners and consultants presented a proposed countywide population projection, the new HAPT housing allocations and a land-capacity-analysis methodology; commissioners requested more time and data before adopting targets.
Walla Walla County planning staff and consultants briefed the Board of Commissioners April 8 on proposed growth targets, housing needs and the land capacity analysis (LCA) methodology that will underpin the county’s 2046 comprehensive-plan periodic update.
Lauren Prentiss, Community Development Director, said staff and consultants from Kimley Horn had developed a countywide population projection of 73,112 and allocation tables for each city and the unincorporated county. “The key document…the growth target memo…outlines the proposed population projection, the countywide population projection, which would be 73,112,” Prentiss said.
Melissa Schumake, deputy director, and Kimley Horn consultants Clay White and Joel Farrias reviewed technical pieces: the state-mandated HAPT (Housing Allocation Planning Tool) from the Washington State Department of Commerce, a recommendation to use HAPT method C to allocate lower-income housing to cities rather than rural areas, and a parcel-level LCA that removes tax-exempt and pipeline parcels, applies buffer and critical-area deductions, categorizes parcels as vacant, partially used or underutilized, and assigns assumed densities to produce housing and job capacity estimates.
Farrias summarized the LCA approach: remove non-developable parcels, subtract critical areas and buffers, classify parcels by permitted use, apply deduction/market factors, and then multiply developable acreage by assumed densities to get capacity. He said developers’ pipeline projects are removed from the parcel pool and counted separately to avoid double-counting.
Commissioners pressed staff on the basis for the 73,112 projection. Commissioner Kimball noted that the state Office of Financial Management (OFM) medium projection is lower (about 67,000) and urged defensibility: “We have to defend the number that we use. Just because we used it in 2019 doesn't mean it's appropriate today,” Kimball said. Kimley Horn staff said different time-period choices (2010–2020 versus 2010–2024) produce different projections; using 2010–2020 yields a higher figure the city of College Place supported, while using 2010–2024 yielded a projection near 71,009.
John Rickert, Community Development Director for the City of College Place, told the board College Place supported the higher countywide figure because the city’s historical growth rate exceeds the county average. Rickert also asked for clearer tables showing percentage allocations and how the unincorporated UGA population is calculated.
Other technical points included: the HAPT tool is required by state rules for income-band housing allocations and staff recommended method C (which moves more lower-income needs into cities rather than rural areas); vacancy/market factors used in the LCA varied from prior practices (vacant parcel deductions around 10–15%; underutilized parcel redevelopment likelihoods up to ~35% depending on improvement-to-land ratios); and the LCA assumes locally adjusted densities rather than a single statewide standard.
No formal adoption occurred. Commissioners requested additional detail, including: a defensibility memo on the population time-period selection (2010–2020 vs. 2010–2024), clearer allocation tables (population increases and percentage shares), and further review of Burbank/Port-area capacity claims. Prentiss said staff would provide supplemental materials and that the methodology will be returned for formal adoption after the new Growth Management Advisory Committee (required by updated Countywide Planning Policies) makes a recommendation.
Why it matters: The countywide target and LCA determine UGA sizing, housing allocations by income band, and whether the county must add or remove land from urban growth areas — decisions that affect developers, utilities planning, school districts and tax revenues. Commissioners stressed the need for defensible, well-documented choices because the targets can be subject to legal challenge.
Next steps: Staff will supply the requested analyses and meet individually with commissioners as needed before a follow-up workshop and a formal adoption process tied to the new advisory committee.
