Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Allocations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County planner presents steering committee recommendation to use housing‑unit allocations; board set to consider in July
Summary
County planning staff recommended adopting a housing‑unit allocation model over a population‑input model, saying it shifts fewer very‑low‑income units to county edges; the steering committee voted 13–2 and the board will receive the recommendation July 14 and may consider adoption July 21.
Scott Chesney, a county planning presenter, told the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners on July 6 that the steering committee of elected officials recommends using a housing‑unit allocation model rather than the population‑input approach to divide growth allocations among jurisdictions.
"This time, though, it comes with a recommendation from the steering committee of elected officials for adoption of the tool using housing unit allocations rather than population unit allocations," Chesney said, noting the steering committee voted 13–2 in favor of the housing‑unit approach. Chesney asked the board to receive the recommendation at a July 14 legislative meeting and consider formal action on July 21.
Chesney described the practical differences between the two formulas: the population‑input model would allocate roughly 23,000 dwelling units to the Spokane County urban growth area (UGA) and about 3,500 to rural areas, while the housing‑input model shifts the allocations to about 20,000 in the UGA and about 6,000 to rural areas. He said the housing‑unit approach, and the committee’s recommendation to classify roughly half of the rural units as new urban, would result in about 3,000 fewer units in the 0–50 percent area median income (AMI) band in county edges, which the county finds easier to accommodate with services.
Why it matters: the choice of method affects where lower‑income housing must be planned and how the DEIS treats alternatives. Chesney urged commissioners to consider EIS implications and said the DEIS was published June 7 with a public comment period that closes July 11; county staff used the generally accepted numbers available when they directed consultants for traffic and environmental analysis.
On alternatives, Chesney outlined three bookends: no action, an infill‑only option that raises density within existing UGAs, and a UGA expansion option that studies additional parcels. Combining modest infill with targeted historic‑pattern growth would likely require roughly 600 acres of UGA expansion to cover shortfalls in the 0–80% AMI bands; a market‑led approach with less infill could require 1,300–1,500 acres.
Chesney also highlighted new critical‑areas mapping, including aquifer paleochannels on the West Plains, and said those environmental analyses will inform where the county should and should not encourage development. He recommended the county use updated best‑available science and integrate critical‑areas protections into plan policy and implementing code.
Next steps: the steering committee recommendation will be presented to the board on July 14; staff expect to bring a preferred alternative back for board direction in mid‑July, then finalize EIS work tied to that guidance.
