Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Capacity Analysis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Liberty Lake planning commission approves land-capacity analysis, flags next steps on utilities and implementation
Summary
Planning staff presented a land‑capacity analysis (LCA) that shows the city has modeled enough housing capacity to meet county allocations through 2046; the commission recommended approval for planning purposes and directed staff to circulate the draft to utilities and partner agencies for an iterative review process.
The Liberty Lake Planning Commission voted Jan. 8 to recommend approval, for planning purposes, of the city’s land-capacity analysis (LCA) that underpins the comprehensive-plan update.
The staff presentation, led by Lisa, walked commissioners through the methodology, key assumptions and results. The county allocation for Liberty Lake’s population through 2046 is 21,934, staff said, and the city’s regression-based projection shows the city could reach build-out in about 2042. Lisa emphasized that the LCA is an early, "first-iteration" tool required by the Growth Management Act to demonstrate whether the city has adequate land capacity for projected population and housing needs.
Key results cited by staff: the city recorded more than 900 housing units constructed since 2020; entitled projects total about 4,217 units; vacant platted single-family lots number roughly 170; and the analysis used a 30% market factor (the county-adopted adjustment) when compiling final capacity figures. Staff said they closed the data set at the end of August 2024 for the analysis.
On affordability categories (set by Department of Commerce methodology), staff summarized the local allocation and capacity as follows: for housing types assumed to serve 0–80% of Area Median Income (AMI) the allocation was 3,557 units and the city’s capacity estimate was about 3,838 units; for 80–120% AMI the allocation was 613 units and capacity 632; for greater than 120% AMI the allocation was 1,143 units and projected capacity was roughly 1,400 units. Lisa cautioned that "assumed affordability" is a Commerce categorization tied to housing types and does not mean those units will actually be affordable without subsidy.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about the underlying assumptions. Questions and clarifications included: - How far back the county regression goes (county uses the 2020 census or recent comp-plan cycle data; the city used a longer series back to 2010 to smooth downturns). - The methodology for counting entitled projects (preliminary plats, phased subdivisions, binding site plans, multifamily binding site plans and projects under construction but not yet issued certificates of occupancy). - How vacant and underutilized parcels were sized and analyzed (example: a 35-acre portion of the former gun-club property in an R2 zone was counted using duplex/triplex/quad assumptions and a conservative 15% deduction for right-of-way and utilities; some parcels had 100-foot utility corridors that were removed from developable area). - Treatment of Meadowood Technology Campus (MTC) parcels: parking-dominant sites were treated as underutilized and were modeled at roughly 18 units per acre where appropriate; some River District parcels were modeled under mixed-use assumptions respecting development agreements that require ground-floor commercial on Mission Avenue.
On the market-factor choice, staff said Spokane County has historically applied a 30% market factor (sometimes called a "swag" factor in the discussion); some jurisdictions have chosen lower factors, but the county methodology used here calls for 30%.
Commissioners raised fiscal and infrastructure questions—most notably the implications for water, sewer and public safety services. Lisa said the LCA is intentionally unconstrained as a planning input; after the commission’s recommendation staff will circulate the LCA to water and sewer purveyors, Spokane Valley Fire, the school district and other providers. Those agencies will review capacity and capital plans and the results may trigger iterative adjustments to allocations if providers report binding constraints.
After extended discussion, a commissioner moved to recommend approval of the LCA for planning purposes; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. Staff said the LCA will be presented to City Council on Feb. 4 and, if council advances it, the draft will be shared with partner agencies and incorporated as the foundation for the comp‑plan update, network analysis and housing-policy work. Staff also noted next steps and timelines: a Jan. 22 planning-commission workshop is tentatively scheduled for follow-up, and consultants (including Parametrix and SCJ Alliance for housing policy) are already engaged in related pieces of the work program.
