College Place planning commission reviews framework for comprehensive plan update and housing capacity analysis

The College Place Planning Commission on an evening workshop reviewed the framework and early assumptions for a comprehensive plan periodic update required under the state Growth Management Act, consultant Justin Berlacher said.

The discussion matters because the comprehensive plan update sets the city’s 20-year population and housing targets, informs whether the urban growth area must expand, and drives future land-use and development-regulation changes that affect housing supply and affordability.

Justin Berlacher, a planner with JEB Engineers and the city’s on-call planning consultant, told commissioners the update will follow the state checklist and coordinated county process and will include a six-step land-capacity analysis: identify vacant, partially used and underutilized parcels; subtract non-developable areas; apply a market factor; estimate unit and population capacity by zone; and compare capacity to the Office of Financial Management population forecasts distributed by the county. “One of our main tasks will be doing this comprehensive plan update as required by the Growth Management Act,” Berlacher said.

Berlacher described the draft definitions and assumptions the county has proposed for the initial land-capacity screen. Vacant land would be parcels with an improvement value of $500 or less; partially used parcels are those that could be developed into at least three additional lots; underutilized parcels are lower-intensity uses in higher-intensity zones (for example, a house in a commercial zone). The county proposal applies market factors intended to account for land owners who will not or cannot realistically develop: 15% for vacant land and 55% for partially used land. Berlacher said some jurisdictions use different thresholds—for example, Spokane County uses a $5,000 improvement-value cutoff and requires the ability to split into eight lots to qualify as partially used.

Commissioners pressed on several points. Aria Santiago asked where the commission stands in the timeline; John (staff member) answered that the commission is “at the very beginning of the timeline” and that the team is starting coordination with the county on land-capacity analysis and population projections. Commissioners also questioned the market-factor and parcel-splitting thresholds and asked staff to seek higher, more locally realistic values in county discussions.

Berlacher explained how the analysis converts developable acreage into expected housing units and people: the team will estimate realistic densities based on recent built densities rather than only applying minimum lot-size rules, then apply household-size assumptions for each housing type. He noted state projections assume household size will shrink and that the current household-size figure being used in discussion is about 2.4 people per household.

Commissioners also debated which forecasting method to use for housing need. Berlacher said the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and Department of Commerce provide county-level population forecasts that the county distributes among jurisdictions; those statewide formulas can produce results that differ from local studies. He cited a local planning product, the 2021 Walla Walla Regional Housing Action Plan (funded by the Department of Commerce), which produces different numbers for College Place’s probable mix of single-family and multifamily units. “We’re not required to use the statewide formula,” Berlacher said; he said staff and the commission will discuss whether local analyses provide a better fit for the city.

Berlacher gave example outcomes under current worksheets: the city’s 2020 population was listed as 9,902, and one high-end allocation discussed would raise the city’s county share to 17% of future county growth, producing a 20-year population target figure that the team showed in the presentation as about 13,530. Berlacher emphasized the numbers are preliminary and still under review with the county and Commerce.

Commissioners asked how the comp plan work ties to annexation and the urban growth area (UGA). Berlacher said the analysis covers the city limits and the current UGA; if additional land is needed the update will examine whether areas in the existing UGA should be brought into the city through annexation. He also noted the analysis will remove public lands, critical areas and other non-developable areas when tallying buildable acreage.

The commission agreed to continue discussion and to provide feedback to staff and the county on the proposed thresholds (improvement-value cutoffs, split-into-lots tests, and market factors). Berlacher and staff said they will run the GIS analysis once the methodology is finalized and return with acreage and unit estimates by zone.

Votes at a glance: The commission voted to approve the meeting’s consent agenda (agenda and minutes) and later approved a motion to adjourn the meeting. The consent agenda vote was recorded by staff as carrying with a majority in favor after some audio/roll-call confusion; the subsequent motion to conclude the meeting passed unanimously.

The commission’s next regularly scheduled meeting was set for March 18, 2025; staff said they plan to repeat the workshop as needed and encouraged more in-person attendance for future sessions.