Spokane County Planning staff on Tuesday described three alternatives for how the county could accommodate projected population growth from 2026 to 2046 and asked residents in Moran Prairie to comment on tradeoffs among housing density, infrastructure and environmental protections.

The county must finish its comprehensive plan update by December 2026 and is preparing a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) expected in December, followed by a 45-day public comment period, planners said. The county will brief the Planning Commission on Oct. 30 and the Board of County Commissioners on Nov. 3 as part of a multi-step public review.

The planning presentation, given by Scott Chesnick of Spokane County Planning, framed three high-level approaches: a largely "do nothing" baseline that keeps current zoning and urban growth area (UGA) boundaries; an infill-focused alternative that raises allowable residential density in many unincorporated areas; and a third approach that keeps more suburban densities but allows selective UGA expansion in some places. Chesnick said the county is analyzing how to accommodate roughly 100,000 new people countywide over the next 20 years and that unincorporated Spokane Countythe county's share under those projectionsis expected to be roughly 35,000 people.

Why it matters: the state legislature revised the Growth Management Act this cycle to require counties and cities to plan for housing by income bands tied to area median income (AMI). Chesnick cited an example allocation in the county for households at 30 to 50 percent of AMI (3,300 units) as the sort of specific planning requirement now in law. The change means Spokane County must consider where affordable housing can be sited while also accounting for infrastructure and environmental limits.

Environmental and infrastructure constraints featured prominently. Planners flagged critical areaswetlands, streams and buffers, wildlife corridors, steep slopesand the Spokane ValleyRathdrum Prairie aquifer as major limits on where growth should occur. Chesnick said the county is conducting its analysis through an environmental impact statement and that some areas for example soils north of town and widespread septic usepose particular risks of contaminants reaching the aquifer. He also noted wildfire, drought and smoke have been added to planning as a new climate and resiliency element.

On housing and density, the presentation described specific density examples and tradeoffs. County zoning historically allowed up to eight units per acre in some low-density zones (a change from six units per acre in 2020), but the effective built density often works out far lower; Chesnick said an "8-units-per-acre" allowance often translates to about 4.5 units per acre on the ground. The infill alternative models a range of densities (roughly six, nine, 15 and 18 units per acre) and associated housing types from accessory dwelling units and duplexes to three-story walk-up apartments.

Residents at the meeting pressed planners on transportation capacity and stormwater. Multiple speakers described congestion and flooding in the northeastern Moran Prairie corridor around Freya, Bridal and 30th Avenue. One resident said, "Two weeks ago ... it was flooded driving up the hill on Freya," and described storm drains that could not handle recent rainfall. Chesnick acknowledged those concerns and said the countyand cities where appropriatemust account for capital facilities: "If they are more than the road can handle, how does that development have to mitigate those concerns so that it improves those ... traffic facilities?" he said.

Planners identified near-term transportation projects mentioned in the presentation: a full, multidirectional traffic signal planned at Ray and 30th, and a roundabout at Freya and Palouse that staff said is designed, funded and expected to be under construction in 2026. Chesnick also discussed longer-term east-west connectivity and slip-ramp concepts for the 195/I-90 corridors as examples of projects that should be identified in planning even if they are expensive, because land needs to be reserved to make them feasible in future decades.

Sewer and stormwater capacity on the Lower South Hill were raised as limiting factors for infill. Chesnick said some sewer laterals and lines date to early systems and are difficult or costly to upgrade; he identified capital facilities analysis as a required step before approving higher densities in areas without adequate infrastructure.

Planners showed maps highlighting likely "target parcels" that meet statutory and local criteria for potential UGA expansion, including parcels that touch the current boundary, have sewer capacity, are at least 10 acres, are near highways, or are inside an urban reserve study area. Chesnick said the county is collecting expressions of development interest from landowners to help prioritize parcels for study; the Growth Management Act prohibits accepting formal UGA applications at this stage, so the county is asking for letters of interest.

What comes next: staff will take public comments and refine the alternatives before issuing a draft EIS in December. That document will be open for a 45-day public comment period; after that the county will refine alternatives and produce a final EIS before moving into ordinance and implementation changes tied to the comprehensive plan. Staff encouraged attendees to mark maps and submit written comments via the county website.

No formal votes or policy decisions were taken at the meeting. The public-comment portion included multiple residents raising traffic, flooding and parking concerns in existing neighborhoods; Chesnick and county staff noted those concerns will be considered in the capital facilities and transportation analyses that accompany the plan.