Liberty Lake planning commission recommends comprehensive-plan draft to council after housing-allocation and funding-gap updates

The Liberty Lake Planning Commission voted unanimously on April 22, 2026, to recommend the full comprehensive draft plan to the City Council with amendments identified during the meeting. Planners said the county revised the housing-allocation number used in the land-capacity analysis and the commission added a new affordable-housing funding-gap paragraph that Commerce reviewed.

Planners presented the changes during a slide review, saying the county-provided allocation in several tables was reduced from 53.15 to 51.80 and that they updated any calculations that used that figure. "We went from a allocation of $53.15 to $51.80," the planner said, and commissioners reviewed redlined pages to confirm the updates.

The presentation also introduced an "affordable housing funding gap" paragraph modeled on a Mercer Island Growth Management Hearing Board example. Planners said they computed the gap by multiplying the number of units by Spokane County average construction costs and that the Department of Commerce reviewed and approved the insertion by email. The presenter described the paragraph as satisfying Commerce's guidance tied to the state's growth-management compliance requirements: "Commerce has said that that satisfies what they're calling the adequate provisions of House Bill 1220," the presenter said.

Commissioners pressed on feasibility. One commissioner questioned how the city could reach the report's suggested pace — about 147 units per year in the draft — and summarized skepticism bluntly: "This dog don't hunt," the commissioner said, adding that the market, not the city, ultimately builds housing. Planners and commissioners agreed the city can enable development by ensuring proper zoning and available land but cannot force private builders to deliver units. A planner said the allocation accounts in part for historic underproduction and recommended periodic check‑ins, suggesting a likely five-year review.

Commissioner Phil Feuer raised concern that the funding-gap paragraph might be read as implying a local funding commitment; he cited a hypothetical figure (about $31,960,000) as an example of a possible misreading and asked the staff to consider a short narrative statement of the city's position. Staff said the language was taken from an example provided by Commerce and cautioned that adding explanatory text could lead Commerce to return the draft if the changes appeared to undercut statutory compliance. The commission balanced that caution by asking staff to include the edits agreed at the meeting and to prepare a concise narrative summary for council.

Planners also described transportation updates: two appendices were added to the transportation chapter — a bicycle expansion and wayfinding appendix and a transportation resiliency plan — and commissioners recommended simplifying in‑chapter language and directing readers to the appendix for details.

Commissioner Phil Feuer moved to approve the full comprehensive draft plan with the amendments identified during the April 22 meeting for consideration by the City Council; Commissioner Joe Mann seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The commission agreed someone from the commission will present the recommendation to the City Council at its May 5 meeting; staff said the next formal steps are Council review followed by a 60‑day Commerce review, regional-agency notice and a SEPA review (staff estimated the SEPA step would take about a month), with any material external comments returned to the commission for consideration.

The commission's action was advisory: the Planning Commission recommended the draft to the City Council for final consideration and for subsequent state and regional reviews. Staff will incorporate the redlined edits into the draft that the commission recommended.

What happens next: the commission's recommendation will go to City Council for review; if council approves, the draft will proceed to Commerce's 60‑day review and regional agencies, followed by SEPA and any required follow‑up to address material comments.