Planning staff briefs commission on recent state housing laws and raises questions about HAPT allocations
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
County planning staff reviewed several new state housing statutes affecting ADUs, parking and density and flagged concerns about the HAPT allocation's opaque methodology that shifted housing allocations between the county and city of Spokane.
Spokane County planning staff on Feb. 12 briefed the Planning Commission on recent state housing legislation and on the local implications of the HAPT (Housing for All Planning Tool) allocations used to apportion housing targets among jurisdictions.
Scott (planning staff) told commissioners the changes from the Legislature will require the county to update local codes in several areas, including accessory dwelling-unit (ADU) rules (allowing up to two ADUs on qualifying lots), unit-lot subdivisions that enable smaller lots and higher densities, revised parking requirements, and provisions for co-living and housing types that the building code distinguishes as 'dwelling units' versus 'sleeping units.
Staff cautioned that some provisions are technical and that the state's one-size-fits-all approach will force counties to reconcile local code nuances. On parking, staff said removing minimums can unlock adaptive reuse and infill but also shifts potential costs onto public right-of-way and neighboring property owners; commissioners urged balancing developer incentives with neighborhood impacts.
Staff also raised a concern about transparency and methodology in the HAPT allocations. Scott said the Excel matrix used by the steering committee is locked and the formulas are proprietary, and that when the allocation basis changed from a population metric to housing units it materially shifted shares: "the county's urban growth area share dropped from 22,000 units to 17" while the city of Spokane's allocation increased. He said the county is proposing a countywide "targeted reconciliation" process to reassess allocations after municipalities adopt their comprehensive plans.
Commissioners and staff discussed implementation options, potential reliance on federal and local funds for nonprofit housing development, and the limits of county authority to force private-market construction. Staff said the county would return with code changes and model regulations and that virtual open houses are scheduled: March (housing), April (economic development), May (land use and transportation).
Scott invited questions and suggested planners will present draft code amendments to the commission in the coming months for deliberation and public input.