Consultant Scott Chesney told the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners on Dec. 15 that the county's urban growth area (UGA) update and accompanying environmental impact statement (EIS) will evaluate three paths: a no-action baseline, an infill-only alternative that raises residential densities within the existing UGA, and a second action alternative that creates neighborhood residential and neighborhood commercial zones and considers limited UGA boundary adjustments.

"This is the interesting benchmark, but it is really kind of the end of the beginning," Chesney said as he opened the briefing, explaining the EIS is designed so the board can select a defensible preferred alternative within identified "bookends" without having to restart the study.

Why it matters: staff said the county must show it can meet statutorily required housing allocations across income bands. Chesney cited recent state legislation (referred to in the briefing as House Bill 1220) that assigns unit targets by area median income bands and referenced a Mercer Island appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board that, according to staff, suggests jurisdictions may need to demonstrate implementation capacity, not only adopt nondiscriminatory policies.

What was presented: under the infill-only scenario Chester said staff modeled moderate density increases (for example, an assumed shift from about 4.5 to about 6 units per acre in some low-density residential areas and a modest bump in medium-density caps). Those changes, the consultant said, could close projected shortfalls in some UGAs: staff cited an overall shortage in the no-action build-out scenario on the order of 12,500 housing units but said denser development could instead create surplus capacity (Chesney described the alternative results as potentially equating to a surplus of the order of thousands of residents).

Chesney described three priority study areas for the neighborhood approach: North Metro, the Valley UGA, and the West Plains. He said the neighborhood zoning concept would allow a range of housing forms in a single zone (single-family, attached housing, and modest multiunit buildings), require site and amenity standards, and promote grid connectivity and walkability. He tied those tools to climate and transportation goals, saying they would reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve air quality if implemented.

Statutory and technical constraints: Chesney explained that UGA boundary adjustments are governed by state statutory criteria and WAC guidance; staff established local screening criteria for candidate parcels (must touch the existing UGA, have initial road access and utility proximity, and generally be at least 10 acres as a starting point). He also highlighted infrastructure constraints: staff flagged wastewater-treatment capacity and the proximity of candidate parcels to interceptors as key determiners of whether parcels can be defended for study and eventual inclusion.

Timing and coordination: Chesney said the county cannot indefinitely wait for city EISs and capacity assumptions from the city of Spokane and Spokane Valley. He recommended a target-reconciliation process to rebalance population and housing allocations if city numbers change after county adoption, and told the board staff will bring draft plan chapters monthly beginning in January to finish the plan work over the next six to seven months.

Board reaction and questions: commissioners pressed staff on infrastructure and financing for major transportation projects, the feasibility of eliminating minimum lot sizes (Commissioner Kearns cited Liberty Lake's River District as a partial precedent), and how the county would treat parcels that are technically available but face physical or topographic constraints. Chesney said the EIS will be used to surface those constraints and, where capital facilities are inadequate, to adjust development allocations accordingly.

What happens next: staff will direct the EIS team to analyze the shortlisted clusters and return monthly updates and draft chapters through the early summer. The board will be asked to provide guidance on priorities and acceptable tradeoffs as the draft EIS and plan chapters are prepared.