Spokane County begins EIS scoping for comprehensive‑plan update; housing targets and urban‑growth choices loom

County planning staff and consultants briefed the Board of Commissioners on April 29 about the Spokane County comprehensive‑plan update, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process and housing targets that will guide the 20‑year growth plan.

Planners said the county must plan for population growth through 2046 using Office of Financial Management (OFM) projections (medium series by default) and that countywide population is projected to grow from about 555,000 (2023 estimate) to roughly 650,000 by 2046. Staff said the county’s share of that growth is about 35,000 people; planners explained those population totals will be allocated between Spokane County and cities and that cities and the county each produce land‑capacity analyses to show where housing and jobs can be accommodated.

A major change is the state’s housing‑element requirements and new planning tool (Housing for All Planning Tool) that allocates housing need by area‑median‑income (AMI) bands. Staff said the county must demonstrate capacity for housing types across affordability bands (for example 0–30% AMI, 30–50% AMI, up to 120%+ AMI). Initial analysis shows a county shortfall in lower‑income housing capacity and a surplus capacity at higher AMI levels; staff cautioned these numbers are preliminary and require further analysis.

The EIS scoping announcement will publish later the day of the briefing, with a 30‑day public comment period and a scoping meeting on May 7. Staff described the EIS approach as setting “bookends” (no‑action alternative plus two action alternatives) to allow the county to study a realistic range of land‑use and urban‑growth‑area (UGA) expansion or swap options. Commissioners were told the board would see candidate alternatives in July and that by September staff expected to have a clearer picture of UGA geography; draft EIS is targeted for first quarter 2026.

Planners flagged that capital‑facilities analysis will be a critical parallel task: if infrastructure capacity (roads, utilities, schools) is insufficient for a chosen growth alternative, the Growth Management Act requires reassessment of land‑use changes. Planners also noted particular uncertainty about the OFM allocation of about 4,700 people to rural unincorporated areas and urged review of historical rural growth rates when finalizing allocations.

Staff requested the board’s direction on the EIS “bookends” and said the next public briefing on this project is scheduled for May 19; staff will return with proposed alternatives and more detailed analyses.