Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County planners: Spokane region lacks sufficient unincorporated UGA capacity; city build‑out assumptions questioned
Summary
Planning staff presented a land capacity analysis that shows the unincorporated urban growth area lacks enough vacant capacity to meet the county's 20‑year allocation; staff said they will check city assumptions and ask jurisdictions to justify infrastructure and density claims.
County planning staff briefed the Board Feb. 24 on the preliminary land capacity analysis (LCA) used to update Spokane County’s comprehensive plan and urban growth area (UGA) allocations, and warned that unincorporated parts of the county do not currently show enough vacant or underutilized land to absorb projected growth.
Scott Chesney told commissioners the County’s preliminary count shows roughly 1,000 acres of vacant land and about 24,000 dwelling‑unit capacity in the unincorporated urban growth area, while the allocation the County must plan for is about 30,000 dwelling units. “At this early stage… the urban growth area in Spokane County’s unincorporated areas is not sufficient to handle the growth for the next 20 years,” Chesney said.
Chesney reviewed methodology elements including density assumptions, infrastructure capacity, and market feasibility. He said that some city reports, particularly the City of Spokane’s draft LCA, list large theoretical capacity numbers — the City reported room for about 30,000 units in the city — but the County has not yet seen infrastructure analyses to support those density assumptions. “They make no mention of an infrastructure analysis for this density,” Chesney said.
Commissioners pressed staff for clearer summary totals and questioned specific growth areas. Commissioner Waldorf asked for column totals on the spreadsheet so the Board can see at a glance how close the jurisdictions are to meeting the county allocation. Commissioner Kearns and others raised concerns about the City of Spokane’s assumptions and whether those figures incorporate recent code or density changes (for example, up‑zoning allowing multiple units per lot).
Chesney said the County will verify city and town assumptions through the steering committee and will require jurisdictions to justify density and infrastructure claims. He noted key uncertainties: the city of Spokane’s numbers were described by the city as mathematical possibilities rather than market‑tested capacity, and several cities have not yet submitted final LCA data (the City of the Valley was still pending).
Chesney also summarized public outreach: three community charrettes drew participation (one nearly 100 attendees) and produced feedback favoring parks, walkability and a variety of placemaking models. He said the County will post more detailed maps and data as they finalize numbers for the steering committee and will begin Environmental Impact Statement scoping soon.
Next steps: staff will collect and reconcile city LCAs, request infrastructure justifications for high‑capacity assumptions, present refined totals to the steering committee in mid‑March, and return to the Board with updated analyses and proposed UGA adjustments.
