Planning commission reviews draft land-capacity method, county population allocation

College Place planning staff and consultant Justin Barelocker of JEB Engineers reviewed a draft land-capacity analysis methodology and a proposed county population allocation at the March 18 Planning Commission meeting, saying the county is proposing a 73,112 total-county population target for the plan period that yields an allocation of about 13,320 residents for College Place.

The presentation summarized five steps in the county’s proposed methodology: define the study area and cutoff date, calculate parcel-level developable area, identify pipeline developments, deduct nondevelopable areas (easements, public land, critical areas), and calculate residential and employment capacity by zone to compare capacity with projected growth.

The methodology uses assessor parcel data, limits the base date to Dec. 31, 2024, and treats “pipeline” development as projects vested or in pre-application between 2020 and 2025. Justin Barelocker said the city may include pre-application projects as pipeline capacity; he cited a Lakeside proposal on roughly 30 acres that the consultant team described as planning for about 924 units (roughly 7 units per acre) and a separate 80-unit apartment plan east of Home Depot paired with commercial uses.

John, a city planning staff member, described the county’s population allocation: “we settled on a 73,000 population allocation for the … plan period,” and staff reported the final county projection used in the tool as about 73,112, with College Place’s share increased to 18.21 percent (about 13,320 people) after asking the county to account for the city’s historically faster growth rate.

Commissioners pressed staff and the consultant on several technical points. They asked whether property owners are contacted when parcels are classified as vacant, partially used or underutilized; Barelocker said that parcel-level owner outreach generally does not occur during the initial analysis, but the methodology includes market-factor deductions and a process to identify known interested landowners if additional UGA (urban growth area) is needed.

Commissioners also sought clarity on the percentages used to deduct capacity for infrastructure and nondevelopment. Barelocker described deduction rules in the draft: a 15 percent deduction for vacant parcels, a 25 percent deduction for small-lot partially used parcels and a 15 percent deduction for large-lot partially used parcels; 25 percent for underutilized parcels; and an infrastructure deduction range shown in the spreadsheet as 15–30 percent. Commissioners questioned that wide swing and suggested 25–30 percent may be more typical for infrastructure and right-of-way; staff noted a potential typo and said they would clarify the final figures before March 25 when county comment closes.

The presentation also noted that the state’s Housing for All planning tool will be used to allocate housing types in addition to unit counts. Staff said the tool produced a countywide need of roughly 4,299 additional housing units and that jurisdictions without infrastructure to support higher-intensity housing would generally receive fewer multifamily allocations than cities with water, sewer and other utilities.

Barelocker and staff said the next steps are to finalize the methodology for county adoption (the county plans to distribute the final docket March 28 and adopt the methodology April 8), then run the full land-capacity analysis against the city parcel data and return to the commission with parcel-level results. If the analysis shows a deficit, staff said they will identify candidate areas to add to the UGA and will reach out to property owners when pursuing annexation or UGA amendments.

Commissioners asked whether household-size assumptions would vary by housing type; Barelocker said the team needs to clarify whether different household-size numbers will be used for single-family versus multifamily in the final run and that the American Community Survey and regional housing study will inform those choices.

Staff and the consultant emphasized two practical limitations: (1) large pipeline projects can materially change capacity but may build out slowly or be held off the market, and (2) zoning designations alone do not compel a developer to build multifamily if market conditions favor lower-density construction. Barelocker said the methodology aims to reflect realistic capacity by applying deductions, critical-area buffers and market factors.

The commission did not take formal action on the methodology at the meeting; staff said the county’s draft is open for local comment through March 25 and that county adoption is tentatively scheduled for April 8.

Ending: Staff asked commissioners to submit questions to be incorporated in the local comment and said the commission will review a more detailed parcel-level analysis at a future meeting.