Spokane County and cities brief committee on EIS alternatives and housing-by-income shortfalls

Spokane County staff and planning representatives from multiple cities briefed the Steering Committee of Elected Officials on July 16 about the countywide environmental impact statement process, housing-by-income analysis and land-capacity findings that will inform comprehensive-plan updates.

County staff said the EIS development stage is underway and outlined three draft alternatives the county will study: no action (no boundary changes), an infill-focused approach (increase development rates inside current urban growth areas) and a combination alternative that mixes density changes with selective UGA expansions. The county told the committee it is preparing a briefing for the Board of County Commissioners in August and hopes to identify a preferred alternative later in the fall.

On housing by income band, county staff reported the combined 0–80% area median income (AMI) band shows a deficit of about 8,000 housing units under current land-use designations and development regulations. The 80–120% AMI band is roughly balanced at just under a 1,000-unit shortfall, and the market-rate band above 120% shows a surplus. Those numbers were presented as outputs from the Housing for All (HAP/Housing Allocation) tool and are based on current adopted development regulations and defined planning areas.

Speakers from jurisdictions summarized local results and next steps. City of Spokane staff said the city is preparing a draft EIS for late October with public meetings planned for November; their work includes housing-by-income analysis, racially disparate impact and displacement-risk screening, capital facilities planning and a chapter-by-chapter review of the development code. City of Spokane staff identified the city’s housing allocation for 2020–2046, recent housing completions, and current capacity under existing codes; the city will examine land-use and code changes and incentives to address shortfalls in affordable bands.

City of Spokane Valley said it has not finished its income-band analysis but that initial land-capacity results indicate a deficit; the city expected to finish the analysis over the summer. Liberty Lake’s community development director reported that Commerce preapproved its land-capacity analysis and that, based on the city’s review, the city currently shows capacity across income bands and does not expect to expand its urban growth area. Airway Heights staff reported deficits in the lowest income bands (0–30% and 30–50% AMI) and noted local physical and regulatory constraints that limit capacity.

Smaller jurisdictions raised local circumstances: Medical Lake’s planner noted the city’s median household income is below the county average and that the HAP outputs reflect that local income distribution; Deer Park’s consultant described proposed amendments to its future land-use map to allow higher-density development in specific undeveloped areas to address shortfalls; Millwood expects to meet its allocation with proposed changes and aided accessory dwelling unit assumptions.

Committee members asked multiple policy questions during discussion. Members raised whether jurisdictions were planning ownership pathways (condominiums, cottage cluster ownership, Habitat for Humanity duplex ownership models) or primarily relying on rental housing to meet low-income allocations. Several members noted market constraints — including development costs and the current viability of condos — and said addressing the shortfalls will require changes to development regulations, incentives, and coordination with housing providers. Members also questioned the sufficiency of employment projections used in the planning work: the county reported using SRTC model projections of roughly 10,000 new employees while counting current land capacity as capable of supporting more than 19,000 jobs; members said they will refine employment analysis by industry sector and local development trends between now and the September meeting.

The committee made no formal policy decisions on the EIS alternatives at the July meeting; county staff said private expansion requests and scoring of boundary-change petitions will be posted on the county website and brought back for committee consideration in September and November. The committee scheduled its next meeting for Sept. 17 and closed the workshop portion after public comment and questions.

Votes and procedural items recorded in the meeting included unanimous approval of officer elections and March 19 minutes before this workshop began.