Land Capacity Analysis draws developer concerns about inventory, infrastructure and transparency

City planning staff briefed the Urban Experience Committee on the Land Capacity Analysis (LCA), describing it as the early, “high-level” step required by the Growth Management Act methodology to determine whether the city has sufficient land to accommodate anticipated growth. Staff stressed the LCA is a physical-capacity analysis based on zoning and development regulations and not a market-feasibility or affordability forecast.

Planner Kevin (first name only in the presentation) told the committee the analysis indicates the city has roughly 30,000 units of physical capacity under the adopted methodology, but he emphasized the figure is not a prediction of how many units will be built — it measures physical potential under code assumptions and includes a market factor that reduces calculated capacity by 30% as a conservative adjustment.

Developers and real-estate representatives told the committee they see significant gaps between the LCA results and market reality. Peter Hagen, land acquisition manager for Hayden Homes, said available parcels are constrained by topography, access limitations, price competition and inadequate infrastructure; he urged the city to commission a more detailed, market-aware capacity analysis and to publish the underlying data so builders and the public can review assumptions.

Other speakers echoed those concerns. One developer and representatives of home-building firms said lot prices have risen sharply and that the inventory of readily developable lots is far smaller than the LCA’s classifications suggest. Jennifer Reiner (D. R. Horton), who identified herself with a home-building company, said her team’s GIS analysis found far fewer truly buildable parcels than the LCA’s summary maps indicate. Realtor and economist Darren Watkins presented local market data showing the county’s available listed lots fell from about 938 in 2017 to roughly 94 in early 2025; he said median lot prices and cross-border leakage to Kootenai County are major drivers of higher housing costs.

Why it matters: The LCA will inform the city’s comprehensive-plan work and the urban growth boundary process. Developers and housing advocates told the committee that without realistic deductions for infrastructure limits and land set-asides for public uses (libraries, parks, schools, roads), the analysis risks overstating land that will be practicably available for housing during the 20-year planning period.

Key points raised by presenters and members: - Several participants asked for an infrastructure-gap analysis that identifies roads, sewer and water deficiencies and applies a realistic filter to capacity where those constraints cannot be solved within the planning period. Some speakers said similar jurisdictions apply discounts or filters in such cases. - Builders noted the LCA used a 15% deduction for roads/utilities on larger parcels and no deduction on many smaller parcels; one builder group recommended a larger deduction (20–30%) to reflect real development needs. - Staff said the LCA followed the regionally adopted, Commerce-guided methodology, used conservative assumptions for accessory dwelling units and new code changes, and that the 30% market factor is the standard regional “safety” adjustment. - Staff acknowledged the Laetaw (Lataw) Valley area has infrastructure issues and said a targeted study is already under way; they said the LCA can reflect that additional detail in later phases of the comprehensive-plan process.

Public access to the analysis data and methodology drew repeated requests: presenters said they were told to file public-records requests to see some underlying work-product numbers; planning staff said they had received one records request the prior Thursday and were preparing responsive materials.

Council members asked about the five-year review required by the state: staff said the city’s comprehensive-plan update cycle is 10 years but Commerce requires a 5-year reassessment to catch deviations and the state is writing guidelines for how that review will operate. Staff said they expect the city’s 5-year work to be more targeted than a full LCA redo.

Closing note: Staff urged the committee to treat the LCA as the beginning of the Plan Spokane 2046 process — an initial mapping of physical capacity that must be followed by infrastructure, affordability and policy conversations. Builders and real-estate representatives asked the city to produce more transparent supporting data, perform an infrastructure-gap analysis and incorporate realistic deductions for roads and public facilities before finalizing the land-capacity conclusions.